Some have compared it to a modern day Dreyfus trial. Let us not get carried away with the analogies-as lovely (or scary) as it might be to think that our student government matters, the extent to which it really does is minimal. But the proposed recall of ASUC Senator John Moghtader is not exactly what its most vehement opponents have described it to be; it is indicative of many troubling trends in the Bay Area and the UC Berkeley campus-anti-Zionism and an obsessive focus on delegitimizing Israel, but also intolerance of dissenting opinions and a focus on symbolic acts meant to display one's solidarity with the supposedly oppressed peoples of the world instead of a focus on appropriate policymaking.

Regardless of one's position, a reasonable person must admit that the recall is a tremendous waste of money and resources. The ASUC has one useful function-handing out funding to student groups to make student life mildly more pleasant. The $48,000 projected to be spent on the recall election probably wasn't going to be spent in the most efficient fashion either way, but at least it would have provided Berkeley students with a few more potentially enjoyable or educational activities.

Anyone who has driven down Berkeley's pothole-filled streets is aware that the city government cares more about passing resolutions condemning the Marines and John Yoo than fixing problems it has jurisdiction over. The same type of thinking seems to prevail among many students, who have no qualms spending an exorbitant amount of money to make a point that will have no tangible effect on how the ASUC is conducted. The recall, stripped of its moral context, is silly through a purely utilitarian lens.

Yet, as we recognize the insignificance of student government, the election is not going to take place in a moral vacuum. Rather, it will take place in the context of an attack against the values of tolerance and democracy that the university professes as its ideals. No, not the scuffle at Eshleman, but rather a determined campaign to silence voices that represent the mainstream of American political thought, yet are not in concert with the stranglehold on student political expression symbolized by radical groups such as BAMN, CalSERVE, and, in this particular case, Students for Justice in Palestine.

Among the complaints against John Moghtader is that he allegedly "acted in a way that silences those who espouse views different from his own" by participating in a momentary protest against professor Norman Finkelstein's lecture. Yet, nobody recalls that when eminent Islamologist Dr. Daniel Pipes came to campus in February 2004, SJP and the Muslim Students Association received token reprobation, at best, for interrupting his speech in a manner much more extreme than the walkout on Finkelstein. It is not anything John Moghtader did that is the cause of this recall-it is what he stands for.

One need not agree with Senator Moghtader's views on Israel or even his outspokenness to oppose the recall. Given that that there has been no serious proof of his involvement in the commission of any crime or corruption, a simple respect for democracy ought to lead one to vote no on the recall. Given the way the Judicial Council interpreted the constitutional provision on recalls, a minority group that is entitled to elect a senator, per the proportional representation system, can be deprived of its fair share of representation by a two-thirds vote of all students (as senators can be elected with much less than one-third support from the student body).

As troubling as the intolerance of many on the Berkeley campus is, we must also stand up to the anti-Zionist tendencies that have become so prevalent on campus and in the Bay Area at large. It is these forces that have taken advantage of the university atmosphere in order to create this movement to recall Senator Moghtader. A new fad of some in the extreme left has become equating symbols of Israel, such as the Star of David, to the swastika. Horrifically offensive, almost humorous were it not so tragic in its irony, these comparisons demonstrate the utter depravity of Israel's strongest opponents in the Bay Area.

As gross human rights abuses take place in China, Sudan and Zimbabwe, there is no sense of outrage like the one we routinely witness with each Israeli security operation. Whether an obsessive, disproportionate obsession with denying Israel's right to exist within secure borders as a Jewish state constitutes anti-Semitism is not a question that can be easily answered. But there is no doubt from the extreme nature of the anti-Zionist rhetoric that these elements see advocacy for Israel as beyond the pale in the same sense as advocacy for Nazism would be seen as beyond the pale. John Moghtader's real crime was not attempting to break up an altercation or protesting a lecture-it was becoming President of Tikvah Students for Israel, a group that is not ashamed to be proud of supporting Israel as a Jewish, democratic state.

On Feb. 23 and 24, Berkeley students will head to the polls to vote. I know Mr. Moghtader. He is not a criminal, as some may portray him, nor is he an enemy of free speech. He is an honorable and intelligent man, a dedicated senator, an active member of the UC Berkeley community and a proud lover of Israel. He does not deserve to be recalled. The recall is about whether reasonable Berkeley students will endorse democracy over a blatant power grab. It is about whether Berkeley will make a statement in support of effective government over pointless posturing. And it is about whether we will say "enough is enough" to the extremism of the far-left. For these reasons, please join me in voting no on the ill-conceived recall.