Author: sjpwest

SJP at UCLA Petitions Academic Senate not to Recommend Campus Climate Reports

Click here to download the SJP Letter to Academic Senate

Academic Senate
University of California, Los Angeles

Dear Members of the Academic Senate,

Students for Justice in Palestine at UCLA is a diverse group of students educating and organizing at the University of California in support of Palestinian rights. Our group advocates for the end of the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, for equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel, and in support of the rights of Palestinian refugees as outlined by international law. As clearly stated in our constitution and in statements we have signed, our group is clearly and unequivocally opposed to all forms of bigotry and hate, including but not limited to racism, sexism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism.

We understand that the Academic Senate has been asked to provide its opinion on the recently released Campus Climate reports. Because the reports have serious implications for the rights of our members, and because we have been largely excluded from the process of generating them, Students for Justice in Palestine would like to take this opportunity to explain our position and urge the Academic Senate not to endorse the report’s dangerous recommendations.

We oppose the Campus Climate reports on two major grounds, first that it constitutes an effort to censor and repress pro-Palestinian speech on campus; and second, that the report was formulated and written in an illegitimate manner that is symptomatic of a biased approach to these issues by the University of California Administration.

• The Campus Climate Report is a clear threat to speech on campus, based on the following recommendations:

– Review policies on sponsorship, neutrality and balance

Efforts to review sponsorship of events or take steps to ensure balance constitute a clear threat to the free speech rights of students and faculty. Which campus administrative body will be in charge of determining which speakers and events are acceptable and which require balancing? Will they enforce this rule for all topics and not just those related to the injustices of Israel’s occupation? We raise these questions not to indicate that we would endorse the recommendation if further elaborated, but to highlight the clear potential for political speech on campus to be monitored, judged, and censored. Moreover, applying these recommenda- tions only to speech advocating for Palestinian rights will render pro-Palestinian students second class citizens at the University of California.

– Adopt a hate speech-free campus policy

We affirm that our speech is not hate speech. We support the equal rights of Palestinians and the application of international law to their situation. We do not engage in or support violence against, the demonization of, or discrimination against any group or people. Our constitution, long track record of opposition to all forms of bigotry, and the absence of any accusations made against our group should confirm that we are not and have not been practitioners of hate. Unfortunately, the report repeatedly fails to distinguish between criticism of Israeli policy and anti-Semitism, raising the possibility that legitimate criticisms of Israel’s human rights abuses will be categorized as hate speech. As such, we are concerned that instead of promoting tolerance, this recommendation will instead have the effect of sup- pressing views critical of Israeli policy. Therefore, while we are opposed to hate speech, we are skeptical as to how it will be defined and the biases that might be present in the processes used to determine it.

– Adoption of a definition of anti-Semitism that may include criticism of Israel

Our student group opposes anti-Semitism and works to clearly define our work as critical of Israeli policy, not critical of any ethnic or religious group. But we are worried that an adoption of a definition of anti-Semitism that includes criticism of Israel will blur the distinction between criticism of state policy with criticism of racial, religious, or ethnic groups. This would be akin to labeling criticism of American policies as anti-American, a possibility that echoes past efforts to stifle free speech in our country. Our concerns stem from the report’s reference to the 2005 working definition offered by the European Union’s Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (now renamed to the Fundamental Rights Agency). The defini- tion offered by this working group (which has since been dropped) is not problematic in our view, but the examples that accompany that definition clearly include criticism of the State of Israel as examples of anti-Semitic speech. We are extremely worried by the possibility that these examples might be incorporated in a definition of anti-Semitism at the UC.

The working definition reads: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” We endorse this view. But we object to the examples cited, which include criticism of Israel such as “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation,” and “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Is- raeli policy to that of the Nazis.” While our group is focused on advocating for Palestinian rights and is not engaged in these debates, we believe that if these examples of speech be- come part of a common understanding of anti-Semitism, it will move legitimate, non-bigoted criticism of Israel outside the bounds of acceptable public discourse. If this recommendation were to be adopted and the UC defined anti-Semitism as something which included criticism of Israel, it would effectively label our student group as a hate group and in fact smear many professors and students whose research deals with Israel’s discriminatory policies.

