Professor Mark LeVine discussed the November 29 panel co-sponsored by the Department of History at UCI in a recent e-mail. Professor LeVine responded to criticism which suggested that the panel was biased against Israel, and that perhaps the Department of History should have had an additional person on the panel to present another viewpoint:

The goal of the panel was to give students the chance to talk to professors at UCI who work on the region. Out of the roughly half dozen people who fit that bill, we are the three who could make it. I also invited a professor from UCLA who’s a rabbi but he couldn’t make it. But the idea that this was ‘partial’ or ‘unbalanced’ is quite questionable. We had Michael Oren, who is from the conservative Shalem Center in Israel last year. Yesterday we had Rabbi Altshuler who is certainly not anti-Israel, we’ve had other Israelis in many times — and when we’ve done so the Jewish community has made silly — I could be less charitable — accusations such as they “support terrorists,” and the like when in fact they are on record as supporting the exact same position–a two state solution–as the vast majority of their fellow Israelis….”
Now let’s talk about today. You say much that was discussed was speculation–well there certainly was some speculation, but what was the title of the panel? It’s about 2007, that is, the whole point is to summarize about the events of this year and prognosticate about whether anything will change next year. Let’s talk about [Professor Lina] Kreidie’s discussion, one point of which was whether israel could have been involved in Gemayel’s assassination. Why is such speculation “biased”. Is her speculation that Syria too could have done it anti-Syrian? Of course not… in fact, as you are aware, since it’s on that Concerned UCI website, I’ve argued far more strongly than her that israel had the most to gain from the potential for civil war in Lebanon, although I specifically did not discuss this issue today. However, how is my speculation on this anti-Israel’? As an analyst of the region who’s lived and traveled extensively in both Israel and Lebanon I looked at the assassination, tried to figure out the costs-benefits calculus among all sides, looked at who has a history and capability of pulling that off, and my conclusion was that while many parties had the ability and the motive, in the current environment and political climate Israel would seem to be the only party that would gain a lot from Lebanon slipping into chaos and anarchy. You can disagree with this assessment, but saying it is “anti-Israel’ is nonsense, no more than saying that the US invaded Iraq for all or geostrategic reasons–for which there is ample evidence–is anti-American, although the Bush administration would certainly accuse you of that if you made such an argument. Even more insidious, quite frankly, is the headline of the ‘Concerned Student‘ website that accused me of saying that only the Jews could have killed Pierre. I think that such an accusation is intellectually and morally dishonest and in fact makes the same conflation between the Israeli government and Jews the world over as the Mullahs in Iran or Al-Qa’eda. Such an inaccurate generalizing from the Israeli government to Judaism as a religion and all Jews as people might work to inflame student and community sentiments, but is factually and morally wrong, and inimical to the principle or free and honest debate which is at the heart of the university’s mission.

Professor LeVine also suggested that other groups can organize their own panels, but asserted that campus communities might be putting too much stock in co-sponsorship.

“…You are welcome to organize any panels you want and ask for [the] history dept. co-sponsorship. If you are inviting recognized scholars to talk about issues in their areas of expertise I’m sure we’d be happy to oblige. Of course you might be putting a bit too much stock in co-sponsorship….”

Response to the November 6th Ayn Rand Club event with Dr. Yaron Brook has featured much back-and-forth in the New University. In addition to two news stories [1, 2], it has run a couple op-eds [1, 2], the first of which was written by Paul Backus, who also wrote one of the news stories. The newspaper has also printed letters to the editor about the event [1, 2].
Asked to respond to the criticism, Eric Brunner, president of the Ayn Rand Club at UCI, clarified his position and discussed the recent articles in an e-mail:

My event was a total success. It was a success because about 170 attended, and those who disrupted my event where escorted out and/or arrested by the police. I was interviewed by UCI’s campus newspaper and had two articles about my event in the paper last week, and I have three articles relating to my event this week. It is laughable to say that the U.S. should attack Iran preemptively. Iran has declared war on us long ago. It started with the takeover of the American embassy in Iran in 1979 and the holding of American hostages for 444 days. They have been involved with the murder of marines in Beirut in 1983 and the bombing of Americans at the Khobar Towers in 1996 and have supported or have been involved in other attacks against Americans. For years government-sponsored rallies have chanted “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” Iran is a major inspiration for Islamists all over the world. The U.S. government and others know that Iran is the biggest supporter of terrorism in the Middle East. Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah, the insurgency in Iraq, and other groups, all of which support the murder of Westerners, including Israelis. I fully agree with Dr. Brook that we must defend ourselves from Iran.

