#IAW Event Threatened With Cancelation Now Gets the Green Light Again!!!

As you can see from the title of this post, the Israeli Apartheid Week Event threatened with cancelation has now been reconfirmed and will go ahead as planned!

Below  you will find the initial Urgent Call out for Solidarity. This post is followed by the update from SPHR as well as a letter of support from GSAED.

Please read and distribute! The solidarity shown to SPHR and SAIA was amazing! Keep up the posts on Facebook, the RTs on Twitter, the letters and general support! As you can see, it worked! Within hours! Thank you all!

~ Sofia Smith

-----------------------------

URGENT CALL FOR SOLIDARITY: UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA TRIES TO SILENCE SOLIDARITY FOR PALESTINIAN HUMAN RIGHTS (SPHR) AND WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT

Originally posted at http://mim.io/cee362?fe=1&pact=7992566472

Defend the right to critical discussion around Israeli apartheid on our campuses! Call on the University of Ottawa Administration to uphold free expression and follow clear and transparent procedures. On March 5th, Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) 2012 opened at the University of Ottawa to a packed room, as students, faculty, and community members were treated to an informative lecture entitled “Arab Spring, Apartheid Falls? The Egyptian Uprising and Possibilities for Palestinian Resistance.” It featured an Egyptian activist who played an important role in the revolution that overthrew the Egyptian dictatorship, as well as a community activist from Montreal (for full schedule, see: http://ottawa.apartheidweek.org/). Moreover, two students from the organizing committee were harassed by unidentified individuals, who on several occasions attempted to intimidate SPHR and Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA) just outside the lecture hall during the event. On March 6th, a member of SPHR received an email from Conventions and Reservations Services at the University of Ottawa telling her that their room booking for Thursday’s Keynote IAW event is now “on hold”, that SPHR “may not continue with this event for now”, and that SPHR's contract was being forwarded to “Protection Service for evaluation.” These heavy-handed measures are because of an unnamed “incident” that supposedly occurred at Monday’s event. When members of SPHR met with the University administration, they were not told what this “incident” was (see below for full email from U of O). The very fact that the organizers were put in a situation, where their event was threatened with cancellation, is a form of intimidation from the University of Ottawa administration. In 2009, the Administrations at the University of Ottawa and Carleton University banned the international-used IAW poster, gaining national and international headlines. SPHR and SAIA see today's email as another attempt to silence the voices of students who advocate for Palestinian human rights. When the IAW poster was banned in 2009, we stood up and fought back with all of your support.

---------------

UPDATE (originally posted at http://on.fb.me/w5rN):

To those who've responded to the SPHR call-out:

Dear friends,

Thank you for your support. The University of Ottawa has re-confirmed the room reservation for the lecture event on Thursday, March 8th. As such, the panel discussion, entitled "Legalized Apartheid and Women's Resistance in Palestine: Principled Solidarity and the Global Struggle for Liberation" will proceed as planned at 7:00pm that evening.

However, the University has imposed the presence of agents from the Protection Services as a condition for the event to take place, after evaluating a complaint by unknown persons regarding our event on March 5th ("Arab Spring, Apartheid Falls? The Egyptian Uprising and Possibilities for Palestinian Resistance"). While we will not be contesting this decision at this point, it is our belief that such a security presence is unnecessary and does not contribute to a safe and open environment for our guests and speakers. Furthermore, despite repeated demands, we have received almost no information on the details and exact nature of the aforementioned complaint, leaving us entirely in the dark as to the reasons why a previously confirmed lecture event was precipitously placed in jeopardy only two days before it was due to take place.

As such, we encourage you to continue writing to the University of Ottawa Administration to demand transparency through the release of information about the complaint, as well as information as to how it was evaluated by the administration and how the latter motivated the decisions it took in consequence. It is both unacceptable and highly suspect that the University of Ottawa has taken such arbitrary action without any due explanation.