We view each of these three recommendations as leading down the same dangerous path. Whether outright banning speakers from campus, forcing balance upon events and groups, defining hate speech, or labeling criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, each of these recommendations has the frightening possibility of both misrepresenting our group and limiting our speech rights on campus. Be- cause these recommendations single out pro-Palestinian speech for special treatment, they would effectively make us second class citizens on campus with fewer rights to free speech than other students. We believe that just as critics of American policy should not be restricted from engaging in free speech on campus by being labelled anti-American or forced to include balance at their events, we too should not be subject to these limitations on our ability to advocate for our beliefs. We have no objections to the other recommendations listed in the report that deal with dietary needs, cultural competency, and religious accommodations and we regret that the legitimate religious and cultural needs of students have been mixed with clear attempts to limit speech that is objected to by other groups on campus.

• Strong objections to the process by which the report was written:

– Jewish Students Report offers no evidence that SJPs can respond to

We wish to point out that the Jewish Students’ Campus Climate Report offers no substanti- ated evidence that SJPs have engaged in hate speech. Considering that the recommendations it makes have the potential to enact sweeping censorship on campus, we would expect that there would be ample documentation backing claims of inappropriate behavior. Rather than this being the case, it is simply asserted as if fact that SJPs have committed offenses. How- ever, we strongly reiterate that we have not been accused of any provable instance of hate speech. We can neither apologize for nor defend ourselves against claims that are not backed by any evidence. We find this to be extremely troubling given the serious consequences that can stem from these accusations.

– Jewish Students Report should not have been chaired by Richard Barton

Richard Barton, one of the co-chairs of the report, is a member of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a political organization that has a record of attacking Students for Justice in Palestine and other organizations in support of Palestinian rights (including other groups that have voiced objection to these reports, such as Jewish Voice for Peace and the Council on American Islamic Relations). In 2010, this organization placed SJP (as a collective national body, which we are not) on a list of the top-10 anti-Israel groups in America. After this inci- dent, SJP chapters, including every chapter in the UC system, took the opportunity to write a joint public statement reiterating our longstanding opposition to all forms of racism and bigotry, including anti-Semitism, and reiterating our clear and principled stance in support of Palestinian equal rights. Given the ADL’s prior attempt to misrepresent our organization, we are concerned that the appointment of a high ranking member of this group may have brought bias or a political agenda into the process.

– Report knowingly excluded the voices of critical Jewish students

In the same vein, there is ample evidence that the report excluded opinions that ran contrary to its findings. In addition to the serious questions regarding the report’s methodology raised in the attached letter from the Ad Hoc Jewish Committee, Jewish students who did not agree that criticism of the state of Israel’s policies constituted anti-Semitism have also confirmed that the testimony they gave to the report’s authors was omitted from the final report. We also note that, like at other UC schools, our SJP has many Jewish students whose opinions and beliefs were not included or solicited, who also do not believe that criticism of Israel is hate-based, and who would also be censored and silenced by the report’s recommendations.

– Report inappropriately framed as Jewish-Muslim

While the Jewish Students Campus Climate report spent a great deal of time on the Israel- Palestine debate on campus, the Muslim and Arab report was primarily focused on reli- gious and other cultural concerns for those students. The framing of this issue as a Jewish-Muslim problem provides an inaccurate religious connotation to a political disagreement about rights and state policies. Political disagreements about state policies of Israel do not fall uniquely along religious or ethnic lines and they do not represent a shorthand for inter-religious or inter-communal tensions on campus. To frame these oppressions as a disagreement between Jews and Muslims is to inappropriately simplify those religions by condensing their long, diverse, and rich legacies into a contemporary political question that is not representative of those religions, their diverse adherents, or their long histories. It also erases from view Jewish, Christian, Hindu, atheist and other students in our group, something which no campus administration should ever allow to happen.

