Editor of Claremont Independent to Bassam Frangieh: "Time To Start Talking"

The new editor of the Claremont Independent is Hannah Burak CMC '13. Here's her first editorial, titled, "On Why It's Time To Start Talking," and discussing Bassam Frangieh. I suspect we can expect good stuff from Ms. Burak -- and remember, she is but a sophomore. Great things indeed!

Here's the editorial, with my emphasis on the more salient points.

Assume Charles Johnson is lying. If that were true, he has then slandered the good name of an excellent professor - a self-described lover of poetry - with allegations concerning his political beliefs. Naturally, such allegations would incite alarm among the CMC community. Such an issue should be addressed by both the administration and the professor whose political views are under attack. As a member of an intelligent and politically active student body, I find the silence of the first insulting and the second, puzzling if only because it is damning.

Truth is the best defense. The funny thing about liars is that people start to believe them when no one contradicts them-especially when they have the hyperlinks to back themselves up. Hypotheticals aside, an interview with a fellow academic and the documents which Professor Bassam Frangieh has signed clearly indicate support for Hamas and Hezbollah whose terrorism propagates violence in the name of God. One petition also reveals support for a "boycott of Israeli products, and of Israeli academic and scientific institutions."

The administration's silence on this issue leaves the Claremont Portside as the only voice of Frangieh's defense to students. Their anonymous position grounds itself in the principles of freedom of academic expression. However, the Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure that they cited states that scholars "should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others." I agree that freedom of expression and debate are essential to an academic environment, which is why I find it incomprehensible that a CMC professor would support a terrorist organization whose activities rely upon violence rather than discourse. Furthermore, the call to boycott Israeli academia signed by Frangieh displays a complete disregard for free academic expression. Many professors would agree. The non-partisan Scholars for Peace in the Middle East released a petition against that boycott. It's nearly 3,000 signatories include Professor Marvin Sweeney of Claremont School of Theology, Dean Leah Light of Pitzer and Professor Jack Pitney of CMC as well as 41 Nobel Laureates, including, Elie Wiesel, who sits on the board of the Center for Human Rights Leadership.

While the administration remains silent toward its students and vaguely deferent toward its alums, it has addressed its faculty. In the final days of the fall semester, Dean Hess sent out a letter explaining a review of Frangieh's case and academic scholarship, claiming that Professor Frangieh "has specifically and emphatically denied that he supports terrorism, or any acts of terrorism by any organization." The documents found (viral online and available in English on the Claremont Independent's website) suggest otherwise. The letter insufficiently addresses the concerns raised-it does not suggest that Frangieh has rejected the views he previously held, it does not indicate that he denounces Hamas and Hezbollah, it ignores his support for a boycott of Israel, and it addresses only Frangieh's colleagues while a growing number of students, alums, and organizations demand a response from the professor himself. It raises more questions than it answers. If the administration really does support academic freedom, why did Richard Rodner, CMC's VP of Communications and Public Affairs, delete criticism of Frangieh's views off of Wikipedia? If those views fall under free academic expression, why delete mention of them?

Concerned alumni, students and organizations may speak for themselves. I do not know one Claremont student of Arabic seriously distraught over Frangieh's political beliefs. From all accounts he is a genuinely kind and fatherly professor, beloved by his students. The problem is, the rest of us do not know him, only his signature. That the CMC administration is handling it exclusively contributes to the problem. What I believe might put the issue to rest is a statement by Professor Frangieh himself. The Arabic program enrolls less than one hundred students, but the Claremont McKenna College community extends to other students, professors, and alumni. This network does not know the man who so many students claim is quite worth meeting. Let's get to know him. The consensus among concerned alums seems to be a call for Frangieh to defend or recant his stated views. I would like to read a statement from him to the Claremont community personally denouncing terrorism and its actors (as Dean Hess insists has been made) and an explanation of his decision to sign each of these petitions. If such a statement comes up, we will print it.

The broadcasting of this issue beyond the Claremont bubble seems unsettling but inevitable given the official silence. A statement released by Dr. Roberta Seid of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, announces that "It is disturbing that CMC would give its imprimatur to a program that would be inhospitable for Jewish and pro-Israel students." If you argue that the statement is speculative, I agree, but there's the problem. It is disturbing to me that a scholar would discuss CMC's imprimatur with shock and concern. After all-the same imprimatur grants our degrees.

