well now we know which side Etchemendy is on...
inflammatory? what the hell is he talking about?
the word apartheid is in the sponsoring group's name.... but it is not allowed to be a part of the exhibit... that makes PERFECT sense... NOT!

Good op-ed. I'm glad I won't have to see that in Old Union. How pushy (to put this in Old Union) and sneaky (changing the title and content) of SCAI to pull this shit.

I'm glad the administration is standing up to the bullshit tactics the SCAI has been employing to cause polarization and conflict on campus. Blatant lies, rule-breaking, and libel is not the way to get positive attention. But then again, SCAI thrives off negative attention - it purposely breaks rules and then cries as if it's the victim. It's refreshing to see the Stanford admin call them for what they are - irreverent bullshit artists.

Palestinians have an inferior place in Israeli occupied lands. Israelis have a color on their ID hat allows them to pass through checkpoints unstopped. In fact, they have separate roads built just for them that Palestinans can't use. Palestinians have different colors on their IDs, so they must be stopped at checkpoints, sometimes taking several hours to go a few miles to get to jobs or schools. How is this not an exmple of Apartheid? What was said is not libel. It's a reality that Americans refuse to acknowledge.

I think my original observation of this whole issue still stands. I like the idea proposed that some places on campus are a kind of "Safe Zone" from this type of protest. I have to wonder though if that wasn't the whole reason that location was chosen. The problem I see with this argument is that the university itself invites some very outspoken people to come an lecture about allot of things that many would find very uncomfortable. Interesting to note that there isn't a place to really get away from a university sponsored speaker. Rumsfeld coming to campus pissed allot of people off. The gay porn star who hated muslims was almost certain to offend in many ways. I don't see how you can really say that there isn't a double standard.
One thing I always note when topics like this one come up is how blatantly selfish people are with this issue. The whole issue here is one of where the line in the sand is drawn between free speech and inciting discord. However it seems that allot of the comments this and the other article generated where a black and white statement either for or against Israel. To error on the side of the campus for a second, there aren't too many people who would be offended that neo-nazis or klansmen where kept from putting on an event in ANY part of the university; and if free speech is free then it's all free.
I think if America just stopped using oil most of this problem would correct itself in our eyes...
but that will never happen...........ever!

I agree mostly with cdizzle's remarks. As a matter of fact, I don't buy the SCAI argument at all.
HOWEVER, that wasn't the point of my previous posting. This Provost not only has condoned but he has also encouraged in the past speech which exhibits hatred towards Spain. Many of the claims made by Mr Uria and Mr Ibarretxe caused many students and members of the Stanford community feel "uncomfortable". He not only didn't addressed the concerns of those Stanford community members but in respect to Mr Ibarretxe's Basque pro independence claims he had this to say,
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/15/basquePresidentSpeaksToStudents
“I think the lecture was wonderful,” he said. “Very persuasive.”
Mr Ibarretxe's party was defeated in the March 9th election in part, according to many political analysts, because of his pro-independence, anti-Spain and justification of ETA's terrorism rhetoric.
Mr Etchemendy, you have been clearly exposed and this op-ed only shows how morally corrupted you are. Your baggage makes you absolutely unqualified to base your decision on a moral basis. It would have been enough for all students to listen to the legal arguments upon which you based your decision.

The lucky members of SCAI are here in America where they have the ability to study history beyond the state controlled brand that is fed to them by their dictatorial Islamic governments that don't allow anything unflattering to come out. I bet y'all just learned one side of the story. You probably have never heard that Jews have biblical, historical, religious, cultural and legal ties to the land of Israel. You probably never heard of Arab complicity in the Holocaust (Haj amin al-Husseini for starters). You probaby never heard that Jordan was given 80% of historic Palestine by the British or that thousands of Arabs were immigrants too to the land. Or that the Koran never mentions Jerusalem but the Torah mentions it over 600 times. Or that an Arab who arrived as late as 1946 and was displaced in 1948 is also considered a Palestinian refugee and so are his children and grandchildren into eternity. Or that 900,000 Jews were expelled from Muslim lands between 1948-1970, were successfully settled by their fellow Jews in Israel, but have never been compensated for their losses by their Muslim persecutors. Or that the Arab League, who already has 22 lands, can't find a place for Palestinian Arabs.

I think that the Arab League which started all the wars; created 2 refugee crises; refused all compromises for peace; and refuses to settle their brethren Arabs of Palestine - who speak the same language, practice the same religion, share the same history and culture - in their vast lands (22 of them, many dripping in oil wealth) are responsible for the mess we're all in. They are responsible for the slaughter in Darfur as well. But I bet they aren't teaching that in any Arab League country. The Arab League even refuses to acknowledge there is genocide in Darfur.

hey "To TV" how about Israel learn to take responsibility for its actions:
- 800,000 ethnically cleansed in 1948
- over 10,000 killed
- some 430 villages razed to the ground
- another 300,000 expelled in 1967
- 20,000 killed in june 1982 war alone
- almost 5000 palestinians killed in this intifada
- 1000 lebanese killed in 2006 summer war
And yes, they were all civilians, and no they weren't all human shields. You can read any human rights report on this, instead of reading the crap that comes from dudes in CAMERA, MEMRI and completely baseless / unacademic sources designed for spewing disinformation...
Hang on by those shreds of legitimacy you have left and savour the feeling, because a day of freedom and equality for all people in the region is coming. One person, One vote (including the refugees and those living in WB/G). If you can't accept that then you support the current apartheid reality both in WB/G and within Israel itself.
And before you jump to the key-board and tell me about 'minority' rights in Israel, please explain to me why there is legislated descrimination in citizenship laws, marriage laws, and residency/property rights and a whole range of other 'municipalized' forms of discrimination.
Racism is racism and no amount of 'rebranding' is going to change that....
SCAI did nothing offensive. It did what every other human rights group does...

shucks, you're a tool.