– Report excluded the opinions of Students for Justice in Palestine

At UCLA, our group was not contacted or consulted about the reports save a small and nowhere near comprehensive online survey briefly posted to our Facebook group. This is no substitute for an engaged interview of SJP members that would allow us to voice our substantive concerns and defend ourselves from what we consider baseless or politicized accusations. More importantly, it is not the place of Muslim and Arab students to represent SJP, to be used as a substitute for our group, or to be asked to administer a survey about our experiences. We can speak on our own behalf, and as a party that will surely be affected by the report, SJP should have been included in this process. The Muslim/Arab report did at times reference issues relevant to SJPs, but this is not equivalent to or an adequate replace- ment for the active involvement of our groups in this process. We are deeply concerned that this exclusion of SJP has persisted through the current UCLA review process, and we at- tach several important documents by the National Lawyers Guild, Center for Constitutional Rights, Jewish Voice for Peace, and Middle East Studies Association that we strongly believe that the review should include.

– Report also reflects a biased approach to speech regarding Israel and the Palestinians

UC President Mark Yudof has a record of bias

In his public statements about the formation of the Campus Climate process, Pres- ident Yudof stated that he initiated these reports in response to “the unfortunate events of spring 2010,” one of which was a political protest at UC Irvine, now re- ferred to as the Irvine 11 incident. Framing the Irvine 11 as a problem is an example of the troubling political orientation of the Campus Climate process and the singling out of pro-Palestinian speech for additional scrutiny. Similar protests of government speakers happen regularly, including an identical protest this spring by a student immigrant rights group at UCLA against a speech by US Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. We do not view these types of protest as a problem and are therefore troubled by the origin and framing of the reports. Second, in November of 2011, President Yudof made public comments to the Anti Defamation League supporting the backdoor censorship of SJPs at UC Irvine. Third and most recently, President Yudof’s office revealed that he had given strong endorsement to much of HR35, the widely condemned California Assembly resolution that defines terms like apartheid as hate speech when applied to Israeli policy and recommends broad forms of censorship against pro-Palestine groups on campus. For these reasons, we do not have confidence in President Yudof’s ability to administer the Campus Climate process in a fair manner.

Censorship of pro-Palestinian speech at the UC is an ongoing problem

We also wish to call to your attention the many attempts at censorship that have occurred throughout the UC system and at UCLA as well. These have created a climate of intimidation for pro-Palestinian students, summarized with examples in the attached Center for Constitutional Rights letter. In the past year at UCLA, Professor David Shorter of the UCLA World Arts and Cultures Department was the target of a censorship attempt, and last week, a graduate student teach in about Gaza held at UCLA was plagued by repeated calls for censorship. This was a traumatic experience for many students and we foresee this becoming the future for our political speech should the recommendations listed in the Campus Climate Report be adopted.

In summary, we write to express strong objection to several recommendations in the Campus Climate Reports, particularly three that, if adopted, will lead to the censorship and second-class status of pro-Palestinian students at UCLA. We believe that the process by which the reports were written has not been impartial and has not included the viewpoints of pro-Palestinian student groups. We are also deeply troubled that the Academic Senate is entering a review of these reports without consideration of our position on any of these matters. We are afraid that the systematic exclusion of our group, which has the most to lose from this process, will result in an uncritical review.

We attach for your consideration a series of letters and documents which we believe provide im- portant context and support for the positions we have laid out in this letter. We urge you to consider them. Please contact us at sjpucla1@gmail.com with any questions, concerns, or requests for clarification that you may have.

Yours sincerely,

Students for Justice in Palestine at UCLA

 

SJP at UCLA Response to Invitation to Participate in Interfaith Programming

Click here to download the letter

November 26, 2012

Susan Swarts
Office of the Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs University of California, Los Angeles

Dear Ms Swarts,

Thank you for the invitation to participate in the upcoming interfaith dinner and programming meeting. While Students for Justice in Palestine at UCLA supports dialogue between religious groups, we strongly believe that our participation would undermine our group’s principles and be detrimental to our goals. Therefore as an organization we must respectfully decline this invi- tation. Our participation in a religious dialogue would only give legitimacy to the incorrect and dangerous myth that the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory is based on religion or religious differences.