The expression of support for terrorist groups and a boycott of Israeli academia are incongruous with the environment of open academic discourse and the reputation which our small school has earned in its relatively short life. The handling of this issue by the administration befits neither the quality of students nor the name of the school. This silence disrespects its intelligent students and network of loyal alumni. As editor of this publication, I join the call for a mature response by Professor Frangieh and the administration of our future alma mater.

Consul General on Hezbollah: "How Many Political Parties Do You Know That Have 50,000 Missiles?"

 

Hezbollah, where everyone has a "pet rocket"

At at a 2:45 PM meeting on Wednesday with Counsul General Jacob Dayan of Israel at Scripps College, I asked him what he says to the people who wrongly say that Hezbollah isn't a terrorist organization. He answered very directly, very simply: "How many political parties do you know that have 50,000 missiles?" Hezbollah has pet rockets; we used to have pet rocks.

Let's just take a look at the headline news for the past week about Hezbollah. This is for those of you who need more evidence on why Claremont McKenna's Professor Bassam Frangieh's support for that terrorist organization is bad for America and world peace.

• "Israel Closes Missions in Turkey Due to Hezbollah Threat," Ha'aretz
• "4 Israeli Embassies Closed Amid Warnings of Revenge Attack," Jerusalem Post
• "Syrian Embassy Aided Hezbollah Prisoner's Escape," Jerusalem Post
• "WikiLeaks: U.S. Wary of Hezbollah Presence in Chile," Jerusalem Post
• "Hezbollah Leader Tells Members to be Ready for War," New York Times
• "Nasrallah [Head of Hezbollah]: Israel is the Root of the Problem in the Middle East," Ya Libnan
• "WikiLeaks: Bahrainis Trained by Hezbollah, Claims King Hamad," The Guardian
• "Venezuelan Minister Hangs Out With Hezbollah," Hudson New York

And lest I forget, not only is a supporter of Hezbollah training the next generation of State Department officials, the FBI says that Hezbollah has penetrated the used car business in America. 

Be careful where you cashed in that clunker. After all, prior to 9-11, Hezbollah killed the most Americans.

Everything I Sent The Board of Trustees on Frangieh Part V

The following was one of the petitions I sent the Board of Trustees that Bassam Frangieh signed.

The American Attack Makes Brute Force a Principle of International Policy

Statement from Arab and Non-Arab Intellectuals Against the War on Iraq

1 April 2003

Despite the passage of more than four days since the beginning of the American-British-Australian hostility/attack on Iraq, we continue to receive more signatures of Arab and non-Arab intellectuals on the statement that we released before the war. With the escalation of the courageous Iraqi resistance, we hope there will (also) be an increase of the voices of intellectuals who reject the continuation of the war as well as the principle of regime change by American decree. To add your name, please write to the site of Majelat al-Adab (“Magazine of the Arts”):

www.b_adab@cyberia.net.lb

After more than a decade of tragedy for the Iraqi people, and (the people’s) official authority having complied with all the demands of the United Nations inspectors, the United States launched an all-out military attack on Iraq under the pretext of “disarming Iraqi weapons of mass destruction,” but driven by different known goals. The purposes of this naked aggression, which was rejected by the nations of the Arab League as well as many (other) peoples, are to place American hands on Iraqi oil, and to tamper with the future of Iraq, its national unity and geography, and to support Israeli designs to renew the Palestinian tragedy which never ends.

The new American aggression, in an unprecedented case in the Arab world, relies on a principle of changing the political regime by force, as if the United States were putting themselves in the place of the governments and peoples of the region, as well as in the place of the League of Arab Nations. At the same time that Washington was proposing its aggressive action by lifting up the standards of “democracy,” and “combating terrorism,” and “destroying” the alleged “weapons of mass destruction”; it also endeavored, unequivocally, to support the tremendous Israeli armament which threatens all Arabs, and to ensure the continued destruction of the Palestinian people by various Israeli means.

The American attack on Iraq is without justification, and disregards the Arab and worldwide administrations that reject it. It makes brute force a principle and a benchmark of world policy, which will lead to the victory of the strong and the destruction of the weak, and effectively install the United States in the place of the United Nations. This necessarily results in the imposition of Israeli authority over Arab fate, due to the American-Israeli alliance, which became increasingly firm during the administration of Bush Jr. (George W. Bush). Thus it has become difficult to distinguish between each side’s policy. As Arab and non-Arab intellectuals, we condemn the American attack on the people of Iraq, in which we see hostility toward the entire Arab nation. Thus we reject the “principle of changing Arab regimes by American decree,” because that change, no matter what the reason, is the right of the Arab people, and not of anyone else.

(Signed)