Talks Fail to Bring About Compromise – UCSD Guardian

On May 6, 2010, In In The News, News, By ucsddivest

UCSD Guardian Poll: Should the AS Council Condemn Alleged Israeli Human Rights Violations?

(Link to UCSD Guardian article)

By Angela Chen

The A.S. Campus Affairs Committee voted 7-8 last night to indefinitely table a controversial resolution calling for the UC system to divest from General Electric and United Technologies — companies the document claims are profiting from alleged Israeli human-rights violations in the Palestinian territories.

Because the resolution was tabled during the committee meeting, it was not brought up during the council meeting last night, and will not be brought up again next year unless the resolution is rewritten and submitted as a new item.

Campuswide Senator and A.S. President-elect Wafa Ben Hassine, a member of the committee, said the issue was tabled because councilmembers thought it was repetitive to vote on an issue that had not changed since the prior debate.

“People used the rhetoric that we’d been through the same discussion last year, and since it was the same legislation, we didn’t want to go over it again,” Ben Hassine said.

Arts and Humanities Senator Omar Khan said he originally wanted to re-discuss the resolution at last night’s meeting, but withdrew it because he worried it would divide the campus.

“I tried to pull it from committee because I was unaware that this is an issue that could be brought up again,” he said. “I withdrew the motion because I realized that failing it or approving it would create a schism between the communities, and we want to continue the conversation.”

The resolution was first proposed at last week’s meeting, which drew an audience of over 200 students. During that meeting, councilmembers amended the original resolution to remove any mention of specific nations or companies, revising it to state that the council should condemn all war crimes in general. A special committee was then charged to review the resolution. It included representatives from both SJP and Tritons for Israel, the latter of which opposed the original language.

SJP member Leena Barakat, who helped draft the original resolution, said the two groups were unable to agree as to whether Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip could be considered human rights violations, or whether Israel should be classified as an occupying force.

“They couldn’t agree that internationally recognized, documented human rights violations have occurred,” Barakat said. “They tried to play it off as opinion. They have accused these organizations — United Nations, Amnesty International — of bias, and they have made it clear that they don’t believe in unconditional human rights.”

TFI member Lior Abramson said the issue is unrelated to whether a certain group recognizes Israel’s actions as human rights violations.

“I think the wording of the resolution implied that if you weren’t for it, you didn’t support human rights, and that’s not true at all,” Abramson said. “I support human rights, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t, but we cannot support divestment from a company that supports the Israeli Defense Forces, which are what keeps our friends and family safe back home.”

She added that TFI has not yet taken an official stance on whether “occupancy” is an accurate word to describe Israel’s actions in the Palestinian territories.

“The committee didn’t work because our goals were mutually exclusive,” Abramson said. “As a gesture, since no student fees directly go toward investment in Israel, it is anti-Israel — and we are a pro-Israel community.”

SJP member Chris Westling said that multiple students in the TFI community have expressed support for the resolution.

“There are at least 15 campus orgs that support our cause, and a very small number of one — one that’s fragmented anyway, and one in which many members support our resolution —  which is essentially exercising veto power,” he said.

TFI member Daniel Friedman and Abramson disagreed with Westling’s claim.

“As with all good Jewish communities, there’s a lot of opinions and a lot of things going on,” Friedman said. “But at the end of the day, when we sit down and discussed it, everyone came to the same consensus. On the TFI executive board, there were different opinions voiced, but it’s a democratic thing. We voted, and what came out of the vote is what was represtend by the elected officials at committee.”

Abramson said that, though there may be individual disagreements within TFI, the group itself remains united.

“We are 100 percent unified on this issue,” she said. “Of course, people have individual opinions, but we have a board that decides for the group, and if anyone was angered by our decision, they would have left and not been in our group.”

A.S. Associate Vice President of Enterprise Operations and SJP member Rishi Ghosh said he wishes to see the council continue pursuing the issue.

“My idea toward the council is that you can run but you can’t hide,” he said. “Good things have happened, and I’m excited to further work with the pro-Israel community, but I’m confident that people will continue to work for this.”

Friedman said the indefinite tabling of the resolution is a welcome end to the debate.

“It’s not the ideal thing, but it’s what [the committee] decided,” Friedman said. “Hopefully now the communities will start working together to have conversation about the topic and bring them together.”

Ghosh said it is possible that a similar resolution will be proposed to the 2010-11 council, which takes office next week.

“It might have more success next year with a new council, if those new senators are willing to read the legislation and not just listen to the rhetoric surrounding it,” Ghosh said.

Abramson said that TFI will continue to oppose the divestment resolution if it is reintroduced next year.

“If this resolution comes up next year, TFI will keep coming out and speaking out against it,” Abramson said.

Readers can contact Angela Chen at shchen@ucsd.edu.

Tagged with: • • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Taskforce Guest Commentary in UCSD Guardian

On May 3, 2010, In In The News, Op-Ed, By ucsddivest

Historic Opportunity at Hand

By Anfal Awwad, Benjamin Balthaser, Oliver Burchill, Amal Dalmar and Aaron Dimsdale

Task Force, A.S. Divestment Resolution 2010

We have a historic opportunity to stop our university from contributing to the violation of human rights. This is a controversial issue, as all movements for social justice are.

But let us be clear: The controversy surrounding the Peace and Neutrality Through UC Divestment From U.S. Corporations Profiting From Occupation resolution has not been created by any student group on campus, but by the University of California’s decision to invest in corporations involved in tremendous violations of international law.

Two of these corporations are General Electric and United Technologies. They were mentioned in the resolution for their involvement in well-documented human-rights abuses in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These are not casual accusations: These corporations have been well-researched, and the fact is that our university has invested $136 million in General Electric and its subsidiaries, which contributes to the manufacturing and delivery of weapons in these occupied territories. Because many students have relatives who live in occupied territories, such investments force them, in effect, to fund the bombs that are dropped on their families. This is not a choice any student should have to make.

Due to the UC system’s involvement, the conflict in Israel and Palestine may be a difficult one to hear about, but it is not a difficult one to understand. The Palestinian people suffer from the longest ongoing illegal military occupation in the world. No matter how you spin it, a military occupation by another power implies the curtailment of civil liberties and the lack of democracy.

So why write a resolution that references Israel, one might ask? The answer is simple. The U.S. gives the Israeli government approximately $8 million a day, and the vast majority of that money is spent on its military. That sum is more than we give to any other country in the world. This money is often used for illegal war materials such as white phosphorus, which was banned by the 1980 Geneva Convention because it creates horrific burns that continue long after contact with human flesh.

After the 23-day Gaza siege last year resulted in 1,400 deaths at the hands of the Israeli military, institutions such as Amnesty International and the Red Cross confirmed that white phosphorous bombs were indeed used. But this does not do much to describe the daily abuses of Palestinians in the occupied territories: Palestinians must endure long waits at check points, illegal searches and seizures, the demolition of their homes, “Israeli only” bypass roads, a lack of access to clean water, skyrocketing unemployment, a wall separating farmers from access to their fields and the humiliation of another nation deciding the budget on everything from schools to roads.

Our Associated Students now have the opportunity to stand up against the injustice inflicted against the Palestinian people, and to demand that our university is never involved in a single bomb being dropped on a fellow human being ever again.

Many will say this resolution is biased — and we could not agree more. This resolution is biased for human rights, justice and equality. It is biased against bombs and military occupation. Many will also try to argue that this resolution is singling Israel out, and is therefore anti-Israel. However, this bill does not condemn one oppressive apartheid regime more than any other. If Spain were occupying Palestine, then this resolution would note that Spanish occupation and seek to divest from it.