The multiple forms of oppression against Palestinians (their dispossession in 1948, the occupation in 1967, and the ongoing discrimination against them inside Israel) are a political, not a religious issue, and must be dealt with as such. To frame these oppressions as a disagreement between Jews and Muslims is to insult those religions by condensing their long, diverse, and rich legacies into a contemporary political question that is not representative of those religions, their diverse adher- ents, or their long histories. Moreover, this type of framing negates and silences both Palestinian Christians and Jewish critics of Israeli policies. Finally, our student group, and the Palestinian rights movement as a whole, is comprised of individuals from a variety of racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious backgrounds. We take seriously the idea that support for Palestinian rights is a uni- versal human concern, rather than one that is specific to any identity. Thus we cannot send a Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Atheist, or Jewish student to this event without undermining that idea and privileging one religious identity over others in our group.

We also note with great concern that administrators at this university and across the larger Univer- sity of California system have continued to perpetuate the misperception that Israel’s violations of Palestinian rights represent a Jewish-Muslim problem. We urge all administrators at the Univer- sity of California to end this harmful and essentializing discourse.

Please feel free to contact us at any time if you have any questions or would like to speak more about this or any other issue.

Yours sincerely,

Students for Justice in Palestine at UCLA

University of California, Los Angeles
sjpucla1@gmail.com

How to Expose a Hasbara Fellow

Writer should have been transparent about involvement

Daily Californian (UC Berkeley) letter to the editor 11/30/2012
We were perturbed upon reading Baruch Nutovic’s op-ed, “The hope for a lasting peace.” The problem does not lie with the author’s political stance itself. Rather, the problem is that this student has received a Hasbara fellowship and that his status was not disclosed.

Hasbara is an Israeli government-sponsored propaganda vehicle that funds students to deliver pro-Israel messages across North American campuses, with a special emphasis on getting Hasbara Fellows into leadership positions in the media and in student government.

Hasbara generously subsidized expensive flights to Israel for more than 1,000 fellows in this last year alone. There, students meet members of the Israeli government and “undergo a ‘practical activism’ curriculum,” developing strategic tools to communicate effectively about Israel” including: “how to … build important relationships with student leaders and administration” and develop “media and marketing skills.” Hasbara Fellows are required to pay a $250 deposit that they only receive back if they successfully complete a contractual obligation to perform “two semesters of dedicated Israel activism on campus as a Hasbara Fellow.”

Under the resources tab on Hasbara’s website, there is listed an Islamophobic film titled “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West,” a film that has been endorsed by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.This does not appear to be a grassroots organization dedicated to making peace but an organization dedicated to spreading Islamophobic and racist propaganda. Baruch is anything but representative of an entire community of Jewish students — he is one of just a few Hasbara fellows on campus.

Baruch’s participation in such an organization is his right. It is also his right to express whatever he sees fit in our student newspaper. However, readers in the U.S. — who have the expectation that our press is not the mouthpiece of any state — deserve to know when an op-ed writer is state-sponsored.

Sadly, this is not the first time this has happened. The Daily Californian’s Noah Ickowitz wrote an article, “Tyranny of the majority, UCSA style,” criticizing the UCSA resolution on divestment. Since then, however, Ickowitz stated in his blog post, “In the interest of transparency,” that he had previously associated with Hasbara. Since Ickowitz made an effort to disclose his status, it seems dishonest for a Hasbara Fellow writing for the Daily Cal not to state this affiliation.

Baruch is correct to say that peace is long overdue — but it can only come about when Israel and its supporters comply with international law, end the illegal occupation and apartheid and stop the brutalization of the Palestinian people. We believe Baruch’s article is nothing other than an attempt at engineering a mobilization of students under the false pretense that this is a Jewish identity issue. Supporters of divestment include Jewish Voice for Peace and M.E.Ch.A., among many others. We remind all students that this is a human rights issue, not an identity issue.

Standards of ethical journalism behoove the Daily Cal to issue a public apology in the paper for not disclosing this invaluable information to its readers and ensure that this lack of transparency does not continue.

