Walid Shoebat:”ex-terrorists” tour at Stanford
Posted on April 18 2007 by Cecilie Surasky under Educational Institutions.On Friday, news outlets reported that Stanford University, one of the nation’s finest, would bar the public and media from attending a talk by 3 self described “former terrorists” who speak out against Islam.
The best known of the trio, Walid Shoebat, is a right-wing Christian fundamentalist convert who has made a lucrative career out of denouncing Islam and telling his personal story about being part of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. [Shoebat is often called “self-described” because there has been, to date, no independent confirmation of his story. While he regularly appears on national television, Walid Shoebat is a pseudonym that he uses for safety reasons.]
Critics call Shoebat an Islamophobe with a shady background who tries to play down his anti-Semitic end-times beliefs when speaking on college campuses and in front of adoring pro-Israel crowds. Defenders say he simply tells it like it is about the danger of Islam and the roots of Middle East terrorism, and that everyone needs to hear his message.
As I wrote back in February in Muzzlewatch:
To understand how disturbing it is that Jewish groups promote a Christian Zionist like Shoebat, it helps to understand the end times belief.
Josh Nathan-Kazis, a reporter for New Voices, the “only national magazine written by and for Jewish college students,” wrote:
As an evangelical Christian, Shoebat has a vision that goes beyond annexing the entire West Bank–a vision that he avoids mentioning to his Jewish audiences. In private, though, Shoebat explained that he believes there will be “a great battle at the end…the children of Ishmael versus the Jewish community. Christians believe [the Jews] will…recognize that Jesus is the Messiah in the end.” Then he added, “but that is beside the point, this is not my agenda in the universities.”
Just to be clear, the belief is that Jews will either convert or be incinerated so the Messiah can return. Peace, reconciliation and happy Jews are not exactly end-time goals.
Nathan-Kazis continues later:
Keith Davies, an Irish Jew now living in Pennsylvania, is Shoebat’s agent and tour manager. Davies has no qualms about sending Shoebat to speak to Jewish groups without mentioning his Christian Zionism: all that matters, Davies says, is Shoebat’s willingness to speak for Israel. But Davies clearly feels that if attention is called to his evangelism, Shoebat’s credibility may suffer: immediately after I interviewed Shoebat and asked about his religious beliefs–particularly pressing him on details of his Christian Zionism–I received a call from Davies instructing me not to mention those beliefs in this article. If I did, Davies warned, it would “hurt Israel.” And Davies is protective of his own image as well; upon being emailed the quotes to be attributed to him in this article, Davies replied, “This is a disgusting article and I will [not] have anything further to do with you.”
But judge for yourself and watch Shoebat on television here with none other than John Hagee in which he conveys his views on the essence of Islam. (There are 6 parts to the interview.)
Earlier we condemned UC Davis, a public university, for giving a bigot like Shoebat a platform. Because it’s private, Stanford University has wider latitude, but they should have the integrity to stand behind their decision. (When faced with a similar decision, Princeton apparently cancelled a Shoebat appearance in 2005 while Columbia limited attendance “at the last minute”).
Instead, Stanford thought they could have it both ways: they tried to avoid charges of censorship by the campus Republican group by agreeing to host the event, but then attempted to avoid the perception that they were hosting bigots by banning the media and the public.
Instead, they should have made a decision either way and faced the consequences.
In the end, their clumsy strategy backfired, and the uproar caused by the announced ban made them backtrack. The media was invited, and a small group of supporters was allowed to occupy the front rows at the event, according to the Stanford paper.
The paper said:
In fiery speeches marked by some jeers as well as periodic applause, the men called on the audience to open its eyes to what they said were the dangers of the religion.
“Islamic terrorism wants to establish hegemony around the world,” said Walid Shoebat, the last man to take the podium. “Once it gains strength, that’s when you will see the true face of Islamic fundamentalism.”
The ex-terrorists also said that Americans needed to “wake up to the dangerous realities of the Islamic faith.”
And more..
The men also criticized the vilification they said they have suffered for their remarks, saying that the liberty given to critics of Judaism and Christianity is not always extended to critics of Islam.
“Every time we say things in the media, we are being looked at as Islamophobes, racists, hate-mongers, you name it,” Shoebat said. “Once you start saying ‘Islam,’ that’s it. That’s where the buck ends.”
