Page One

Reactions to Netanyahu protests 

Is it OK to stop some speech? 

Editor: 

A decade ago, David Irving, the revisionist British historian, came to Berkeley to give a lecture. When demonstrations and heckling did not stop him, a bomb threat did. Police evacuated the hall.  

I knew some protesters, Jews from the left and right, and understood their anguish. Most people supposed that the protesters had called in the bomb threat. Although the visit was canceled, there was no uproar in the media. 

David Irving was not in Berkeley to deny the Jewish holocaust. He was promoting his latest book, Churchill’s War. Still, he was known for denying that the holocaust ever happened. 

In a similar manner, I do not believe that Netanyahu was here to promote collective punishment, the enslavement of the Palestinian people or to excuse his or Israel’s crimes against humanity. I am sure that, like Mr. Irving, he is aware of the selective sensitivities of liberal Bay Area politics. 

In the end, I can only reconcile this issue by recognizing the vast difference between denying freedom of speech to a writer on a war he took no part in, and a leader who committed crimes against humanity less than a decade ago.  

If this man becomes Israel’s next Prime Minister, it will serve Israel and humanity that he should know not every American will support his actions and blame the 

victim. Not every American can be intimidated, like our shameless elected officials. 

Nabil Al Hadithy 

Berkeley 

Should listen  

to every side 

Editor: 

The intimidation and silencing of Benjamin Netanyahu in Berkeley last week was a shameful event. It is a stain on our reputation as a community ready and able to hear every side of every question.  

The leader of this attack on freedom of expression was quoted as saying that Mr. Netanyahu had a right to speak but “we also have a right to try and stop him.” The concept of a “right” to interfere with the speech of political opponents is chilling. Have the demonstrators forgotten the long, hard battle for free speech in the United States? 

And have they somehow failed to notice what life is like in countries where either mobs or governments still believe they have “the right to try and stop” the expression of speech with which they disagree? 

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” has long been a watchword for those who believe in civil liberties and a civil society. There is no excuse for abandoning this principle. 

Elmer R. Grossman, M.D. 

Berkeley 

Could have done more to protect Netanyahu’s right to speak 

The Daily Planet received the following letter from the San Francisco Anti-Defamation League addressed to Mayor Shirley Dean and Police Chief Dash Butler): 

As you might know, the Anti-Defamation League is a civil rights organization dedicated to countering division and hatred and protecting all people’s rights to fair representation and expression. Last week our office was deluged with phone calls from Berkeley residents who were upset with reports about the city’s response to the scheduled appearance of Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Berkeley Community Theatre last Tuesday.  

Media reports suggest that the city might not have done enough to protect Mr. Netanyahu’s right to speak. One report quotes Berkeley City Council Member Dona Spring as saying “I am upset we’re spending public money to provide security for this event.” According to a November 30 story in the Jerusalem Post, the Berkeley Police Department recommended that the event be canceled because demonstrators broke through police barricades and there were not enough officers to contain the crowd.  

I am sure you agree that the city has an obligation to do whatever it can to provide a safe environment in which people can express their opinions freely. By acquiescing to the protesters’ demands, we encourage others to use bullying tactics to silence opinions with which they disagree. I would appreciate your looking into this matter and informing me of how the city will respond if necessary. 

Jonathan Bernstein 

Director, Central Pacific Region ADL 

Cc: Police Chief Dashel Butler 

A mother’s appeal during  

the month of Ramadan  

As the Mother of Jeffrey Schilling, I am appealing to the Abu Sayyaf for my son’s immediate and unconditional release during the month of Ramadan.  

Holding my son against his will is causing great pain to me and to his wife Ivy.  

Keeping Jeffrey will not accomplish anything for your movement. 

It violates a basic sense of decency to hold an innocent person against his will. 

Jeffrey is not your enemy, nor am I. 

Whatever you hope to achieve will not be realized by holding my son, a fellow Muslim, one who cares deeply about the plight of the Muslim people of Mindanao.  

I would ask that you release Jeffrey at this time, and through this humanitarian act, demonstrate to the world that you are capable of treating innocent people in the same manner that your people wish to be treated.  

Jeffrey’s release will bring great credit to your movement and win you praise from everyone who is watching this matter.  

I pray that you will continue to treat Jeffrey with respect and dignity.   

Please release him unharmed.  

Carol Schiller 

Oakland 

Open Statement by  

the Willard Faculty 

We, the Willard faculty, share our community's shock and grief at the recent tragic events involving some of our students. We extend our sympathy and deepest sorrow to the children and their families, and we support all efforts to bring resolution to the case in a way that is fair and judicious. Much has been written and said on the matter, and as we struggle to carry on the work of educating our youth under the scrutiny of the media and the public eye, we believe that it is important for us to make the following points. 

First, we applaud those who caution against a rush to judgment, against those charged or implicated in the matter, against the public school system, against the victim, against popular culture. Surely if we are to improve the safety and the attitudes of our children, our sense of outrage and disbelief must be tempered by calm reflection, and a reasoned and deliberative approach is most appropriate. 

Second, we caution those who are quick to criticize our site administration here at Willard for failing to provide information to parents and the public in a prompt manner. Considering the amount of misinformation generated about this case, and the manner in which these children have become the subject of a national media event, was it not prudent of our administrators to endeavor to protect the children and to allow the police to investigate the incident? Was it not right to proceed cautiously and deliberately, especially because this was an isolated incident and did not, to the best of their knowledge, pose any apparent threat to the general student population? 

Lastly, we welcome our community's interest in helping us address some of the issues we face as middle school educators in modern America. Our schools are a mirror of our society, and our students mimic our attitudes and ethics. It will take all of us working together to understand what has happened, and we will all be required to ask some hard questions. 

This has been an extremely difficult time, but we remain hopeful that this tragedy - for that is what it is - will serve as a catalyst for a renewed commitment to our youth. It is right to be concerned, and yet we must use this opportunity to come together in partnership to create the best possible educational environment for our children. We remain committed to that goal, and we invite you to join us. 

The Willard Faculty 

Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com