Brunner also responded to the Muslim Student Union’s comments to CampusJ, which called the Ayn Rand Club a “fringe group.”

I am not sure how much credibility the person you quoted has if she criticizes a lecture she didn’t attend. Such a person does not have a legitimate voice. Dr. Brook does not advocate murder; he stated explicating at the lecture that he is only for retaliatory force. Dr. Brook didn’t speak about race. Ayn Rand and Objectivists have written extensively against racism and the initiation of force. Real Muslims do hold human life or this world as sacred, Muslims hold Allah and the afterlife as sacred. The purpose of the talk wasn’t a lesson on Islam or Muslims, it was on presenting the fact that some people want to kill us, and we should defend ourselves. These are objective facts. I have yet to see Muslim students seriously condemn terrorism. I have yet to see Muslims students agree that there are Islamists in the world who want to kill Americans, and that Americans should defend their lives.

UCI professors and other guests who discussed the latest events in the Middle East and the larger Muslim world in a panel on Wednesday, November 29. Sponsored by the Middle East Studies Student Initiative, UCI’s Deptartment of History and the Samuel Jordan Center for Persian Studies, the event was entitled “The Middle East in 2007.”

Panelists featured were:
Nasrin Rahimieh, Director of the Samuel Jordan Center for Persian Studies, UCI
Lina Kreidie, Dept. of Political Science, UCI
Mark LeVine, Prof. of Modern Middle Eastern History, UCI
Jon Elliott, Air America Radio host who also acted as moderator.
Brian Van Riper, a sergeant who served over one year in Iraq will discuss his experiences in the country.

Elliot talked about “the media’s treatment of Iraq” stating his feeling that the Bush administration was so caught up with “protection,” that lost sight of things. Elliot asserted that when the Bush administration needed to get support from Americans before the war, the media began to “complicate” things and persuade “Americans that it is right to go to war with Iraq.” Elliot also discussed conspiracies relating to the war and how oil wells were “pinpointed” during the invasion. Elliot said that students have the duty to care about what is going in the Middle East even though it might not have a direct effect on them today.
Kreidie focused on the recent war in Lebanon, which she witnessed firsthand. She said the Lebanese “do not want a civil war” and discussed how “demographics changed and the Muslims became more [in Lebanon].” Kredie sarcastically suggested that “when in doubt, when no one knows what’s going in Lebanon, bomb Lebanon.” She asserted that going to war for two soldiers who were kidnapped was a “miscalculation” for Israel and that the “outcome [of the war] was the destruction of Lebanon, not Hezbollah.” Kredie also suggested that Israel might have started a war with Lebanon because Lebanon poses a threat as another regional power in the Middle East, and expressed doubt that the Syrian government had anything to do with the recent assassination of Pierre Gemayel, that perhaps Israel had more to gain than Syria by assassinating the former Lebanese cabinet minister. “[It was] not in their interest to do the assassination,” Kredie said of Syria, noting “they are busy with with negotiating, Syria is back with negotiations…for getting back Golan Heights…Israel, why not? It could be Syria, it could be Israel.”
Van Riper talked about his experiences in the Marines.
Rahimieh discussed today’s situation in Iran, pointing to discontent among the younger generation there, and Iran’s nuclear stand-off with the US and Europe. She suggested that Iran and America have a lot to learn from one another.
LeVine discussed the situation between Israelis and Palestinians, suggesting that perhaps the two are “wounded” enough to consider moving forward. LeVine also stated that demographically Israel will have more Arabs than Jews within a few generations. LeVine also criticized the mainstream media for supporting the Bush administration when America first went to war with Iraq.

Here’s a 12-minute summary of the film recently screened at UCI.