Get Muzzlewatch delivered fresh daily
Print This Post
April 18th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
OK, Who was “muzzled” in this story? Its just a piece describing how someone dislikes a particular speaker and/or his religious beliefs.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
It seems that you are just fine with someone like Shoebat being “muzzled”, since you disagree with his religious beliefs (as do I). (Nor, by the way, do I necessarily endorse anything else he said). So let’s just all be clear about it– you have no problem with suppression of opinions and viewpoints with which YOU disagree. That moral high ground you seek to stand on doesn’t seem any higher than anyone else’s.
I do reserve my right to protest against institutions, public or private, who invite speakers who I feel are biased, bigoted, and one-sided (eg Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappe, Jeff Halper, etc.)–without denying such speakers’ rights of free speech. But I don’t at the same time claim to be upholding some noble cause of “open dialogue”. You can’t have it both ways.
While we’re on the subject of intimidating and suppressing free speech, what about that pesky issue of the Islamic Society of Boston’s lawsuit, in which you are joining the ISB’s attempt to muzzle free speech and freedom fo the press in reporting its activities? Any comments forthcoming? That moral high ground is looking awfully swampy now.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
So we have a vicious Islamophobe preaching hatred — an employee of a huge and growing industry of Islamophobia — and your concerns are whether or not his end-times theology is “anti-semitic”?
Talk about judeocentrism!
April 18th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
if end time theology is anti semitic then the greatest anti semite in the world is GOD. you should read what he says in the old testament through non other than the prophets…isaiah…ezekiel,,,jeremiah….zacharia……it aint so nice.
as for the christian islamic crusaders, what can one say about such a bunch of hatefilled sons of GOD.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
You call Shoebat a bigot and an anti semite yet you villify Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky? How incredibly hypocritical.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Notice how important it is for some folks, who probably consider themselves “progressive”, to hide any evidence that Palestinians really do teach their children hate-mongering.
I see this as one instance of a broad pattern of denial that Palestinian problems could in any way be related to Palestinian behavior. Everything is framed as Israels fault, as far as I can tell.
So when former Palestinian terrorists testify, let’s ignore their testimony of how they were treated as children by their schools, religious institutions and parents. Instead, let’s pick apart the religious or political beliefs of these eye-witnesses, find some things we disagree with, and try to use that to undermine their specific eye-witness testimony.
Any real progressive movement would be working hard to expose and reform the hate-mongering and training to suicide and murder taking place in palestinian institutions. Doing this would NOT automatically suggest that Israel’s behavior is always right. To the contrary, for a progressive movement to REALLY act progressive - that is, care about injustice no matter what the source - would add tremendously to credibility when it comes to criticizing Israel.
So Cecelia your behavior leavs us puzzled. Shoebat provides eye-witness testimony of horrendous activities on the part of some Palestinians. Do you want to muzzle this? Really?
April 19th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
mr shoebat is a christian zionist who is advocating for war against the muslims, the right reverend rabbi john hagee has him on his tv preachers show once or twice a week along with a female counterpart who paints all muslims in syria, iran lebanon and palestine worthy of the ire of the american jewish armies.
put up some coffee and catch a whiff.
April 19th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
but, “mr doe”, why is it OK for you to object to Stanford’s hosting his speech, but when I object to Stanford’s hosting of Norman Finkelstein it’s called “muzzling”?
April 19th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
i personally do not object to his being able to speak anywhere.
i am just identifying which side of the fence he falls on.
i am a christian who has left the zionist side and have come to my christian senses and now appeal on behalf of my messiah for peace.
i think we should be lobbying for peace, and talks, with bellicose coutries such as iran and israel. They ought to solve their disputes in a fair way. How long can israel be at war with it’s palestinian population? all they want is land and respect, the israelis have all the power and no desire to give up land to those from whom they took it.
isnt 60 years enough for this greater israel conquest dream to play itself out on the world stage.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
John, I think that if Shoebat had held these same beliefs, but was testifying against Israeli behavior, you would be all over it. That is my opinion. I cannot prove it.
Blaming Israel for all of Palestinians problems is not a path to peace. And if all the Palestinians wanted was “land and respect”, they would have lept on the opportunity to demonstrate that when Israel left the interior of Gaza.