This week Chris Cruz, chair of A.S. Resolution-Writing Committee On Peace and Neutrality, will publicly meet with the nine-person committee to discuss whether or not the Peace and Neutrality Through UC Divestment From U.S. Corporations Profiting from Occupation resolution will remain the same.

But do not fall victim to the fiction that the current military policies of the state of Israel represent the Jewish identity. There are an increasing number of Jewish and Israeli voices calling for an end to the occupation, including organizations such as B’Tselem, Jewish Voice for Peace, Meretz-Yachad, Gush Shalom and many others. These organizations see the occupation as both morally wrong and harmful to Israeli society. These broad coalitions include Holocaust survivors, rabbis and many other people of conscience who object to the terrible indignity that is forced upon the Palestinian people by right-wing extremists in their name.

In fact, occupation is a right-wing political platform in Israel. Many Jewish citizens oppose it. So, if someone tells you that he is “for Israel” but only represents this side of the controversy, he’s not telling you the full story.

Let this resolution become the piece of legislation that defines our generation. Let it be known that UCSD will not go on one more day until the money that is spent toward the oppression of Palestine is not in its hands any longer. We must remember that UC students have a long history of standing up for human rights. When Nelson Mandela was let out of prison, he thanked the UC students for their relentless work in divesting from the apartheid regime in South Africa.

We have a legacy; we have a place in the struggle that we cannot ignore any longer. It is time that the UC students take our rightful place in the fight for human rights. We can no longer sit idly by as our university supports the alienation and the racist treatment of a group of people, no matter who they might be. Yes, it will mean an uncomfortable conversation about things we’d rather not think about — but when has that ever stopped us before?

http://www.ucsdguardian.org/opinion/historic-opportunity-at-hand/

Tagged with: • • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Council Delays Decision On Human Rights Violations – UCSD Guardian

On April 30, 2010, In In The News, News, By ucsddivest

After emotional public input and a complete rewrite of the divestment resolution, proponents plan to reintroduce original language next week.

Posted on 29 April 2010 by Angela Chen

John Hanacek/Guardian

Hundreds of students gathered at the A.S. Forum last night to watch the council debate a controversial resolution calling for the University of California to stop investing in companies providing military technology to Israel. The resolution identified the Palestinian territories as being occupied by a military force guilty of committing human rights violations against the Palestinian people. The council ultimately voted 13-10-4 to create a committee to further discuss the resolution.

The resolution, which was modeled after a similar effort at UC Berkeley, called for the UC Board of Regents to divest endowment funds from corporations such as General Electric and United Technologies. According to the resolution, these companies manufacture technology used in military weapons and vehicles, such as helicopters, used in war crimes in the Middle East.

According to Associate Vice President of Enterprise Operations Rishi Ghosh — who helped draft the document — the resolution is not the first of its kind. However, Ghosh said, if it had passed, it would have been the first recognition of Israel’s war crimes to be approved at a public university. Hampshire College, a private college in Massachusetts, has already divested entirely from the state of Israel. (The resolution considered by the council last night only advocated a break from corporations said to profit from Israel’s alleged war crimes.)

The bill drew students from campus groups such as Tritons for Israel and Students for Justice in Palestine, who spoke during the public input period at the beginning of the meeting.

Campuswide Senator-elect Elizabeth Elman said the resolution encouraged the university to adopt a neutral stance in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by divesting from companies that support Israel’s actions in the conflict.

“I’ve heard that passing this resolution will divide our UCSD community on an issue that is far removed from this campus,” she said. “I would argue that we are already divided. I believe that discussing this resolution is the first step in reuniting our community. This resolution divests from American companies whose business solely benefits the war efforts of one side in this conflict will help restore the neutrality that our student body so vocally desires.”

However, Tritons for Israel President Dafna Barzilay argued that the legislation was biased and that passing it would alienate the pro-Israel community on campus. She said that the pro-Israel committee had been unfairly excluded from the drafting of the resolution and that the pro-Israel community had only three days to formulate a response before the vote at last night’s A.S. Council meeting.

“My community is feeling threatened, and we’re feeling unsafe,” she said. “One thing I would like to urge is that this is not a pro-peace resolution. It is marketed to be one — however, I would like to maintain that peace incorporates talks, negotiations and respects from both sides of any conflicted forces and this kind of movement should not be one that’s done overnight.”

According to A.S. Director of Policy Initiatives Mac Zilber, the money invested into G.E. and United Technologies does not come from tuitions or student fees — as the resolution states — but instead is derived from private donations. In addition, he said that the investment money supporters the capital unit of G.E., which is a commercial leasing unit of the company and is not involved in providing military technology overseas.

Following public input, councilmembers began to discus whether the resolution was an appropriate topic to discuss.  A motion by Campuswide Senator Katie Hall to table the motion indefinitely failed 13-16-2 with 13 members voting in favor of tabling, 16 voting against and 3 abstaining.

Vice President of Student Life Ricsie Hernandez proposed that the original version of the resolution be amended and instead be replaced with a version created by Campuswide Senator Tobias Haglund. Haglund’s version removes all mention of Israel or Palestine and instead states that the council does not condone the financial support of companies that invest in military occupation in any country.

Ghosh said he would support the amended version of the resolution.

“That version was terribly watered down and a lot of people in our community weren’t happy with it, but I would have voted for it,” Ghosh said.

The amendment passed, but the issue was eventually voted to be discharged into a committee chaired with Speaker James Lintern, who resigned from the position at the end of the meeting.

“I didn’t volunteer for this position and this committee is going to fail in a big way,” he said. “I didn’t have good experiences with the council on this last year, and nothing’s going to happen with it.”

Hall, who voted for the issue to be discharged, argued that the debate should be resolved only once both groups have had equal input into the resolution.

“My problem is that there are members of Students for Justice in Palestine on this council, but there are hardly any members of Tritons for Israel on this council to have their voices be heard on this resolution,” Hall said.

Ghosh said that he was disappointed with the outcome since the original resolution had already been so radically altered.

“The last compromise really could have been passed, it was very transparent,” he said. “They knew it was about to pass so they voted it into committee where people can keep bringing up new things.”

Ghosh said that he would bring up the resolution again at the 2009-10 council’s final meeting of the year, which will be held next week.

“Next time I won’t bring up the compromised document but instead the original document,” he said. “I’m just going to keep bringing it up again and again and it might take 10 years, but divestment will pass.”

Readers can contact Angela Chen at shchen@ucsd.edu.

Tagged with: • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

With Roundabout Politics in Play, No One Leaves Happy – UCSD Guardian

On April 29, 2010, In In The News, Op-Ed, By ucsddivest

After six hours of back-and-forth emotion on a controversial resolution to acknowledge Israeli war crimes, the A.S. Council did nothing but waste an opportunity to promote awareness.

Posted on 29 April 2010 By Editorial Board

Rebekah Hwang/Guardian

As much as we rag on our student leaders for wasting valuable floor time making empty statements — aka resolutions, or press releases proclaiming the student body’s stance on a major issue — we do admit there are certain moments at which they are not entirely worthless.

Seeing as the A.S. Council isn’t in the position to do anything concrete about global problems (besides maybe allot $370 to InterVarsity to throw a Haiti fundraiser), its greatest power in affecting change might be turning a few more heads to a cause — a cause greater than fighting the unjust confinement of the Sun God Festival to RIMAC Field.

For example, the A.S. movement to divest university money from South Africa in 1986 was a clear statement the students could make to push international injustice into public discourse. In the end, the university did withdraw $3 billion from investments in South Africa — partially due to the will of its student government.

Just a week ago, though, an especially contentious resolution hit the A.S. listserv: the Resolution in Support of Peace and Neutrality Through UC Divestment From U.S. Corporations Profiting From Occupation. In other words: the resolution to withdraw UC funds from two large U.S. companies that sell military technology to Israel.

Though the document would have — like another resolution to divest from Sudan in 2005 — taken a daring stance against financial support for oppressive violence, it specifically targeted (yet simultaneously avoided the specific mention of) Israel, which was blatantly implied to be the occupier in question.

The UC investment in Israel is especially roundabout; General Electric and United Technology provide hundreds of other services and products within our own country, and the university does invest anywhere that could fund Israeli weaponry in particular (nor in the form of student fees). For that reason, the divestment would be very symbolic — the symbol being that we condemn Israel for its wartime actions, and anyone who supports those actions. Thing is, many students do not see the issue quite so black-and-white; that’s where the A.S. Council’s constituents are divided, and have been for years.

The council tried to pass a clearer version of this resolution last year; it didn’t pass, because of a similar divide on whether wartime crimes are indeed being committed (or at least whether that fact should be amended by Israel’s reasons for violence). But if the resolution’s only hope to pass is with its clear objective masked in “evil corporation” language, it is divisive. If it had been voted through council last night in its current form, it would not have represented the interests of the student body.

When an elected student council (mostly made up of students most invested in controversial issues like these — though their political stances are rarely clear to voters throughout the campaign) makes a decision still so contended by its constituents, it’s a false statement, and devalues the resolution as a form of mass speech. It is a room of 20-odd students stating their opinion like it matters more than the rest of ours.

We do not so much mean to say that maintaining a pristine campus climate should be the priority; there are always two sides when it comes to war, and the tension is justified. Instead, the A.S. Council should strive for complete honesty in its resolution language and a maximum effort toward education. The best thing we can do for either Israel or the Palestinian people is alert those around us to exactly what is going on in that region.

Whether or not it is in self-defense, the United Nations and Amnesty International have both recognized that Israel is indeed committing human-rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The sentiment that a resolution stating as much would make members of the pro-Israel community feel “unsafe” is overstated. Criticizing a government for committing war crimes is a far cry from criticizing a people, or even a country. The terrorist acts committed by the Palestinian side are widely condemned; however, because the Jewish homeland has always been a fragile topic — and a country we’re tied to in more ways than one — the U.S. is among the last countries in the world to recognize those crimes.

But there are two sides, and both need to be heard. The council should have at least sent out the resolution over the all-campus listserv before considering it in a room with extremists from both sides. So, in a way, as boring and half-assed a decision it was to push the resolution back to be revisited next week, it’ll make us keep considering the facts. Even if the resolution must be re-proposed each quarter, we hope its language can become clear enough to address the true wrongdoings in question — which belong more to a government than a weapons manufacturer — and promote teach-ins, Library Walk info booths and enough open-air hubbub to foster the kind of informed interest this topic deserves.

http://www.ucsdguardian.org/opinion/editorials/with-roundabout-politics-in-play-no-one-leaves-happy/

Tagged with: • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

UCSD Guardian: A.S. Resolution Draws Criticism From Pro-Israel Groups

On April 26, 2010, In In The News, News, By ucsddivest

Proponents say the measure is meant to condemn human-rights violations worldwide.

Posted on 26 April 2010 By Angela Chen

An A.S. resolution demanding that the university stop working with companies associated with human-rights violations has come under fire from members of the pro-Israel campus community.

The resolution was drafted by members of several campus organizations — including Students for Justice in Palestine and the Student Sustainability Collective — and approved by Transfer Senator Adam Powers and Campuswide Senator Desiree Prevo. According to Associate Vice President of Enterprise Operations Rishi Ghosh — a co-sponsor of the resolution — the council was inspired by a similar effort at UC Berkeley, where the resolution passed 16-4 in the student Senate, but was eventually vetoed by Berkeley A.S. President Will Smelko.

The resolution calls for the UC system to stop investing in companies such as General Electric and United Technologies, which supporters of the resolution claim promote violence by providing technology — such as helicopters and aircraft engines — to warring countries around the world.