Meet the world's most incompetent ethnic cleansers

Evelyn Gordon , THE JERUSALEM POST
Mar. 19, 2008

It is hard to decide which aspect of Mahmoud Abbas's recent "ethnic cleansing" accusation is more worrying: what it reveals about him, or what it reveals about the world's willingness to tolerate even the vilest and most obviously nonsensical slanders against Israel.

Addressing the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Dakar last Thursday, the Palestinian Authority chairman declared: "Our people in the city [of Jerusalem] are facing an ethnic cleansing campaign through a set of Israeli decisions such as imposing heavy taxes, banning construction and closing Palestinian institutions, in addition to separating the city from the West Bank by the racist separation wall."

If Jerusalem's Arabs are facing ethnic cleansing, then Israelis are surely the most incompetent ethnic cleansers in human history. After all, ethnic cleansing usually aims at removing an unwanted population and substituting your own nationals.

But according to data from the Central Bureau of Statistics and the Jerusalem Institute of Israel Studies, Jerusalem's Arab population skyrocketed 266 percent between 1967, when Israel annexed east Jerusalem, and 2006 (the last year for which figures are available). That is almost double the Jewish population's growth during those years (143 percent); consequently, the city's ratio of Jews to Arabs shrank from 74:26 in 1967 to 66:34 in 2006.

Even during the intifada, which prompted the fence and the closed institutions that Abbas decries, the Arab population continued ballooning: It rose from 208,700 at the end of 2000 to 252,400 at the end of 2006, an increase of 21 percent in six years, or 3.5 percent a year. Jerusalem's Jewish population grew by only 4.7 percent during those years, or less than 1 percent a year. In absolute terms, the Arab increase (43,700 people) was double the Jewish increase (21,100).

Nor was the Arab growth solely due to natural increase: Ziad al-Hamouri, who heads the Jerusalem Center for Economic Rights, estimates that some 30,000 Arabs have moved to Jerusalem since construction of the fence began; others put the figure even higher.

IF ABBAS is truly unaware of these very well-publicized facts, this casts doubt on his viability as a negotiating partner. Since any deal must be rooted in reality, it is hard to negotiate with someone who remains determinedly ignorant even about "core issues" such as Jerusalem. But more importantly, how can you trust the good faith of someone who has no qualms about accusing you of one of the most heinous crimes in the modern lexicon without even bothering to check his facts? Almost certainly, however, Abbas does know the facts. After all, both Palestinians and Israelis frequently cite east Jerusalem's Arab majority to support Palestinian claims to part of the city.

But in that case, the question becomes even more troubling - because how can you trust the moderation, good faith and peaceful intentions of someone who has no qualms about publicly accusing you of such a heinous crime even knowing that it is false? Bluntly, this was nothing less than deliberate incitement against Israel, in a forum guaranteed to receive maximum coverage in the Arab world.

Nor was this a one-time aberration. Just last month, for instance, Abbas told the Jordanian daily Al Dustour: "At this time, I object to the armed struggle, since we are unable to conduct it; however, in future stages things may change." Yet if his only reason for opposing armed struggle is that he currently believes he cannot wage it successfully, that is hardly reassuring, as this reason would disappear following a peace agreement: With the IDF gone from the West Bank and Jordan border, Palestinians could easily import quantities of sophisticated arms and plan attacks unhindered.

THEN THERE was the PA's rejection in December of a French proposal, backed by senior UN officials, for a UN resolution mandating educational activities to support the peace process. The proposal would have amended an existing resolution that requires teaching about alleged Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, thereby fostering hatred rather than reconciliation. Yet Abbas evidently prefers fostering hatred.

It is hard to imagine anything more innocuous, or more vital to the success of the process, than peace education. If Abbas cannot even agree to that, one has to wonder about his commitment to peace.

There are numerous similar examples, such as his June 2006 charge that Israel was seeking to "eliminate the Palestinian people." Never mind that, by the PA's own figures, the Palestinian population of the territories has quadrupled under Israeli rule - including a 34 percent increase in the past decade alone.

But perhaps even more worrying than Abbas's statements is the world's response. Not a single international leader bothered to condemn last week's ethnic cleansing accusation. Nor did anyone condemn his Al-Dustour remarks, his rejection of the peace education resolution, or any of his other less-than-moderate statements and actions.

Given the world's fixation with resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, its reluctance to acknowledge that Abbas may be miscast as a peacemaker is understandable. Yet by tolerating such blatant incitement, the international community further undermines the prospects for peace.

First, such remarks scarcely encourage Israelis to believe that Abbas is acting in good faith, which is an obvious prerequisite for Israeli consent to any agreement. For that reason alone, the world should be interested in condemning such remarks.

Far more important, however, is the message this sends to Palestinians. If Abbas can hurl such vicious and patently false accusations at Israel without even a pro forma protest from world leaders, that tells Palestinians that willingness to live in peace with Israel is not necessary to retain international support. If the world has no objection to even the most vicious Palestinian incitement - despite knowing that such incitement routinely leads to actual violence - then it clearly cares nothing about peace; what it cares about is satisfying Palestinian demands.

That, in turn, encourages Palestinians to believe that eventually, the world will force Israel to accede to these demands even without peace - thereby obviating any need to stop the violence or make the kind of concessions negotiated agreements always entail. And as long as they believe this, peace will remain a distant dream.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420731816&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull