There has been much virtual ink spilled on the protesters who disrupted the Israeli Ambassador to America (or is the American ambassador to Israel given the nearly perfect overlap in their duties and dual loyalties). His talk at the University of California, Irvine on February 8th was at the invitation of the university. During his talk eleven students stood up and shouted such ideas that propaganda for murder is not free speech. Now the university is considering expelling the students who were arrested.
The students were all Muslim, it seemed. This suggests a turn in Muslim student activism, I have to say. In my experience, Muslim students are usually too timid or polite to engage in such civil disobedience. This is a broadstroke, but usually white students can do it with the most confidence. I am glad to see this change.
The best video I’ve seen on it was produced by the pro-Israel group, Stand with Us. Thanks guys.
Of course, it excludes some of the nasty and racist things pro-Israel members of the audience were saying, such as “go back to the West Bank.” One older man told them they were going to fail their exams, which I hope he was not grading.
The slandering of the students continues.
The Dean of the law school wrote an op-ed suggesting the protesters have no first amendment defense. Some suggest their protests canceled the ambassador’s free speech. What is lost on me is how does interruption = blocking free speech? If someone stands up an shouts and is hauled out in 20 seconds, that cases a pause in speech. Can we really say that cutting someone off briefly when they talk is violating free speech? That happens every day, all the time. In pure practical terms, that is what happened.
Anyways, the only first amendment issues here are the protesters since there are no constitutional prohibitions against interrupting other speakers, only on the government’s actions in these regards.
I am sure the university has regulations and codes they could throw at protesters. They are designed to produce a student body that falls into line with what they deem appropriate modes of political behavior, which usually means ineffectual and ordinary.
Frankly the legal aspects of all this are pretty uninteresting, so full of loopholes, exceptions and hypocritical applications as to make relying on the law any good. If a white power group came calling for the de-nationalization and ethnic cleansing of Jews from America, they would not have free speech rights on a campus as a hate group. Yet, the ambassador of a country build on ethnic cleansing that actively entertains proposals to de-nationalize Arab citizens, and massacred nearly 1500 people one year ago has such a freedom?
What is even more despicable is how a university can open its arms to the official representative of a country that has bombed universities in other countries, has deported students from territory they occupy, and placed under curfew and blocked the movement of faculty and students to universities. For the official representative of these activities to claim freedom to speak on a campus is beyond hypocrisy.
For these reasons, the students who disrupted the ambassador were acting in ways consistent with the very moral foundations of civil disobedience as articulated by its most prominent advocates. Civil disobedience as defined by John Rawls (1971), is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies. Clearly the protesters acted civilly (they walked over to the cops after yelling), out of a clearly articulated moral impulse, to breach university codes in protest of a university action and apparent policy.
The action they protested was the university’s decision to invite the representative of a country that tramples international law in its regime of collective punishment by embargo on Gaza, four decade-long occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and continued negation of UN Resolution 194, which codifies the rights of Palestinian refugees to return. Those who invite them may think this only a matter of politics, but clearly the protesters see it as a moral act. Just as the university is free to invite, morally-acting citizens are free to disrupt.
Related posts:
- Student Protests in Iran
- Protests for Gazan Human Rights Continue
- New Divestment Campaign at Stanford U.
- Waiting for Olmert
- @SriLankans Your Civil War Is Not Quite Over
Will, I think there's a problem here. If the students were exercising their 1st Amendment rights, then they were not breaking the law therefore their actions cannot be considered civil disobedience. If they exceeded the bounds of their 1st Amendment rights, then they engaged in civil disobedience because they broke the law for reasons of conscious and not in order to cause harm. There may be another issue here because the point of civil disobedience is not to break any law but only those considered to be unjust — so, which is the unjust law here?
I side with the protestors and I don't think they did anything wrong or broke any law, I just wonder if this is the appropriate framing.
Posted by yaman | February 19, 2010, 2:24 amSpeech that the U.S. Supreme Court has said can be banned: lewd, obscene, profane, libelous or creating imminent danger to others, such as yelling fire in a crowded theater.
"Free speech" doesn't mean that you can go around yelling down other people.
You are not protected to go into places to yell and disrupt speakers who are exercising their free speech rights. These students clearly violated the law, including laws against disorderly conduct. If the students wanted to make some point, they should have used the appropriate forum to express their ideas and oppose the speaker… not go and behave uncivilized, engaging in ignorant behavior.