Sixth College senior Leena Barakat — who helped draft the resolution — said the UCSD version was altered to ensure that it condemned human-rights violations as a whole, and not specifically actions taken by the state of Israel. According to Barakat, it is the second such resolution to be proposed at an American university, the first being at Berkeley.

“We really tried to make the bill more universal and clarify that to uphold the ideals of corporate social responsibility, we should divest from U.S. companies that are benefitting from occupancies elsewhere,” Barakat said. “The bill is really watered down from the one at Berkeley, which directly targeted Israel — but we mention other areas such as Iran and Morocco. It is not anti-Israel.”

She acknowledged that any official change in the university’s investment procedures would have to be decided by the UC Board of Regents, but said that similar resolutions have been influential in the past. She referred specifically to an instance when Nelson Mandela identified the university’s divestment from South Africa as an important factor in ending the apartheid reign in that country.

“Of course, the actual decision will go to the regents, but it is a call to divest to show that we are listening and we understand,” Barakat said.

A.S. Engineering Senator Adi Singer — a member of the pro-Israel community and creator of the Facebook group “Students Against ASUCSD Anti-Israel Bias and Resolutions” — said the resolution is a pointed attack against Israel.

“It’s a very thinly veiled political statement,” Singer said. “If it’s about all human-rights violations, why are there a ton of citings specifically about Gaza and very few about anywhere else?”

Although Ghosh said the resolution has received endorsements from groups such as Jewish Voices for the Peace and that information in the resolution regarding companies profiting from occupancy was provided by the United Nations, Singer maintained that the draft is biased.

“My main issue with this is that it’s very one-sided,” Singer said. “It’s not hard to find news sources that support your point of view. I can go on the Internet right now and find tons of sources that say that the Holocaust never happened.”

She added that the resolution would be detrimental to relations between Israeli and Palestinian interest groups on campus.

“Say what you want about it — the intent is clear,” she said. “The pro-Israel community has been trying really hard to build relations with the pro-Palestine community, and we would never bring up a resolution against Hamas.”

Tritons for Israel President Dafna Barzilay said it is not the council’s place to pass resolutions pertaining to international issues.

“We don’t support any such resolutions, even if it was pro-Israel or anti-Hamas,” she said. “It’s not the business of A.S. to support international problems that require that scale of spending and is not directly related to the university.”

In contrast, Ghosh said it is the council’s duty to be aware of global issues.

“If they believe that, why weren’t they there when we passed a resolution to support Haiti with allocations?” he asked. “Why weren’t they in the past, when we’ve been fighting for human rights in Sudan, fair trade in Africa?”

He said the resolution is meant to be a politically-neutral gesture.

“It is not anti-Israel,” he said. “Israel was very cleverly kept out of it.”

Barzilay said that, regardless of past circumstances, it is doubtful the resolution will have any effect other than dividing the campus.

“What will it do realistically?” she said. “I don’t think the regents will divest from these companies, and, in the grand scheme of things, I don’t think it will help create peace in any way.”

The council will discuss the passage of the resolution at their meeting this Wednesday, April 30, at 6 p.m. in the Price Center East forum.

Readers can contact Angela Chen at shchen@ucsd.edu.

http://www.ucsdguardian.org/news/lights-and-sirens/a.s.-resolution-draws-criticism-from-pro-israel-groups/

Tagged with: •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Berkeley Passes Resolution Urging Divestment from Israel By Jake Blanc

On April 25, 2010, In In The News, By admin

Published on The UCSD Guardian. April 06,2010

In the latest of UC incidents pertaining to Israel, UC Berkeley’s A.S. Council passed a controversial resolution last month urging the public divestment of the entire University of California system from Israel, only to see it vetoed by ASUC President Will Smelko a week later.

The resolution called for the university to stop investing financially in companies that provide war supplies to Israel and was passed on March 18 by a 16-4 vote by ASUC senators after a four-hour hearing attended by over 150 students.