— Taliah Mirmalek,
UC Berkeley student;
Sharee Rivera,
Berkeley City College student

Climate of fear silencing Palestinian, Muslim students at University of California, rights groups warn

Palestinian, Arab and Muslim students are frequently too frightened to express their political opinions or join Palestine solidarity and other groups at University of California (UC) campuses because of fear that they will suffer harm, a coalition of civil rights groups has warned.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, and four other civil rights organizations wrote to UC President Mark Yudof on 3 December to “express our collective alarm about developments at University of California (UC) campuses that threaten students’ civil rights and forsake the University’s responsibility to make the campus welcoming for a range of political viewpoints on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

The letter came in advance of a meeting today of the “Advisory Council on Campus Climate” which the University created in response to complaints from Zionist groups. The other groups signing on to the letter are the Asian Law Caucus of San Francisco,American Muslims for Palestine, National Lawyers Guild, San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Chapters and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, San Francisco Bay Area.

According to a press release from the groups:

the letter points to the rash of baseless legal complaints that have increased scrutiny of student activism on Palestine, to a UC-initiated “campus climate” report that labels Palestinian rights advocacy as anti-Semitic and threatening to Jewish students, and to numerous public statements by UC officials that disparage such activism as “bad speech” and compare it to truly anti-Semtic and racist incidents on campus, such as noose-hangings and graffiti disparaging Jews, Muslims and the LGBTQ community.

Read the rest at The Electronic Intifada

Letter to University of California President Advising Him of Need to Protect Protect Pro-Palestinian Speech on Campus

Link to CCR Article

Download the CCR Letter

Today, CCR and other civil rights groups submitted a letter to University of California (UC) President Mark Yudof, pressing him to consider the chilling effect of efforts to target Arab, Muslim and other students advocating for Palestinian rights on UC campuses, and to take affirmative steps to protect pro-Palestinian speech on campus.  In particular, the letter points to the rash of baseless legal complaints that have increased scrutiny of student activism on Palestine, to a UC-initiated “campus climate” report that labels Palestinian rights advocacy as anti-Semitic and threatening to Jewish students, and to numerous public statements by UC officials that disparage such activism as “bad speech” and compare it to truly anti-Semtic and racist incidents on campus, such as noose-hangings and graffiti disparaging Jews, Muslims and the LGBTQ community.

The letter details ways that students have been affected by these negative depictions of their activism, including an increased fear of harm to their professional careers, immigration status, and for their safety;  intimidation, threats and vandalism by other groups; and a sense that the University’s mis-characterization of their message reflects its efforts to undermine their free speech rights.

The civil rights groups are urging the UC President to take affirmative steps to ensure that students who advocate for Palestinian rights are equal members of the university community whose viewpoints are recognized as valuable contributions to an issue of great public concern.  It also urges the President to renounce efforts to taint all student activism on Palestine as anti-Semitic, and to correct the mischaracterizations of these students’ nonviolent and anti-racist advocacy.  CCR and the other signatories will continue to monitor attempts to intimidate Palestinian rights activists on college campuses, and to advocate on their behalf.

Time to call out the campus Israel Lobby

Originally posted at Mondoweiss:

By Tom Pessah:

Imagine you are a student activist trying to get tobacco products banned from your university. You insist that cigarettes cause cancer, as so much research has shown. Your opponents are other students who claim the connection is tenuous and controversial, that student government should not make judgments on complex health issues, and that some students are so attached to their cigarettes that their very identities would be under attack if such a measure were passed. What if these students called themselves regular smokers, but were in fact trained and sometimes paid representatives of Philip Morris and Marlboro? How much credibility would they have on campus?

The answer depends on whether opponents of tobacco products buy into the frame of two symmetrical student groups – “pro-smokers“ and “anti-smokers,” or whether they call out their opponents for being representatives of external bodies.

One of the biggest failings of pro-Palestine student movement in many U.S. schools is buying into the symmetry frame. We’ve largely accepted the idea that efforts to divest from Israeli apartheid are promoted by pro-Palestine student groups, and opposed by pro-Israel ones (“the Zionists”) – as if these are two symmetrical parties.

But this is a completely false picture. Groups like Students for Justice in Palestine truly are grass-root organizations. Despite persistent rumors about their secret Saudi oil money, SJP chapters hold bake sales to send students their national conferences. On the U.C. Berkeley campus, attention was diverted from SJP’s cookies and brownies by the College Republicans, who put on a lavish spectacle involving students in swimsuits. The SJP sale raised a little under $6.

Such financial improvisation is one of the hazards of truly independent student organizing. But contrast that with a recent complaint from a “pro-Israel” student: “students are bombarded with funding opportunities to engage in pre-formed activities from a dozen different organizations. There is little opportunity to be creative and scant motivation to develop programming that comes from students themselves.”

It is in fact misleading to characterize this student as simply “pro-Israel,” or “Zionist,” any more than a representative of Philip Morris is simply “a smoker.” She is a Hasbara Fellow, atrained advocate for an external organization founded in 2001 by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. She will be paid back a deposit of $250 if her activism is considered satisfactory. The program is currently run by Aish HaTora International, a huge international Jewish outreach organization with private donors that works closely with the Israeli government. Aish operates “dozens of full-time branches and programs on six continents.” It is based not in the U.S. but in East Jerusalem, and supports continued settlement of the West Bank.  This organization tells its members that the occupation is nothing more than a “myth,” and disseminates hardcore islamophobic materials, like the films Obsession and Third Jihad (which wereproduced in millions of copies by an offshoot of Aish International).

One of the features of Hasbara Fellows’ activism is a relentless attempt to smear pro-Palestine students as anti-Jewish. In a failed lawsuit against her former university, U.C. Berkeley, this student claimed that Jewish students’ experiences, especially as a result of protests against checkpoints, are comparable to “incitement, intimidation, harassment and violence carried out under the Nazi regime and those of its allies in Europe against Jewish students… during the turbulent years leading up to and including the Holocaust.”

When routinely compared to Nazis (a comparison considered extremely offensive if made in the opposite direction), pro-Palestine students often get defensive. They protest that they’ve succeeded in drawing the line between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism, and display some of their Jewish members as proof. By doing so they implicitly accept the idea that what is at stake here is the feelings of Jewish American students, and that these students should therefore be the main parties to the debate. This framing doubly undermines our own work: first, it reproduces the very structures of power and prejudice that marginalize Palestinians in the first place. Secondly, by obscuring the voices of Palestinian American students it contributes to the perception that human rights abuses happen far away – an international issue so complex that U.S. students cannot form an opinion about it, much less act on it. But the most compelling arguments are the ones that draw connections between companies our schools are invested in and human rights abuses suffered by students in those same schools – from H.P.’s equipment for checkpoints to General Electric’s parts in helicopters which are used to attack civilians in Gaza. Palestinian students who’ve been impacted by these horrors are the experts, and they are students on our campuses. They are our best advocates. 

A better way of countering these endless accusations of anti-Semitism would be to clearly distinguish the diverse community of Jewish students in each university from advocates of particular external groups. Many accusations of anti-Semitism are made by Hasbara Fellows, members of an organization that disseminates extreme islamophobic materials, as mentioned above. Similar accusations of antisemitism come from student representatives of AIPAC, whose group seeks tocut aid to Palestinian refugees, is pushing the U.S. towards war with Iran, and hasa long history of preventing recognition of the Armenian Genocide. In 2010 after a divestment resolution was initially passed at UC Berkeley (before it was vetoed), an AIPAC official promised “we’re going to make sure that pro-Israel students take over the student government and reverse the vote…This is how AIPAC operates in our nation’s capital. This is how AIPAC must operate on our nation’s campuses.”

