Accent Speakers Bureau announced its sponsoring of Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli prime minister, before he abruptly canceled the visit on April 1. I find myself defending Accent’s decision to bring the ex-Israeli prime minister. This might strike you as odd, considering Olmert’s dark side, but let me explain.
As an 8-year-old, I used to flip through this one oversized history picture book. One day, I came upon the famous line attributed to Voltaire: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
Living up to that credo hasn’t been easy. As a Muslim, I remember finding it hard initially to defend Terry Jones’ right to offend my faith. But, then you realize, what’s the point of freedom of speech if it means we only uphold it when the speech or the speaker is morally acceptable?
It is in this spirit that I defend the right of Accent to bring Olmert, an alleged war criminal.
I am aware many students are deeply disturbed by the idea of someone like Olmert stepping foot onto our campus. It doesn’t help that our student tuition funds would go in his pockets, but that type of idiocy is expected when you’re represented by Accent, a festering pool of nepotism as revealed by local newspaper stories.
My defense of Accent’s decision to bring Olmert comes with great unease. The man has a sickening and ugly past, and that’s no reference to the bribery charges he was convicted of last month.
As prime minister, Olmert maintained Israeli control over the Gaza Strip, a tiny stretch of land inhabited by about 1.8 million people. Gaza has been enduring military occupation since 1967. But just in case the vanquished families — starving, as they were since Israel began preventing adequate food, water, electricity supplies and medication entering into Gaza in 2007 — were getting adjusted to the pain and misery, Olmert’s cabinet decided it was time to have some fun.
On Dec. 27, 2008, Olmert launched “Operation Cast Lead” against the population of Gaza, and a full-scale invasion ensued shortly after. Although the public reason from Olmert’s side was to stop Palestinian rocket barrages, few outside analysts bought the argument as Israel targeted schools, mosques, hospitals, ambulances and UN buildings.
By the end of the three-week bloodbath, nearly 1,000 Palestinian civilians had been slaughtered — about one third of them children. The Israeli side received three civilian casualties. A defenseless Palestinian civilian population had seen the wrath of Olmert and his cohorts.
In case the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International condemnations against Israeli brutality weren’t clear enough, an independent UN investigative team found evidence of the Israeli officials having committed war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.
Currently, even the Israeli Supreme Court is considering charges against Olmert for his involvement in killings, collective punishment and attacks on Palestinian civilian infrastructure. Olmert’s involvement in the massacre is undeniable — only a rabid backer of Israel could say otherwise.
Accent played off Olmert’s past by saying he’s just another “controversial” speaker. Well, Olmert is “controversial” if you somehow consider Kim Jong-un or Osama bin Laden as controversial — to call a ruthless murderer or a terrorist “controversial” seems a bit of an understatement.
Nevertheless, I defend Accent’s right to bring someone like Olmert.
And if Accent is down to bring more alleged criminals to our campus in the future, there are some other murderers I’d love to hear from.
Considering how high the bar has been set, I doubt Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would make the cut, but I’m sure Accent could find someone else.
[Zulkar Khan is a UF microbiology senior. His columns appear on Tuesdays. A version of this column ran on page 6 on 4/8/2014 under the headline "Accent should invite more alleged criminals"]
