Recently I posted about how UCLA hosted a "debate" between Islamic supremacist Jew-haters Reza Aslan and Hussein Ibish arguing over the "one-state solution" or the "two-state solution" -- that is, whether Israel should be destroyed by "Palestinian" jihadists working from within or from a "Palestinian" state. There was no discussion of the legitimacy of the Jewish State. Atlas reader Wallace Edward Brand ("Salubrius") posted this comment:
I have been trying to offer the students at UCLA a view of a one lawful Jewish state West of the Jordan River. One of the UCLA faculty members told me it was impossible. All the faculty members who could sponsor a conference on that topic were too politically correct.
I had the same problem at the Harvard Conference on March 3. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11323
I tried to get the Harvard Crimson to run an op ed with my view. No reply. I finally ended up buying a quarter page ad in the print edition and the on-line edition with the facts. So I tried to do the same at UCLA. They didn't even reply to my request for a quote for a quarter page ad.
I asked him for more information and he sent me this:
As you requested, here is the story of my trying to get on the panel in the March 3,4 conference at Harvard. It was written up by Arutz Sheva, a very conservative Israeli paper, in their English language edition: Op-Ed: "Harvard Had no Room for a One Jewish State Solution" http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11323 I was surprised at this because Ms Drew Faust, the President of Harvard is a historian. I thought she would like my presentation on the 1920 San Remo grant, the basis for my one Jewish State Solution because it is principally the history of the Middle East that has been obscured by time (and by anti-semites and anti-Zionists).
She didn't give me any help either in getting on the panel, or with getting an op ed published in the Harvard Crimson. All I got, from her aide, was a copy of a press release saying that Harvard did not endorse the conference and that "it was a free and open marketplace of ideas". Not free for my idea. I finally bought a quarter page ad in the Harvard Crimson. Arutz Sheva had agreed to my writing an op ed with the facts on the San Remo grant so a quarter page was enough to list the links to that op ed, and to an article on the three possible solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and then an article entitled: Remember the Qurayza that criticized the two state solution -- because HLS Professor Alan Dershowitz would probably sponsor a conference on that topic and I had reason to believe from a friend who knows him, that he would NOT agree to my participation. In an article he had written, he had said that the one state solutions, either from the left or the right were solutions of extremists.
So with my small ad, I finally got into the Harvard marketplace of ideas, but it wasn't free and all I got with one expensive [expensive for me] insertion in their print edition and their online edition was a small dimly lit stall in one corner.
Here is my ad:
ONE LAWFUL STATE WEST OF THE JORDAN RIVER AS A SOLUTION TO THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT
Students at Colleges and Universities should know that there are actually three solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict. First there is a "one [Arab majority] state" solution, in which the Jewish Israelis would become unwelcome guests in their own National Home, and the Jews in the Diaspora, such as in Toulouse, lose the only place on earth they could go to and not be in a minority. In a conference at Harvard on March 3,4 a one [Jewish majority] solution was excluded. The panel was limited to Arab intellectuals and Israeli history "revisionists". Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard described it in Newsmax as an "Anti-semitic and Anti-Zionist Hate Fest". The second is a "two state [temporary] solution" in which the interim solution would result in the loss of much Jewish and Christian heritage and in the long run would end up as the one [Arab majority] state solution. The third is one lawful Jewish state based on the San Remo Agreement of 1920 that established the British Mandate for Palestine. It granted the Jews exclusive collective political rights to Palestine, in trust, to vest when the Jews had attained a population majority.
These three solutions are outlined at: http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2012/03/salubrius-three-possible.html
The details of the San Remo agreement are also on line in a two part op ed that can be seen at:
Debunking the Palestine Lie" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ByJb7QQ9U
It is likely that a conference at Harvard will also be held on a two state temporary solution. Will a discussion of the third option be permitted at such a conference? Harvard issued a press release stating that it did not endorse the March 3,4 conference and that it was " a free and open marketplace of ideas". The three solutions are like the three legs of a stool. With only the first two, it is likely that you will get strong arguments in favor of both, but they won't provide any balance.
Here is a critical review of the two state temporary solution: http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2012/03/remember-quraysh.html Also, it would be helpful to look at what Dr. Daniel Pipes has uncovered about Yassir Arafat and the treaty of Hudibyah, a two-tribe solution that went sour. http://www.danielpipes.org/316/al-hudaybiya-and-lessons-from-the-prophet-muhammads and http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/1999/09/arafat-and-the-treaty-of-hudaybiya-updates
If Colleges and Universities are free and open marketplaces of ideas, demand a conference where all three solutions are discussed by genuine proponents and opponents.
Wallace Edward Brand, UCLA '54 HLS '57
I tried to do the same at UCLA. One of the professors there whose name I have been asked not to mention, told me that it would be impossible to present the one lawful Jewish State solution there because all of the professors who would be able to sponsor a conference on that topic, and Chancellor Block, were politically correct. He was right. The head of Hillel wasn't any help either. I learned later that he had physically attacked a woman journalist, Rachel Neuwirth, who is pro-Zionist. VIOLENCE AND LEFT-WING POLITICS: What's Going On At UCLA's Hillel? http://www.think-israel.org/hes.hillel.html So I tried to see if the Daily Bruin would accept an op ed. No reply from it either. So I asked their advertising department for a rate for a quarter page ad, thinking to duplicate what I had done at Harvard. No reply to that either. I couldn't even buy my way into the UCLA free marketplace of ideas.
No reply from Chancellor Block or the trustees of the University of California either.
So that all occurred before the Hussein Ibish -- Reza Aslan alleged debate at UCLA on May 15. Cinnamon Stillwell at Campus Watch had warned that there would be a "son-of-Harvard" conference at UCLA. Here is what my friend Salomon Benzimra had to say about Hussein Ibish http://jdlcanada.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/it-was-most-regrettable-that-professor-derek-penslar-a-professor-of-jewish-history-and-an-expert-on-zionism-and-the-state-of-israel-did-not-see-it-fit-to-raise-his-voice-and-remi/ I had found your comment on Aslan. It appears that Ibish and Aslan are a good match. And that was followed up shortly after by another alleged debate at the Temple Israel in Los Angeles between Peter Beinart and David Suissa. Op-Ed: Beinart-Suissa Debate: Two Legs of a Stool, http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11675
Keep up your good work,