This year, a student body representing the University of California system passed a resolution distinguishing anti-semitism from criticism of Israeli state policies and affirming the legitimacy of calls for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. In response, several current and former student senators published an open letterthat contained the following language:

“UCSA’s resolution refers to “Israel’s illegal occupation” and charges Israel with “racism and Apartheid in the context of Israeli policies” without recognizing the level of debate and dissension constantly occurring around this hostile rhetoric. Furthermore, the resolution takes a stance “in strong opposition to…the racism of Israel’s human rights violations” and “encourages all institutions of higher learning to cleanse their investment portfolios of unethical investments” in companies that do business with Israel. This extreme language alienates a significant portion of the campus community, especially those whose identities are closely tied with the Jewish state. As a governing body, it is the responsibility to create a safe campus environment and avoid making comprehensive statements that can be perceived as an attack on those UCSA claims to represent.”

This letter is being disseminated by the AIPAC representatives in each school. Imagine students openly representing Exxon disseminating a letter that called any talk of global warming “extreme language” that creates an unsafe environment for students whose identities are closely tied to purchasing oil. Most students would see this as absurd. But pro-Palestine students have been very hesitant to draw these connections. Part of the reason lies in conflict avoidance: why criticize fellow students who already say (or are told to say) we are hurting their feelings? Shouldn’t we be gentler with them? 

Again, being gentle to trained representatives of an advocacy group makes as much sense as reaching out to a Bank of America employee who is about to foreclose your home. Of course there is no need to deliberately offend. But if external advocacy organizations are like big corporations, pro-Palestine students can borrow from the rich traditions of anti-corporate activism. Where are our adbusters? What can we learn from Naomi Klein’s No Logo? Why should paid advocates of external bodies have unrestricted access to student newspapers, without providing full disclosure? Shouldn’t we be demanding a protocol to pre-empt that? What transparency do they owe if they serve in elected student bodies? How can the Freedom of Information Act be used to expose their typically covert lobbying? You’ve seen Shit Zionists Say – how about Shit AIPAC Says? What about a “Who Advocates?” website, modeled on Who Profits? When will “Hasbara Fellow” become a familiar term that every student associates with a tiny group of advocates for external anti-Palestinian groups – instead of seeing them as representing the voice of Jewish students? In 2011 there were only 250 Hasbara Fellows in 80 U.S., universities, an average of 3 students per school, yet they consistently speak in the name of entire Jewish communities.

While Hasbara Fellows themselves are concerned that their student groups could be seen as “a façade for multi-million dollar organizations,” the pro-Palestine movement has rarely attempted to call out the Israel Lobby on our campuses. We cannot tell our local AIPAC representatives from the Hasbara Fellows. We do not even know the names of other external advocacy groups. Serious and well-documented research on each school can engender new and creative strategies to challenge these champions of the status quo, who are blocking crucial action to end Israeli apartheid in all its forms. There is no time to waste, especially after the latest slaughter in Gaza. It’s time to call out the campus Israel Lobby.

 

UC Irvine student government officially signs divestment resolution

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

UC Irvine student government officially signs resolution urging divestment from human rights abuses in Palestine

(IRVINE, CALIF., 11/27/2012) – Two weeks after the unanimous approval in a 16-0-0 vote by the Legislative Council of the Associated Students of the University of California, Irvine (ASUCI), executive members of ASUCI have officially signed Resolution 48-15, calling for the divestment of university funds from companies that profit from Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies.

In the past two weeks many opponents and proponents of the resolution voiced their opinions to the student government in a series of transparent public forums. Despite pressure from the UCI administration and special interest groups to retract their position, the student government leaders remained resolute in their decision to pass the legislation. Demonstrating courage and persistence, UCI students and student leaders have sent a strong statement in support of the oppressed indigenous population in Palestine by rejecting the university’s investments in companies that profit from occupation and apartheid.

“We are looking forward to working with the University of California, UCI administration and the UCI Foundation on addressing the students’ demands for stronger ethical standards in regards to university investments,” stated Sabreen Shalabi, coauthor of the resolution. “We refuse to be complicit in horrendous violations of human rights and international law and we urge the University to join the students in upholding the University’s values and principles.”

The recent series of attacks against the Palestinian population in Gaza is a timely reminder of the important role that UCI students play as socially conscious citizens. In light of this human tragedy, it is important to expose the complicity of universities, companies, and governments in violating human rights and international law. For example, one of the subjects of the bill, Raytheon, was the provider of missiles used in bombardments of residential areas during the Israeli military’s Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip. This resolution calls upon UCI students and staff to critically reflect upon their role as individual consumers, taxpayers, and citizens in further perpetuating the violent and inhumane policies of an apartheid regime.