Posted by Admiral_Akbar | February 19, 2010, 4:56 am""Free speech" doesn't mean that you can go around yelling down other people."
Yes it does. And Zionists do it all the time.
Posted by Non-Arab Arab | February 19, 2010, 10:44 amSource(s)?
Posted by obvious | February 20, 2010, 12:23 amExactly, when Finklestein came to speak he was shouted down by zionuts throughout his entire speech. None of the protesters were escorted out, none of the Zionist protesters were put in jail.
Furthermore, Zionists have a tendency to get events and speaking tours critical of Israel canceled thus stifling debate from the get go.
In any case, while I may not have agreed with the methods of the UCI 11, I don't they they were wrong to do what they did. Michael Oren is an apologist for crimes against humanity.
Posted by Word | February 26, 2010, 8:39 amAs an American, and former Orange county resident who would very much like to see my friends still there see another side of the Palestinian suffering, I was disappointed in the way these students wrecked a perfect opportunity to provide an articulate, pointed and professional challenge to the ambassador.
In my opinion, these protestors did not respect the decorum of the institution nor the setting. They fed the stereotype of the angry Arab and did nothing to further a cause desperately in need of a fair hearing.
Posted by kinzi | February 19, 2010, 12:05 pmVery well said kinzi. Most people agree with you.
Posted by obvious | February 20, 2010, 12:24 amI have to disagree with your statement.
Student's felt no alternative was available so acted out of necessity. The university is clearly partial to israel's view as it invited and solely accepted the israeli perspective, as opposed to chairing a constructive debate which would have entailed the inclusion of both an israeli and Palestinian representative.
Assigning a brief question and answer session towards the end, which is open to all the floor and the ambassador's selection does not equate to the time dedicated in expressing his views.
During the South African aparthied many countries prohibited any involvement with South Africa, from academia to trade etc. as it was an immoral, unjust rogue state. One simply has to look at events such as the onslought of Gaza, the continuous displacement and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people's to see the parallel.
Freedom of speech is not a priviledge, it is a right. Since we are all big advocator's of freedom of speech for the ambassador, why is the same right denied to someone from a Palestinian persuasion? Now that is food for thought.
Posted by Sairah | February 20, 2010, 1:24 am*onslaught
Posted by Sairah | February 20, 2010, 1:26 amYou cannot go into a speech, a movie, a symphony, or ballet, and start hollering and yelling.
The students are free to represent their ideas, they can make speeches of their own, or write what they want (freedoms that people DO NOT HAVE in places like Iran).
The freedoms of people giving speeches, or of people wishing to attend speeches and listen should not be violated by some ill-mannered ignorant little punks.
Posted by common sense | February 20, 2010, 8:05 amClearly, you didn't read a word that I wrote and expressed the same argument I was contesting previously.
I suggest you refer to above and keep to the topic under hand. We are discussing the university's policies and the universities policies alone. By raising issues which have nothing to do with what we are discussing you are undermining and clouding the issue.
The freedoms of people who aren't given a platform to speech, or of people wishing to attend speeches and listen to such people should not be violated by some war-mongering representatives and their cronies.
Thank you, thank you very much.
Posted by Sairah | February 20, 2010, 11:11 am*speak
Posted by Sairah | February 20, 2010, 11:12 amStudent's felt no alternative was available so acted out of necessity.
If these students can come up with all these reasons why they should be allowed to shout down the speaker, then what prevents the next group who wants to shout down some invited dignitary or professor because they disagree with his position? And the one after that?
We are discussing the university's policies and the universities policies alone
And clearly the University did the right thing, showing its disapproval. They are promoting an atmosphere of learning and respect, not a atmosphere of frenzied emotionalism which is contrary to academia.
The freedoms of people who aren't given a platform to speech, or of people wishing to attend speeches and listen to such people should not be violated by some war-mongering representatives and their cronies.
The speaker was not interrupting the Palestines activists? They were interrupting and violating the rights of both the speaker AND those people in attendance. How can you defend this?
Posted by diane | February 21, 2010, 4:28 amI agree with protesters. The University should drop the charges against the Irvine 11.
The one who should be charged is the Jewish professor who threatened on record
to fail the students who took part in the protest. This is beyond me!
When the university invites representative of a nation who is engaged in war crimes,
then the students whose tuition pays for that clown to spread his propaganda have every right to protest and expose the wicked witch of the Middle East, namely Israel..
And what happened when the president of Iran spoke at Columbia university few years ago? The pro Israeli students went on full gears and threatened to kill the president of a foreign nation. Not to mention the degrading hand humiliating treatment offered to the guest speaker by the University president. Is free speech exclusively to those who support Israel or wish to bash Arabs and Muslims? Inquiring mind wants to know!
We have lost over 4 thousands soldiers on foreign soils so far fighting Israeli ugly war against its enemy. By protecting Israel and shield that shit hole nation from any criticism, we are giving it our tactful approval in committing further war crimes against Palestinians and its other Arab neighbors..
Posted by Mahmoud El-Yousseph | February 19, 2010, 4:10 pmCheck out Irvine11.com for more information, and statements from the Eleven on why they did what they did. There is also action items to help support them, as they are currently facing disciplinary actions from the university, as well as criminal charges.
Posted by Marya | February 20, 2010, 12:14 amThe actions against the students are unconstitutional. It is very hard for any human not to express their opinion in front of their oppressor; freedom of speech, helped created a slavery-free America on the other hand, Palestine is still not Zionist free. In criminal cases; they let the victim’s family express their feeling, because it helps bring disclosure to their souls. Palestinians hear every day about the ongoing massacres against their people by the Zionist government. They hear about the segregations walls, hunger, death, deportation, rape, theft of land and identity, etc….
Freedom of speech is a right granted by god to humans, otherwise, god could have created us speechless; the first thing a newborn do is scream, maybe because he knows that his freedom of speech will be violated later.
If the university did not want people to react neither positively nor negatively; they should have pre-recorded the speech and made audience watch it later.
Land of the free
Posted by Ora | February 20, 2010, 6:58 amThe actions against the students are unconstitutional.
You are mistaken, there was nothing unconstitutional. The U.S. is a nation of law and order… you cannot go into a speech, a movie, a symphony, and ballet, and start hollering and yelling.
Slavery in the U.S. and the situation in Palestine have are completely unrelated. In criminal cases, the victims families get to express themselves… but not by screaming during the trial – there is an appropriate time for that to happen (usually during the victims impact segment, or at sentencing).
Palestinians hear a lot of things every day, including how the shaheeds commit murder and the militants launch rockets. It is not a one-sided conflict. But all of this should be examined and discussed, and opposing views should challenge each (like right here) but NOT by screaming and yelling during speeches.
The first thing a newborn does is scream – to get oxygen and begin breathing. Speeches should not have to be pre-recorded just to avoid interruptions. Maybe in some backward third-world country, but not in America. These students should learn to respect civilized society.
The students are free to represent their ideas, they can make speeches of their own, or write what they want (freedoms that people DO NOT HAVE in places like Iran).
The freedoms of people giving speeches, or of people wishing to attend speeches and listen should not be violated by some ill-mannered ignorant little punks.
Posted by common sense | February 20, 2010, 7:57 amOutrageous! It seems to me that since it's a state school they would have a strong 1st Amendment case.
Posted by cleo | February 20, 2010, 5:01 pmThe First Amendment does NOT give you the right to go into any public presentation and start yelling and interrupting. Sorry.
Posted by diane | February 21, 2010, 4:22 amThe problem with the Professor's argument is that a severe punishment like expulsion clearly could be retaliation for the CONTENT of their speech – protesting Israeli ethnic cleansing and war crimes against Palestinians. Enforcement of the time, place and manner restriction already occurred; they were removed and arrested (and the arrest was also unnecessary in my opinion).
Violation of a TPM restriction cannot justify any punishment the school chooses in its sole discretion. If that were the case, the school could easily regulate the CONTENT of speech by punishing those who disrupted certain speakers more harshly than those who disrupted others like, say, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.
Moreover, the mere fact that the school invited on campus an official of a government that is a notorious human rights abuser, that has violated more UN resolutions that all other nations combined, has bombed a university unapologetically, has been accused by a UN body of committing war crimes, and targets an ethnic group to which these students belong, reveals the school has a political position relating to the content of their speech.
Clearly, the content of speech is at issue here, and they cannot camouflage bullying by Israel's defenders on the grounds of a TPM violation.