You may e-mail:

president@uottawa.ca - Allan Rock – President, University of Ottawa, and;

mbgeron@uottawa.ca - Martin Bergeron, Coordination Agent - Conventions and Reservations Services

Or call :

Allan Rock – President, University of Ottawa - Telephone: 613-562-5809

Martin Bergeron, Coordination Agent - Conventions and Reservations Services

Bureau / Office : (613) 562-5800 ext: 2825 Cellulaire / Cell : (613) 796-8099

Please include in CC:

saia.carleton@gmail.com & sphr.uofo@gmail.com


Secondly, please join us on Thursday, March 8 for IAW 2012’s Keynote Panel Discussion “Legalized Apartheid and Women's Resistance in Palestine: Principled Solidarity and the Global Struggle for Liberation” on the University of Ottawa campus, in Hagen Hall Room 302 (near Laurier Bus Station).

-----------------

UPDATE (Letter by GSAED - also originally posted at http://on.fb.me/w5rNef):

Mr. Rock and Mr. Bergeron,

It has come to GSAED’s attention that the University of Ottawa is attempting to cancel the Thursday Israeli Apartheid Week Events. This news is very worrisome and entirely deplorable.

This event is supported by... the GSAED – as graduate students and graduate student representatives we strongly value the work of Students for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) who highlight the continuing human rights abuses and the conditions Palestinians live under Israeli occupation. Furthermore, it is also International Women’s Day and it is imperative that we have discussions about the experiences of Palestinian women and their resistance to oppression and occupation.

I urge the University of Ottawa to take measures to ensure that SPHR will be granted the room booking without hesitation, and play a role in supporting the work of students on this campus. Do not play a role in silencing them.

We also require to know the reason the University of Ottawa attempted to shut down the events in the first place, which is concerning as we are very aware the university has attempted to silence SPHR in the past by banning posters.

GSAED will continue to monitor the outcome of this request and will do everything in our power to ensure the event will go forward without delay.

Regards,
Taiva Tegler

Nothing new under the sun – More lies spread by the #Israel lobby Inc. by @CarlosLatuff

In recent days, pro-Israel blogs have been published articles accusing me (guess what) of being a Holocaust denier. This happened because in 2006 I participated in the Holocaust Cartoon Contest that had been set up by the House of Cartoon in Tehran. This contest was a response to the Prophet Mohammed cartoons that had been published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and was intended to test the Western limits of the freedom of speech. This new smear campaign was launched by Zionist bloggers due to some cartoons I had made for the activist group Code Pink for use in the Occupy AIPAC protests. It was intended to pressure the group into not using the artworks which were made by me, a so-called “Holocaust denier”.

They say, among other things, that I am a Holocaust denier, but fail to prove their point. In the article, reproduced ad nauseam by them, there is not one article, opinion or cartoon made by me where I deny the existence of the Nazi Holocaust. It’s because I have never made such cartoons. These bloggers are trying to apply the old “a lie repeated many times over becomes a truth” tactic.

Regarding the Holocaust Cartoon Contest, here are the three cartoons I submitted:

With this one I won 2nd place in the contest:

In the first two cartoons, I deal with the red lines of Western freedom of speech. Drawing derogative cartoons about Islam or the Prophet Mohammed is seen as freedom of speech, the same can’t be appplied when dealing with the Holocaust.

The third cartoon shows a Palestinian wearing a Nazi concentration camp uniform, surrounded by an Israeli “security fence”. Actually it has nothing to do with denial. On the contrary, this cartoon affirms the existence of the Holocaust and compares the treatment given to Palestinians by Israel with the treatment given to the Jews by Nazi Germany. I challenge anyone anywhere to show me a single cartoon, article or opinion by me that denies the Holocaust.

This incident is, in fact, another chapter in a long term campaign against me by the same groups and individuals siding with Israel and its criminal policies. They know the effectiveness of political cartooning in exposing Israel’s human rights violations against Palestinians. Since they can’t censor all the progressive blogs, websites, and social platforms, which reproduce my artworks freely, they try hard to attach labels such as “anti-Semite” and “Holocaust denier” in order to discredit and attempt to criminalize my views in the public eye.

Such campaigns won’t intimidate me. I will continue to stand up for the rights of Palestinians and I will continue to put my art at their service.

John Pilger - Palestine Is Still The Issue (Video in 4 parts)

Originally posted by the MediaCorruption at http://youtu.be/xRP4ooxg9aU

Originally posted by the MediaCorruption at http://youtu.be/igw61CORk6g

Originally posted by the MediaCorruption at http://youtu.be/i0V8j6LU8cc

Originally posted by the MediaCorruption for http://youtu.be/LzgrqFlINYE




~ Sofia Smith

A must watch! An interview with Hanin Zoabi (#Palestine)

Originally posted by +972 Magazine at http://972mag.com/watch-hanin-zoabi-israel-has-no-right-to-live-in-security/36847/

Finkelstein, #BDS and the destruction of Israel

By Ali Abunimah
Originally posted by Al Jazeera English at http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/2012227111759385177.html 

Norman Finkelstein's views on the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement may be somewhat shortsighted.

Contrary to Finkelstein's claim that the BDS movement would lead to the 'destruction' of Israel, one can simply look to Ireland as an example of a lasting two-state solution [GALLO/GETTY]

Chicago, IL - In a recent and highly controversial interview, Norman Finkelstein, long a scourge of Israel, turned his guns on Palestinians and their supporters. He accused the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement of being a "cult", and claimed that its achievements were mostly exaggerated. But what exercised Finkelstein most was his conclusion that if implemented, the demands of the 2005  Palestinian civil society call for BDS, would amount to "the destruction of Israel". Finkelstein lay into the three "tiers" of the BDS call: that Israel end its occupation of Arab lands conquered in 1967; that it end all forms of discrimination and guarantee equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel; and that it respect and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees, including the right of return. "They don't want Israel," Finkelstein declared, "They think they're being very clever. They call it their three tiers... We want the end of the occupation, we want the right of return, and we want equal rights for Arabs in Israel. And they think they are very clever, because they know the result of implementing all three is what? What's the result? You know and I know what's the result: there's no Israel."  US activists urge boycott of Israeli companies Finkelstein demanded that Palestinians drop this programme, "Because, if we end the occupation and  bring back six million Palestinians and we have equal rights for Arabs and Jews, there's no Israel."  He also insisted that a "two-state solution" was the only outcome supported by international law. Putting the BDS call to the test For the sake of argument, let's put Finkelstein's thesis to the test. But before I do that, let me make clear  where I stand. As is well known, I support, and believe, that the eventual outcome in historic Palestine  will be a single state. Many supporters of the BDS movement, including some of its founders  are on record calling for the same. But the BDS call itself is agnostic, focusing on the rights of  Palestinians, not on state arrangements - something Finkelstein insisted was mere deception. Here, I am going to do what I normally never do. Argue the case for a two-state solution that meets all the demands of the BDS call. Moreover, it should meet fully with Finkelstein's approval as well, because it will be based on a solution that he himself endorsed. "I just came back from Northern Ireland," Finkelstein said in his interview, "They found a settlement. You talk to Protestants, you talk to Catholics. Most people are willing to live with it. You know there are some people who find it unacceptable. But [for] most people, it's ok, we can live with it. I think you can find a settlement to Israel/Palestine that virtually everybody, particularly Palestinians, can live with." The question then will be whether Finkelstein and his new Zionist champions (his interview was widely and gleefully distributed by anti-Palestinian websites and commentators) could accept a solution that applies the very same principles in historic Palestine as were endorsed on the island of Ireland. A quick history: Settler colonialism and partition Conflicts in Ireland and Palestine are the legacies of settler-colonialism facilitated by Britain. In each case, the settler-colonial intervention created two mutually exclusive claims to sovereignty, legitimacy and self-determination underpinned by two diametrically opposed narratives, and a material reality of one community long monopolising state power, resources and symbols to dominate and denigrate the other. In both cases, the British imposed or facilitated partitions, which rather than resolve the underlying problem, simply converted the conflict into new forms of antagonism. Every historical situation, including those in Palestine and Ireland, is distinct, yet comparisons are possible and useful, and in these two cases the similarities are more important than the differences.  Riz Khan: Racism in  Northern Ireland Irish nationalists point to an 800-year history of British colonialism, but the modern conflict can be traced to the colonisation of the northeast part of the island, beginning in early 1600s. As British authorities granted land to Protestant settlers from England and Scotland, native Catholics were forcibly displaced in large numbers, a process very similar to how Zionist settlers displaced, and continue to displace, Palestinians. Although Britain annexed Ireland in 1801, repeated Irish nationalist rebellions made the question of granting Irish "home rule" the central controversy in British politics through much of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Unionists, generally comprised of the ascendant and long-settled Protestant population, were adamantly opposed to home rule, fearing it would threaten their privileged status. In 1912, Unionist militancy, military preparations and threats of violence succeeded in forestalling British attempts to implement home rule. Meanwhile, Irish nationalists, predominantly Catholic, gained increasing support for independence - especially after the British executed the leaders of the failed 1916 Easter Rising in which an "Irish Republic" was proclaimed. In the 1918 election to the British parliament, the republican party Sinn Fein won a landslide of Irish seats on a platform of total independence from Britain. Following a guerilla war between British and republican forces that ended in stalemate, the sides signed the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty establishing the Irish Free State, an autonomous "dominion" of the British Empire, that eventually became the Republic of Ireland. But its territory covered only 26 of Ireland's 32 counties. To appease unionists, the British simultaneously partitioned the island, forming Northern Ireland, an autonomous self-governing state linked to Britain, gerrymandered to have a two-thirds Protestant majority.  A Protestant state for a Protestant people Northern Ireland became a unionist-run, one-party state. Nationalist resistance to partition was violently suppressed by British forces and unionist militia. Within a year of partition, hundreds of Catholics were killed in Belfast, 11,000 were forced from their jobs, and 22,000 - a quarter of the city's Catholic population - were driven from their homes. In the widely quoted formula attributed to Northern Ireland's first prime minister, Lord Craigavon, the state's seat of government at Stormont Castle was a "Protestant parliament for a Protestant people". Catholics experienced severe discrimination in employment, housing, and all aspects of political and cultural life. They viewed Northern Ireland as an illegitimate imposition, and its security forces as Protestant sectarian militia guaranteeing unionist dominance. Unionism viewed any effort to create a united Ireland as a mortal threat. In 1990, for example, James Molyneaux, leader of the then dominant Ulster Unionist Party, described the Republic of Ireland's constitutional claim to the north as "a demand for the destruction of Northern Ireland" that was "equivalent to Hitler's claim over Czechoslovakia". This language resembles that used by Zionists and Norman Finkelstein to describe any fundamental reform of the Israeli state to end its systematic discrimination against non-Jews, let alone a one-state solution, as tantamount to Israel's "destruction". Obsession with demography At partition, Catholics were a third of the population in Northern Ireland. By 2001 they were 44 per cent. Just as Israelis are obsessed with the "demographic threat" from the births of Palestinians, fear of a relatively high Catholic birthrate - which could provide the Catholic majority in the north needed to reunify Ireland - was a recurrent theme in unionist discourse. "The basic fear of Protestants in Northern Ireland," a former prime minister said, "is that they will be out-bred by the Roman Catholics. It is simple as that."  Equality for all or the 'destruction of Israel'? In the mid-1960s, after almost 50 years of unionist rule, nationalists mobilised a civil rights movement modelled on the one in the United States - demanding equal citizenship and an end to systematic discrimination against Catholics. This departed from traditional republicanism, which had focused on ending partition, but the unionist state perceived even demands for equal rights within Northern Ireland as an attack on Protestant "identity" and the very existence of the state. Unionists responded to calls for equality and reform with violence, and, as in the 1920s, Catholics were once again subjected to pogroms. During Israel's December 2008 to January 2009 invasion of the Gaza Strip, which killed more than 1,400 Palestinians, the vast majority of which were civilians, veteran Irish journalist Patrick Cockburn wrote in The Independent that Israeli society reminded him "more than ever of the unionists in Northern Ireland in the late 1960s". Like Israelis, he wrote, unionists were a community "with a highly developed siege mentality which led them always to see themselves as victims even when they were killing other people. There were no regrets or even knowledge of what they inflicted on others and therefore any retaliation by the other side appeared as unprovoked aggression inspired by unreasoning hate". This is why Palestinian citizens of Israel and their representatives in the Knesset such as Hanin Zoabi, face ever more hostile rhetoric and discriminatory bills and laws - from loyalty oaths, to bans on commemorating the Nakba, to provisions reserving jobs and land for army veterans (effectively favouring Jews) to the Citizenship Law that makes it impossible for Israeli citizens to bring Palestinian or other Arab spouses to  live in the country (Ben White's new book Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy  is an excellent primer).Indeed, Israel's reaction to Palestinian demands for equal citizenship mimics the unionist response to the nationalist campaign for equality in Northern Ireland almost precisely. Israel also characterises these demands as an existential threat, a tacit acknowledgment that inequality and discrimination are foundational elements of the Israeli state. As Finkelstein succinctly put it, "equal rights means the end of Israel". In short, Israel has responded to calls for equal citizenship with the insistence that it must be recognised as a "Jewish and democratic state". Just as Northern Ireland unionists insisted on a Protestant state for a Protestant people at the expense of Catholics and their human rights, 21st century Zionists demand a Jewish state for a Jewish people at the expense of Palestinians. 'The Troubles' Unionists' violent rejection of nationalist demands for equality in the late 1960s inaugurated the three-decade low-level civil war known as "The Troubles" in which more than 3,500 people were killed and 50,000 injured - nearly two per cent of the Northern Ireland population. As violence escalated, the British abolished the unionist government in 1972, imposed direct rule from London, and sent in the British army. The unionist state had collapsed, but the unionist-dominated status quo was preserved, as the army, initially sent in to protect Catholics, quickly began to act and be seen by Catholics as an occupying force. A reconstituted Irish Republican Army (IRA) resumed armed struggle, initially in defence of Catholic communities, but later went on the offensive against the police, army and unionist militia (known as "loyalists"). The IRA and other republican armed groups also carried out bomb attacks and political assassinations which killed noncombatants, including in Britain. British tactics included curfews, internment (imprisonment without charge or trial similar to Israel's "administrative detention", also a legacy of British colonial rule in Palestine), assassinations and extrajudicial executions, and there was extensive and now well-documented collusion between state forces and the loyalist militia that killed