Resolution co-author and UC Berkeley graduate student Emiliano Huet-Vaughn said he believes the university has a moral obligation to invest its assets in a manner consistent with the ethics of higher education.

“There’s a very well documented litany of abuses from many human rights abuse organizations,” Huet-Vaughn said.

According to Huet-Vaughn, authors of the resolution spent the past year analyzing the public records of the university’s investment portfolio and singled out two corporations that did not match these criteria: General Electric and United Technologies, both of which have come under fire recently for allegedly indirectly facilitating human rights violations by Israel.

Huet-Vaughn said the university invested $55 million in General Electric and $8 million in United Technologies during the 2009-10 fiscal year and cited reports from organizations such as Amnesty International, the United Nations and the International Red Cross, which accuse the two corporations of manufacturing products involved in carrying out the alleged violations.

“These companies in a very direct and documented way have helped Israel to continue its military occupation and its violation of human rights,” Huet-Vaughn said. “We want to communicate to the regents that we care about responsible investments and that we don’t want to be profiting off of war crimes, whether Israeli or not.”

The outcome of this resolution could have wide-reaching effects on other UC campuses as well, where racial issues and budget crises have been in the spotlight throughout the year.

The resolution follows a string of Israel-related incidents, beginning with Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren’s visits to UC Irvine and UCSD, where he was met with pro-Palestine protesters. During his speech at UCI, 11 students who disrupted his speech — now dubbed the “Irvine 11” were arrested and facing punishment.

UCSD A.S. presidential candidate Wafa Ben Hassine, a member of Students for Justice in Palestine, said the resolution merits attention.

However, Sam Spector, Vice President Internal for UCSD Tritons for Israel, said the students involved in drafting the resolution did not have the qualifications necessary to undertake such measures.

“The Palestinian and Israeli leadership have had a tough enough time over the past 22 years when dialogue was started trying to figure out things for themselves and they haven’t been able to do that,” Spector said. “So I don’t think it makes much sense to have a bunch of 19 and 20-year-olds, most of whom have never been to that land or don’t really have much background on the situation, deciding international policy for the university.”

Supporters of the resolution hope to expand the document’s scope to encourage the university to divest from other nations accused of violating human rights, but feel that Israel’s distinctive place in American foreign policy makes it the necessary starting point.

“Israel deserves attention because of the unique relationship that it has with the U.S. government,” Huet-Vaughn said. “Unlike Sudan or North Korea — where we have sanctions against the countries that we have hostile relations with — Israel is singled out for preferential treatment. It has a double standard where it can commit these human rights abuses and still get $3 billion in military aid a year.”

It is the same singling out of Israel mentioned by Huet-Vaugh that has been the central criticism made by the bill’s opponents.

“[The resolution is] not anti-Israel, it’s anti-Semitic,” Spector said. “There are many countries, including our own, that are taking part in controversial defense measures, including military action. If they pass [those], then they should also pass a resolution saying no investment with Russia or China or Great Britain; you need to apply the same rules to everyone. If you apply that only to the Jewish state, then it’s simply anti-Semitism.”

Smelko said he vetoed the resolution because he believes the deliberation and public input involved in drafting the document was insufficient.

“The magnitude of what was decided and discussed became so big and even though the ASUC senate of Berkeley talked about this issue for four hours, I think that it’s nowhere near enough time,” Smelko said.

Smelko added that a more comprehensive strategy of analyzing divestment must be made before any student government can make a decision.

“I realized that the four-hour discussion that our students had was predominantly based around two-minute public comment periods, based largely on feelings and emotions and not so much [on] analyzing what a divestment strategy of this magnitude would actually be,” Smelko said. “It’s something that clearly, in my mind, needs more thought and discussion.”

Following Smelko’s veto, the resolution returns to UC Berkeley’s student senate no earlier than April 14, where it needs 12 votes out of 20 — representing a two-thirds majority — to overturn the presidential veto in order to permanently pass.

Tagged with: • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response
Go To Top »