Posted by cleo | February 20, 2010, 5:57 pmpunishment like expulsion clearly could be retaliation for the CONTENT of their speech
The punishment could show the school's disapproval for such egregious behavior. What kind of scholarly atmosphere would they be allowing if they permitted this kind of ignorant behavior?
If these students can come up with all these reasons why they should be allowed to shout down the speaker, then what prevents the next group who wants to shout down some invited dignitary or professor because they disagree with his position? And the one after that?
Allowing this sort of environment would be going backwards instead of forwards, becoming more ignorant instead of more enlightened and educated.
It was not the CONTENT, but the BEHAVIOR.
And if you disagree with Obama, you hate black people. Right?
Posted by diane | February 21, 2010, 4:20 amjust watched the video – that was so lame when the school official tried to placate oren by asking if they were being arrested.
Posted by cleo | February 20, 2010, 7:15 pmits good they protested. what kind of a university would invite a representative of an illegal colony with a record of war crimes? and why? it is more than just an insult to those who pay tuition fees. props to the students for standing up for their rights!
Posted by alan | February 21, 2010, 12:06 amprops to the students for standing up for their rights!
They did not / do not have rights to go and interrupt this public presentation, any more than they have rights to go interrupt any public presentation.
All your other points/assertions are things open to debate, but not by breaking the law and causing a disturbance.
Posted by to alan | February 21, 2010, 4:11 amThis really makes Muslims look bad. Point blank. They violated several rules of the University, and also violated disorderly conduct laws, as well as societal norms of behavior.
There was even a question-and-answer period planned. But these Muslims were not really interested in that.
"All you did today, was embarrass yourself and the University."
Shame on the students, and shame on those who support this.
Posted by muslimah | February 21, 2010, 4:48 amThis is sort of a mild form of terrorism.
Posted by muslimah | February 21, 2010, 4:49 amLOL are you serious 'muslimah' ?? mild form of terrorism? Do you know what terrorism means?
May Allah bless them for doing their duty as MUSLIMS and speak against Muslim oppression and may Allah FORGIVE YOU 'muslimah' for accusing them of 'terrorism'. I think you watch too much FOX.
On another note,
Remember when Ahmadenajad came two years ago to Columbia? This is what the president of Columbia said:
He said, “Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator,” adding, “You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.”
And not to mention all the protests in and around campus.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/world/middleeas…
so that's OKAY? interesting
Posted by Lena | February 21, 2010, 5:23 amThey are just trying to bully people, as the terrorists do.
On another note: The President of Columbia did not yell during Ahmadenajad's speech, did he?
The students could have said or written anything they wanted, but instead they chose to break the rules of the University and the law.
Yelling at the speech was not speaking against any so-called oppression. They were just marginalizing themselves further, and making us all look bad.
Posted by muslimah | February 21, 2010, 6:18 amSo if you bully someone, you are a terrorist?
We have had events at OUR university where some students yelled and interrupted the speech. Nothing happened to them. They were asked to leave but usually they would leave anyway. 3adi.
I find it so sad that you a MUSLIM is using the terrorist card when the admins at our university told them the opposite. 'we admire your courage'
They aren't making us look bad, many of us are proud of them. Do I made Muslims look bad too because I defend them?
Posted by Lena | February 21, 2010, 6:51 pmthe whole idea that yelling or interrupting is a 'violation of oren's freedom of speech' is incredibly absurd, as is the idea that it is a violation of the law to interrupt somebody talking. while of course random individuals cannot, in fact, infringe upon someone's constitutional rights, as will notes, because the purpose of the bill of rights is to protect people's rights as against the government, not as against random other people. removal from the hall would be an expected penalty, but it is truly amazing that people who allegedly support justice in palestine are busy discussing whether it is unbelievably unacceptable and 'uncivilized' to yell at an official representative of a war criminal state. the irvine 11 are accused of yelling, and the only 'right' of oren's that was infringed, was his 'right' to be an honored guest, to speak without interruption.
meanwhile, irvine administration refers zoa complaints about 'material support' for hosting george galloway to homeland security to investigate msu, and doesn't defend its own students, chemerinsky thinks criminal charges are just fine….and no one who's part of any social change movement should be interested in pursuing a society in which interrupting a speaker is grounds for criminal charges.
thanks, will, for the article.