There is something else going on with the Palestinians that prevents peace, and I think that the testimony of ex-terrorists can help us understand it.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Martin, i think that the testimony of this man only adds to the buildup of what i see as a new crusade in the middle east, only this time against muslims as a race and religion, similar to what jews have encountered throughout their history. I just feel that any drive to war is insanity, the middle east is a cauldron of bitter feelings between muslim, christian, jew and agnostic. If we stood nose to nose vs the russians under the mutual assured destruction standoff, i am certain that we can ensure that no iranian president will ever use a nuclear device in the middle east with using the same strategy.
israel and the jews have every right to stay in their land, but why in Gods name must the people of the law given to moses be so bellicose.
Sixty years after getting the official deed to the land they are still at war and at odds with their neighbors. The palestinians story as told by israeli historians is the story of a people despoiled of their land, so now that the story has been told and the world is learning the truth about the foundation of the state, israel ought to do the right thing and make peace.
April 20th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Martin this is from the debate between shlomo benami, the former foreign minister of israel and proff finkelstein.
The former Foreign Minister of Israel and one of the negotiators at Camp David. He said, ” Frankly, were I a Palestinian, I would not have accepted the offer at Camp David,” and exactly for the reasons that Carter outlines in the book, namely, Palestinians were asked to make such monumental concessions that no Palestinian leader could in good conscience, let alone as a representative of the Palestinians, accept such an offer. That was the position of Arafat. It’s also the position to which Shlomo Ben-Ami agreed.
April 20th, 2007 at 12:11 am
and this is from a debate with Gil Troy, He’s a professor of American history at McGill University and author of Why I Am a Zionist: Israel, Jewish Identity, and the Challenges of Today and professor Norman Finkelstein
On the question of terrorism, as Professor Troy calls it, the big ” T-word,” I think there’s a certain confusion about what was the sequence of events. The Second Intifada begins September 28, 2000. Between September 28, 2000, and March 2003 [sic - 2001], there wasn’t one Palestinian terrorist attack. The suicide bombings began five months after the beginning of the Second Intifada. Why did it begin? Well, on the first month of the Intifada, the ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed was 20-to-1. And if you read Shlomo Ben-Ami’s book, he states there that had Israel not so overreacted to the Palestinian protests, which were overwhelmingly nonviolent in the first months, the huge explosion that subsequently occurred probably would not have happened. But those first five months, when Israel was killing 20 times as many Palestinians, overwhelmingly nonviolent protesters, to each Israeli killed, that part has been completely effaced from the historical record.
Now, it’s true suicide bombings began, and one possible way to avert them — not the only one, but one possibility — was to build a wall. Well, but there’s an option. If you want to prevent suicide bombings against your country, just like if you want to prevent a neighbor from intruding on your property, you build a fence or a wall, but you build it along the border, the internationally recognized border. Israel didn’t do that. It used the suicide bombings as a pretext to confiscate 10% of Palestinian land. If they wanted to build a wall on their border, the International Court said that’s not a problem. What they said was — the International Court of Justice, when it condemned the wall, it said this wall is taking a sinuous path, which is incorporating the Israeli settlements. That’s what made the wall illegal.
Now, Professor Troy says he would prefer if coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict by Carter and others would assign responsibility to both sides. But the problem is, if you look at the international consensus for resolving the conflict, the burden of responsibility for the failure to resolve the conflict falls on the side of Israel and the United States. Carter is very clear on that — in my opinion, entirely accurate. He says the main problem is Israel refuses to recognize international law. The law is absolutely clear. It’s inadmissible to acquire territory by war. Israel acquired the West Bank and Gaza in the course of the 1967 War. The International Court of Justice said, under the UN Charter, Article 2, it’s inadmissible to acquire territory by war. Israel has to withdraw to its internationally recognized June ‘67 borders. It refuses. That’s the obstacle.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
“He says the main problem is Israel refuses to recognize international law. The law is absolutely clear. It’s inadmissible to acquire territory by war. ”
they started the war, not israel. and israel is ready to sign a peace agreement, always has been. of course it has with countries that are willing.
recognize israel’s right to exist, give up violence, and we’ll talk.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
To criticize Shoebat for his deeply held Xian beliefs in the end times is anti-Xian bigotry. It is no different for demonizing Jews or Muslims for their deeply held beliefs.
The difference between Shoebat and, for example, a Militant Islamist, is, as Shoebat himself says, “Evangelical Christians can be a headache. Militant Islamists will chop off your head!”
