Answer: They are the subjects of condemnation in college op-eds today.
-Shimon Peres is visiting Cornell today, and Africana studies graduate student Jeff Purcell tells Daily Sun readers the vice premier represents apartheid:

So much was said in 1985 after Zulu Chief Buthelezi visited Jerusalem, meeting with Peres twice. Then Prime Minister, Peres said, “We are serious, we are definite, we are determined not to accept the policy of discrimination under any circumstances,” concluding at nearly the same time, “The Israeli government unconditionally disassociates itself form South Africa’s apartheid government.” Weeks later, The Washington Post reported that despite the “unconditional” condemnation, Israeli “ministers said the government would make no move to sever diplomatic ties or end the commercial and arms trade between the two countries.”
Only after the U.S. Congress prohibited military aid to any country arming Apartheid did Israel cease loading the guns of white supremacy. Therefore, few things are more offensive to South Africans than calling Shimon Peres a “man of peace,” given that he personally oversaw their suffering.
Tomorrow, ask Peres why his country is considered a moral degenerate in South Africa and force him to “think back” to Apartheid and the Declaration he abandoned.

-Israeli efforts to make peace will be stymied by Hamas, Wisconsin freshman Will Smith writes in The Badger Herald:

That is not to say the Palestinians have not signed a peace treaty from time to time. They have, but only as a guise to re-supply, re-arm and re-attack. It is the worst example of disingenuous negotiation since the Nazis made peace with the Soviets.
[…]
Any expectation that the Hamas-controlled government will make the necessary commitment to peace is a farce. A bona fide two-state solution will require Hamas to first recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence and accept all previous accords. Given the fact that Hamas was founded to destroy Israel and has consistently rejected these principles since they assumed power last March, it appears unlikely that some precipitous change is on the horizon.

Smith recommends that Olmert stop making concessions: “Until Hamas changes, Israel should not.”
-Texas Tech student Cole Shooter suggests to Russia in The Daily Toreador that helping Iran out with its “peaceful” nuclear program may be a bad idea:

Their idea of peaceful must be different from mine. It’s absolutely moronic to encourage nuclear production to a country that has recently hosted a conference called, “The world without Zionism.” During this conference Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying, “As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.” By Imam, he is talking about Ayatollah Khomeini, a leader of Iran.
Ahmadinejad has no shortage of public hatred towards Israel and the United States, and Russia is happily playing into their hatred for their own economic gain.

The latest Middle East speaker controversy began when Brown Students for Israel asked Egyptian-born Israel supporter Nonie Darwish to speak. Then the event was cancelled. Now she’s coming back, Scott Lowenstein reports for The Brown Daily Herald:

In an e-mail to The Herald, Interim Vice President for Campus Life and Student Services Rusell Carey ‘91 MA’06 wrote that he spoke “with the students who initiated the idea of bringing Nonie Darwish to campus and told them my office would sponsor such a lecture. They are proceeding with planning it for early in the second semester.”
[…]
According to [Hillel president Yael] Richardson, when it became apparent that the Sarah Doyle Women’s Center would not help fund the event, BSI asked Hillel to cover the entire cost. It was around this time that the executive board became aware of some of Darwish’s controversial statements, including characterizing women who wear Muslim attire as having “a mission of spreading Islam,” Richardson said.
“(Wearing of Muslim attire) is the Muslim women’s form of jihad - without the violence - but it could be aggressive,” Darwish wrote in a February 2002 article titled “The Veil: Female Form of Jihad.”
Members of Hillel’s executive board then “debated in a very thoughtful and deliberate way” whether Hillel should be the sole sponsor of the event, Richardson said.
“After a lot of discussion with the people who were organizing the event, with representatives from the Muslim community, with Hillel staff … with other Jewish students involved with Hillel … and with (Muslim Chaplain and Associate University Chaplain) Rumee Ahmed … we ultimately decided that Brown Hillel should not be the sole sponsor of the event,” Richardson said.

But now she will speak…unless someone changes their mind. The National Review’s David French responds in his column, “Phi Beta Cons”:

While it is nice that Brown had a temporary outbreak of good sense (now, if they would only re-invite Christian student groups they expelled earlier this year), this all prompts the question: Why? Why would Brown disinvite a speaker who so obviously offers a fresh and different Muslim viewpoint on events at home and in the Middle East? I know, I know . . . The Muslim Student Association was “alarmed.” But speakers “alarm” campus groups all the time. Why disinvite this speaker rather than, say, a speaker who “alarms” Christians?
The answer, I think, goes to the heart of the silliness that is campus identity politics. Campus identity politics depends on the notion that there exists a certain and particular “voice” for historically disadvantaged peoples. There is, for example, a “black perspective” on American history or a “Muslim perspective” on the war. Those members of marginalized communities who are arbitrarily (and fortunately for them) designated as “authentic” obtain veto power over any other view from “their” group.