(by the way, wasn't everyone cheering a few months back for people interrupting ehud barak? why is it that when people actually need support, like the irvine 11, everyone thinks they are participating in a giant, internet-wide, after the fact, protest tactics organizing session?)
Posted by Ladidah | February 21, 2010, 7:59 amthe whole idea that yelling or interrupting is a 'violation of oren's freedom of speech' is incredibly absurd,
His freedom to speak was in fact violated, whether or not his constitutional rights protecting free speech were. And this was an organized event, sanctioned by the University, with rules. Those rules were broken by the students.
as is the idea that it is a violation of the law to interrupt somebody
You cannot go to a speech, a concert, a church service, a movie, a ballet, a symphony, ect., and start yelling. You will be removed and possibly arrested. Yes, there can be criminal charges.
In any event, the students broke University rules as well.
Posted by diane | February 21, 2010, 10:01 am"while of course random individuals cannot, in fact, infringe upon someone's constitutional rights, as will notes, because the purpose of the bill of rights is to protect people's rights as against the government, not as against random other people" this is a good point i didn't think of!
Posted by cleo | February 21, 2010, 11:29 amAnd one more thing…I mean, I'm used to there being debate when there's a "Black Bloc" at a protest, or when someone breaks some windows, or if there is racist language used, or someone brings a sign with a swastika (even as a comparison of evils). Not to equate these things to one another, but property destruction, problematic chants, and Nazi/Zionist visual comparisons are 'popular' debates.
But seriously, now we're arguing about how yelling at speakers, or interrupting people, is or is not 'civilized'? We've gone so far into restricting protest WITHIN the movement, that these kinds of interruptions are now the cause of debate? It;s just yelling! Should you get arrested the next time you argue with someone? You should be pleasant to those with power while protesting??
Heckling is…just heckling. It's annoying when Zionists do it at our events, we try to stop them, they try to stop us from doing it at their events. The whole idea that heckling opposing speakers is now something that is the potential subject of criminal charges is *insane* and incredibly repressive, and should find no justification among anyone concerned with democracy or social justice.
Posted by Ladidah | February 21, 2010, 8:05 amLadidah:
The students broke the rules of the University as well as the law. All they have accomplished is to marginalize themselves.
These students feel that because they are Muslim, their beliefs supersede rules and law. They feel that "their issues" are above any considerations for rules, law, or society.
If these students can come up with all these reasons why they should be allowed to shout down the speaker, then what prevents the next group who wants to shout down some invited dignitary or professor because they disagree with his position? And the one after that?
What kind of scholarly atmosphere would the school be promoting if they permitted this kind of ignorant behavior?
Posted by diane | February 21, 2010, 10:09 amDiane, sincere question, would ur reasoning apply if it were Hitler? It's only hypothetical, but that's what you do to test ur argument. Would it?
Posted by cleo | February 21, 2010, 11:47 amwould ur reasoning apply if it were Hitler? It's only hypothetical
Michael Oren is not Hitler. But to answer your question, someone like Hitler was invited to speak at a Columbia University – and yes, he was permitted to speak.
At the end, the moderator said, "But I think we can all be pleased that his appearance here demonstrates Columbia's deep commitment to free expression and debate. I want to thank you all for coming to participate. "
By the way, you do know that the Palestinians sided with Hitler?
HAJJ AMIN AL-HUSAYNI: TIMELINE
Nazis ‘shipped arms to Palestinians’
British National Archives unveil presence of Nazi S.S. agents in Mandatory Palestine, working closely with Palestinian leaders
Nazis planned Palestine subversion
British secret intelligence files have been released in London…
The Germans planned – with the support of the Grand Mufti – to arm Palestinian villagers and incite them to rise up against the Jews.
Posted by diane | February 22, 2010, 6:42 amHow do you explain this
Posted by diane | February 22, 2010, 6:46 amThinking this over. CSUSF banned a mural containing images of Edward Said and a key because they were "hostile" to Jewish students.
I think there's an argument that inviting (in fact celebrating) Michael Oren on campus was equally if not more hostile to students of Palestinian (and arguably Arab) descent. Symbols and images, even assuming they represent a hostile idea (and they don't imo), don't have power to implement any harm – only people do.
Oren is not here to "dialogue", but to defend and promote to US taxpayers grave international crimes against Palestinians/Arabs so that US taxpayers will continue to support those crimes. The school is giving him a platform to serve this purpose. If an image and a key is harmful, then this is much more so.