Take a look at the Torah or the Koran or any other religious book and read about what they say about those of other faiths. All state that they are the true faith. All state that the others are apostates, heretics, or worse.
You can not criticize one’s religious practice, only the way it is practiced if it infringes upon the rights of others. Militant Islam clearly oppresses others. Xian Evangelicals have beliefs, but in its modern form, is not generally oppressive.
I am much more worried about Sharia law than some guy believing that at some point in the future Jews will convert to Xianity.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
While I’m not familiar with the speaker under question, I thought the point of this site was that everyone should be allowed to express their point of view and that any limitation of free speech (including criticizing the speaker) was a form of censorship (i.e., “muzzling”).
Perhaps the moderators can provide us a list of “correct” views that no one is allowed to criticize (lest they be guilty of squelching debate) and another set of “wrong” views that people are free to criticize or censor with impunity.
Just asking.
April 21st, 2007 at 7:25 am
If anyone when to the talk, you would know that Walid Shoebat and the two other speakers played HUGE roles in stifling attempts at open debate, which showed up most obviously during the Q&A. Whenever anybody criticized them, he proceeded to tell them they were ignorant, they were presenting bad arguments, or in one case, “If you do not believe this, you are an ignorant Muslim. You are not a true Muslim” (http://www.stanforddaily.com/article/2007/4/17/exterroristsDrawMixedReactions).
Their take-home message was not that we should open up a discourse about the matter, but that we should, essentially blindly, accept what they say. Or more likely, they seemed to be content garnering the applause of their specially invited guests sitting in the front seven rows, without really caring about the concerns of their critics, Stanford students who composed the vast majority of the audience and whose school they chose to speak at.
April 21st, 2007 at 7:28 am
This Op-Ed about the event is very well written and represents a lot of students’ thoughts very well
http://www.stanforddaily.com/article/2007/4/18/opedPleasantlySurprisedByThreeExterroristsEvent
April 22nd, 2007 at 3:49 pm
I actually would like to see more debates and panels. For example I saw a debate between Finkelstein and Dershowitz on Youtube that was hilarious! Finkelstein skewered Dershowitz.
as for “why is it OK for you to object to Stanford’s hosting his speech, but when I object to Stanford’s hosting of Norman Finkelstein it’s called “muzzling”?”
Isn’t there a difference between an actual academic and someone who is the zionist version of a circus animal?
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:33 pm
“Isn’t there a difference between an actual academic and someone who is the zionist version of a circus animal?”
only from your point of view.
from mine, there’s a difference between an actual academic and an anti-intellectual holocaust-denier and anti-semitic circus animal.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Frankly I’m appalled by both of you using language like that to characterize anyone. You can find what I think about Finkelstein’s work on other treads here (some of that in direct response to “a real voice’s” characterization of him as a “holocaust-denier”). I don’t know much about the other gentleman, but “circus animal” is simply an appalling epithet. Simply out of bounds.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:43 pm
yes, my point was that to anyone their side looks reasonable and the other side looks crazy. which is really the whole point of discussion, to bridge that. it was a tongue in cheek response to elizabeth, sorry if it didn’t translate.
anyway, my perspective is that to write about a so-called “holocaust industry” is offensive. it is reasonable for jews to respond to that event in history. criticizing jews for doing so by saying they are using it to further some vast conspiratorial aim is offensive and dangerous.
in my experience, those kind of hateful conspiracy theories are useless, and finkelstein is useful on this board only to the degree that israel bashers can use him to discredit israel. i really don’t know what other point there is to bringing him up. deal with facts, not some general criticism that jews control everything.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:16 pm
“Frankly I’m appalled by both of you using language like that to characterize anyone”
I’m sorry, I did not mean to slur circus animals by my characterization.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Again, my challenge to you trolls who use the ludicrous term ‘holocaust denier’: name one person who you’ve read or heard deny the Holocaust. Just one. But you have to use a dictionary definition of deny.
Just one.
April 24th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Elizabeth,
If that were a more original sort of retort, I’d probably just think is was funny. And maybe you mean all this less seriously than I’m taking it, but then again, maybe not! Do you really think that about this guy or are you just expressing yourself so sharply to make a point? And that’s a real question, not a taunt.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
I’d prefer a taunt.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
And why is that? Don’t like answering questions? Or is it just more fun to be taunted?
April 30th, 2007 at 11:36 am
alan.
the president of iran.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/
that’s one.
shall i go on?