hundreds of noncombatant Catholics in brutal sectarian attacks. A two-state solution in Ireland In 1998, Unionists and Nationalists signed the Belfast Agreement. It established, in effect, a bi-national state in Northern Ireland where Irish nationalists share power with pro-British unionists. It did not abolish Northern Ireland, but it did banish, once and for all, the "Protestant state" and enshrined equality as a fundamental principle. The agreement notably does not resolve whether the six counties that form Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or rejoin a united Ireland, but it establishes principles and mechanisms for determining where sovereignty should lie and what would happen if it changes. Crucially, it the agreement states whether Northern Ireland remains part of the UK, or becomes part of a united Ireland, "the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities." Northern Ireland has no 'right to exist' This was made possible because the British effectively abandoned any claim that Northern Ireland as an entity had a "right" to exist. A breakthrough moment came in 1992 when the UK Secretary of State for Northern Ireland conceded that "provided it is advocated constitutionally, there can be no proper reason for excluding any political objective from discussion. Certainly not the objective of a united Ireland..." As part of the agreement, nationalists conceded that the reunification of Ireland could only come about by the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland. Consequently, the Belfast Agreement did not recognise any separate right to self-determination for unionists as unionists or Protestants as Protestants that would be analogous to a specifically Jewish right to self-determination within historic Palestine. Unionists enjoy the right to participate in self-determination, along with nationalists, as legitimate residents of the territory. No more, no less.  Freedom of movement and citizenship There is complete freedom of movement, residency and cross-border employment (something guaranteed in any case under European Union rules) between the two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland and the right to full citizenship in either or both states. Moreover, such citizenship cannot be revoked from any person even if the status of Northern Ireland changes. There is nothing to stop Catholics moving north or Protestants moving south. In order to reverse the long history of discrimination, public bodies and officials in Northern Ireland are under a statutory obligation to promote equality among individuals and communities, and safeguards enacted in British and Irish law are designed to ensure that practices conform to European and international human rights standards. Employment anti-discrimination measures in Northern Ireland are strictly enforced, and although Catholics are still, on average, poorer than Protestants, the gap has narrowed. A form of 1980s solidarity activism in the United States - somewhat analogous to BDS - demanded that US firms doing business in Northern Ireland adhere to the MacBride Principles, which forbid any form of sectarian discrimination. A model for historic Palestine? The Belfast Agreement preserves an existing "two-state solution" in Ireland unless and until people in both jurisdictions choose any other arrangement. But in the meantime, it required one of the states - Northern Ireland - to transform into an inclusive democracy from an oppressive ethnocracy. The agreement also required the Republic of Ireland to strengthen its own human rights and equality guarantees. So if Northern Ireland is the model, how would it transpose to Palestine? Clearly, Israel would have to become, like Northern Ireland, a bi-national state with strict equality and full representation for all citizens. All laws privileging Jews would have to be abolished and strong measures taken to redress historic and present injustices and prevent future discrimination. A Palestinian state would have to be no less committed to equality. There would be complete freedom of movement and residency between Israel and the Palestinian state, and because ethnic and racial privileges would have to be abolished, Palestinian refugees could exercise their right to return to the state of their choice and gain citizenship in either. The Republic of Ireland grants citizenship to any person from abroad with one grandparent born in Ireland, regardless of religion or ethnic background. A similar law could replace Israel's racist "Law of Return" that grants citizenship only to Jews while discriminating against Palestinians. Jews would have no separate right of self-determination, but like Protestants in Northern Ireland, would enjoy full democratic rights to participate in self-determination as residents of the territory. All these principles underpin the Belfast Agreement and yet they did not mean the "destruction of Northern Ireland". What they rightly did away with is ethno-religious privileges for Protestants at the expense of Catholics. So the question then for Norman Finkelstein and Zionists who are horrified by the idea of a one-state solution, is: could they accept two states on such terms? If the answer is yes, then it is clear that the BDS call is completely compatible with a two-state solution, and Finkelstein should withdraw his claim that this is mere deception. If Finkelstein and Zionists cannot accept a two-state solution on these terms, then we know it is not the number of states that concerns them. Rather, their priority is to preserve racial and colonial privileges for Jews at the expense of fundamental Palestinian rights. That is something Palestinians and their allies, as with nationalists in Northern Ireland, can never - and must never - accept, no matter how many states exist in their respective homelands. Ali Abunimah is author of One Country, A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse.  He is a co-founder of the online publication The Electronic Intifada and a policy adviser with  Al-Shabaka. Follow on Twitter him at: @AliAbunimah ~ reposted by Sofia Smith