Posted by cleo | February 21, 2010, 12:19 pmIn a nutshell, the students weren't interrupting "dialogue" and "debate" – they were interrupting the apparatus that facilitates Israel's oppression, injustice, murder and mayhem.
Posted by cleo | February 21, 2010, 1:30 pmMichael Oren is not "apparatus that facilitates Israel's oppression" – he is a New York-born and Princeton-educated historian and commentator on Middle East affairs. The students should have listened.
Posted by nutshell | February 21, 2010, 5:51 pmHe is an apologist for Israeli Crimes against humanity.
Thus a facilitator of Israeli Oppression.
Posted by Word | February 26, 2010, 8:35 amThese students are basically just Israel-hating racists who lack the intellectual capacity to express themselves in any meaningful way. They give lip service the notion of academic free speech, and demand it when their speech is at issue, but they have no interest in listening to, or letting others listen to, ideas that contradict their own world view.
Posted by pickles | February 21, 2010, 6:01 pmThe problem with the dialogue coming from these unruly students, and those like them, is that it pretends the Palestinians have no culpability in what has happened – that the Palestinians are just innocent victims with no responsibility… and that simply isn't true. The credibility of these types has been lost, so now they are reduced to shouting.
The Arabs intended to destroy Israel in 1948, and again in 1967.
Palestinian groups that support and carry out acts of political violence include Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Abu Nidal Organization.
The Palestinians support suicide bombers, and praise shaheeds.
The violence against Jews goes back to before Israel's Declaration of Independence. The Palestinians collaborated with the Nazis: Nazi S.S. agents were in Mandatory Palestine, working closely with Palestinian leaders. The Germans planned – with the support of the Grand Mufti – to arm Palestinian villagers and incite them to rise up against the Jews.
During WWII, the Grand Mufti Haj Muhammed Amin al-Hussayni wanted to annihilate Jews in Palestine.
Before the war, there was violence against Jews:
1920 Palestine riotsor Nebi Musa riots
Jaffa riots1921
1929 Palestine riots
The Hebron Massacre
The 1929 Safed massacre
The 1936 – 1939 Arab revolt in Palestine
Posted by pickles | February 22, 2010, 4:49 amUhm no.
The Israelis came to Palestine, ethnically cleansed 90% of the population, and attempted to create an ethnically pure Jewish state in its midst.
No amount of bullshit will change that fact.
Posted by Word | February 26, 2010, 8:33 amFacts = bullshit?
See post below….
Posted by pickles | February 26, 2010, 10:01 amThe students and those like them misrepresent what happened in 1948:
Civil War in Mandatory Palestine began on November, 30, 1947. From January onwards, operations became increasingly militarized, with the intervention of a number of Arab Liberation Army regiments inside Palestine, each active in a variety of distinct sectors around the different coastal towns. They consolidated their presence in Galilee and Samaria. Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni came from Egypt with several hundred men of the Army of the Holy War. Having recruited a few thousands of volunteers, al-Husayni organised the blockade of the 100,000 Jewish residents of Jerusalem. While the Jewish population had received strict orders requiring them to hold their ground everywhere at all costs, the Arab population was more affected by the general conditions of insecurity to which the country was exposed. Up to 100,000 Palestinians, from the urban upper and middle classes in Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem, or Jewish-dominated areas, evacuated abroad or to Arab centres eastwards.
The 1948 Arab–Israeli War commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine in mid-May 1948. Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria attacked the state of Israel, leading to fighting mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate and for a short time also on the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon.
The dramatically outnumbered Jews managed to defeat first the Arabs of Palestine, then the combined armies of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Syria, along with a smattering of Sudanese, Yemenites, Moroccans, Saudis, Lebanese and others.
The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip became distinct geographical units as a result of the 1949 armistice.
Posted by pickles | February 22, 2010, 4:56 amscreaming in order to drown out the ideas of an invited speaker IS a reflection of the same nihilism that the suicide bomber brings to politics.Tolerance of this behavior brings shame on the school.
Posted by bushtheliberator | March 5, 2010, 4:15 amHi, I’m a Yoga Mat fanatic. What’s your favorite brand of yoga mats?
Posted by Juan Perque | September 24, 2010, 5:55 am