May 8th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Real Voice,
Since the same CNN article says “Ahmadinejad sparked widespread international condemnation in October when he called for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map’” and we’ve established that he never said that, I have to question their saying he called the Shoah a ‘myth’. And if ‘myth’ is the best translation for the word he used (not a given with CNN or any other agenda-laden corporate media), a myth doesn’t necessarily imply denial. Other usages include “a legend, usually made up in part of historical events, that helps define the beliefs of a people” and “an ill-founded belief, usually based on limited experience, given uncritical acceptance by members of a group, especially in support of existing or traditional practices and institutions.” IF he used the word translated correctly as ‘myth’ as a Holocaust Revisionist he could easily have meant the latter two.
Any more?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
“the same CNN article says “Ahmadinejad sparked widespread international condemnation in October when he called for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map’” and we’ve established that he never said that”
WE have never established any such thing. you claim it, i give you respected news sources refuting it, and you tell me you trust ahmandinejad more than CNN.
“And if ‘myth’ is the best translation for the word he used a myth doesn’t necessarily imply denial.”
yeah, i knew you were going to say that too.
putting aside the definition of myth relating to traditional stories, the definition of myth is as follows:
any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
all of which imply that the subject of the myth is not true. to claim the holocaust is a myth is indeed denying the historicity of it.
“IF he used the word translated correctly as ‘myth’ as a Holocaust Revisionist he could easily have meant the latter two.”
sure. and if he meant it as “an ill-founded” belief, that certainly does imply that the belief is not truthful.
“Any more?”
no more. your spin is pathetic. i give you a credible news source, you deny it. now you want to redefine the word myth. lord only knows why you are defending ahmadinejad’s ridiculous statement. but it’s clear that your head is stuck in the sand. why you pose as someone involved in a discussion, i don’t know that either.
“as a Holocaust Revisionist ”
holocaust revisionism is holocaust denial. period.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Ah, to have all the answers. It is you, friend, who is spinning. You were on this board when we discussed the gross and cynical mistranslation of the Iranian president’s statement “Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad”. For others who may not have seen that discussion, a good article is “WIPED OFF THE MAP” - The Rumor of the Century at http://democracyrising.us/content/view/736/164/
You may consider CNN a reputable news source. I do not.
While you may not grasp my explanation of the various definitions and nuances of the word ‘myth’ I stand by it. *IF* he used the word ‘myth’ (which is questionable given the misstranslation cited above) he is not bound to have used your choice of the several definitions.
Finally, Holocaust revisionism is not Holocaust denial, regardless of how many times you say it. My challenge to you stands: name one person who denies the historicity of the Holocaust, using only the accepted definition of the word ‘deny.’ Hint: ‘revision’ is not an accepted synonym for ‘denial.’
May 9th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
“name one person who denies the historicity of the Holocaust”
ahmadinejad
how about al-jazeera, you trust them?
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816
May 9th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
I don’t know anything about Al-Jazeera. But your article doesn’t say anything whatsoever about the Holocaust, much less that Ahmadinejad denies it.
With another wild goose chase from you, I think it’s getting close to time to put you on extinction schedule like your evil twin Nonny, who suddenly vanished after he was put on it.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
try to keep up alan. you keep denying that he said israel should be wiped off the map, i keep proving otherwise, you keep running away scared.
so alan, you don’t trust cnn, you know know anything about al-jazeera. what news source do you trust. apparently i have to do your google searches for you, so tell me what news source you like, and i’ll give you an article about ahmadinejad.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
“I think it’s getting close to time to put you on extinction schedule like your evil twin Nonny, who suddenly vanished after he was put on it.”
yes, you and your desire to make jews extinct.
i am nonny, smart guy. i didn’t vanish. although i may bail at any minute as we’re not really having a useful discussion. the nature of this site and JVP in general is hateful, hypocritical, one sided, and absurd. i’ve had wonderful discussions of peace about the middle east, but they haven’t happened here.
anyway, i’m going to let it go. israel is not going anywhere, despite what you may desire. and no one takes JVP seriously. like jews for jesus, or hamas itself. go ahead and spin your wheels, see if i care.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
“I think it’s getting close to time to put you on extinction schedule like your evil twin Nonny, who suddenly vanished after he was put on it.”
yes, you and your desire to make jews extinct.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
[eye roll]