Three videos you should have a look at! #Palestine #BDS #IsraeliApartheid

Mbuyiseni Ndlozi - Israeli Apartheid Week, London. 22.2.12

Originally posted by sternchenproductions at http://youtu.be/iNbZjTlpM6w

Joseph Dana talks about the Anti-Boycott Law in Israel - 17.11.11 17.11.11

Originally posted by sternchenproductions at http://youtu.be/fgGV9jgw3no

Ben White book launch - 'Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy'

Originally posted by sternchenproductions at http://youtu.be/bzhD32yqg18

~ Sofia Smith

Students Physically Attacked for Interrupting Israel Talk in New Mexico

A short note before you read this article and look at the videos...I have seen the videos and I have read a number of articles on this incident. But why have I not heard of any arrests and charges of assault being laid against the people who assaulted the dissenting students (as proven by the videos you can view below)? Because I can bet you anything that if it had been Palestinians or Arabs who decided to beat on the dissenters (which incidentally would not happen), every one of them would be in jail! 

Someone please explain this to me! Or on second thought, please don't. This is a rhetorical question.

~ Sofia Smith

-----------------------

Originally posted by the Atlantic Wire at http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/02/students-physically-attacked-interrupting-israel-talk-new-mexico/49120/

Written by Alexander Abad-Santos

A group of University of New Mexico students "mic checked" an Israel Alliance talk on their campus Thursday night, when audience members got up out of their seats and physically attacked the protesting students.

"Mic check! Nonie Darwish speaks for Israeli apartheid!," yell the students at around 15 seconds into the video.  "And genocide at the hands of the IDF [Israeli army]!” From there, older male audience members begin to slowly walk their way up to the students (some of them young women), and start physically pushing and attacking them. At 55 seconds in, you can see one of the students goes flying over a row of seats.

We're still trying to gather the facts on this story, but according to the promotional flyer (right),  the title of the talk was "Why the Arab Spring Is Failing" and was being lead by speaker Nonie Darwish.  

According to uploader of the video, the students eventually filed a police report.  (Un)Occupy Albuquerque has this statement on the video:

A group of people, who were acting in solidarity with the Palestinian people, questioned Darwish's fear-mongering and her unqualified support for Israel. They were shouted down by pro-Israel members in the audience, who assaulted a woman, pulled her hair, and forcibly pushed another person over a row of seats. A third person was punched in the face. Pro-Israel members also destroyed a phone that was used to record the assault.

And here's one more angle of the protest and scuffle:

We'll keep up with this story and add updates as they come in.