LA Middle Eastern Policy Examiner Paul Kujawsky April 16,
It’s been more than a week since the Investigative Project on Terrorism revealed emails that, if authentic, show that the UC Irvine branch of the Muslim Student Union coordinated the disruption of the February campus speech of Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren. The emails also show that the MSU coordinated the subsequent cover-up, in which both the MSU and the arrested demonstrators denied any MSU involvement in the planning or execution of the demonstration. (See “More evidence that UC Irvine MSU lied about not planning disruption of Israeli Ambassador’s talk.“)
If the emails were fake, one would expect the MSU to say so. An aggrieved party would vent its indignation at the calumnious libel. One could imagine that the MSU might speculate that the “Zionists” were concocting forgeries to discredit the MSU. It could attack the credibility of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. After all, the IPT’s founder, Steven Emerson, is regularly denounced as an “Islamophobe.” There could be threats of lawsuits.
The MSU has had nothing to say in defense or explanation. The silence is deafening.
A jury in a criminal jury is required to presume the defendant innocent; and since the defendant has a constitutional right to remain silent, the jury must not draw adverse conclusions from the defendant’s exercise of that right. But the public at large is not constrained from using its common sense, and there need not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt in the court of public opinion.
Any remaining doubts that the damning emails are authentic are fading.
It is also worth noting that the Muslim Public Affairs Council, an early and ardent defender of the MSU and the demonstrators, has had nothing to say on the subject since the emails came out. Silence is not golden in this case.