For more information or to read the resolution visit www.irvinedivest.org Twitter: @irvinedivest Facebook: facebook.com/irvinedivest email: info@irvinedivest.org

 

UC Irvine student government passes divestment resolution

A branch of By | Staff

http://www.dailycal.org/2012/11/26/uc-irvine-student-government-passes-divestment-resolution/

UC Irvine’s student government has passed a resolution urging the UCI administration to divest from companies it alleges profit from human rights violations by supporting Israeli anti-Palestinian policies.

The resolution, which passed Nov. 13, asks UC Irvine to pull out funds from various companies, including Caterpillar, General Electric and Hewlett-Packard. The resolution still needs to be approved by the judicial and executive branches of the Irvine campus’s ASUC, after which it can be presented to the campus administration.

“It wasn’t because they were pro-Israel,” said Sabreen Shalabi, a representative in the campus’s ASUC legislative branch and the author of the resolution. “We were discontent with the fact that our university is investing in companies profiting off of human rights violations.”

The resolution argues that UCI’s investment in the companies is a violation of the university’s values.

“It is the mission of the UCI Foundation to ‘ensure the appropriate use of all funds’ in order to uphold the values of respect, intellectual curiosity, integrity, commitment appreciation, and empathy,” the resolution reads.

In the spring of 2010, UC Berkeley’s ASUC Senate passed a resolution urging the UC Board of Regents and the campus administration to divest from companies it alleged had provided war supplies to the Israeli military. The resolution drew international attention, with figures ranging from Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu to prominent philosopher Noam Chomsky weighing in.

Though the Berkeley resolution passed the ASUC Senate, it was ultimately vetoed by then-president Will Smelko. The senate held a vote to override Smelko’s veto, but the move failed after a number of senators who initially supported the bill decided to oppose it.

At Berkeley, the resolution polarized the campus community, said Noah Stern, who opposed the resolution as an ASUC senator when it passed.

“It took several years for different campus communities to recover from the divisiveness of that event,” said Stern, who was ASUC president the following year. “There is no real sense of unanimity around the Israel-Palestine conflict when you actually talk to students on campus.”

Graduate student Tom Pessah, a member of the campus group Students for Justice in Palestine and co-author of the 2010 divestment resolution, said the veto came about because of pressure by nonuniversity organizations, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

“AIPAC representatives … as well as senators who’ve been sent on trips to Israel continue to oppose the passing of such a resolution on our campus, despite students’ strong support for it,” Pessah said.

The UC Irvine administration issued a response to the resolution saying that it is not the policy of the campus nor of the university to divest from a foreign government unless the U.S. government deems it necessary.

According to Shalabi, the Irvine resolution garnered significant support from the student body.

“It was really nice to see students unafraid to stand up against human rights violations,” she said. “I feel like the resolution was very logical — there’s nothing emotional about it.”

Contact Andy Nguyen at anguyen@dailycal.org .

PRESS RELEASE: UC Irvine students pass historic legislation urging divestment from human rights abuses in Palestine

PRESS RELEASE

UC Irvine students pass historic legislation urging divestment from human rights abuses in Palestine

(IRVINE, CALIF., 11/13/2012) – In an historic move that could initiate a domino effect across America’s campuses, the Associated Students of UC Irvine voted unanimously to divest from companies that profit from Israel’s occupation of Palestine, including from companies that contribute to illegal settlement construction in the occupied Palestinian territories. 

With 16 votes in favor, 0 abstentions, and 0 opposed, the elected undergraduate student representatives of the University of California Irvine unanimously passed a resolution urging the University to withdraw its investment funds from Caterpillar, General Electric Company, Hewlett Packard, Raytheon, and other companies profiting from human rights violations in the occupied territories. The students also pledged to further examine UC assets for investments in companies that profit from human rights abuses anywhere in the world. 

The resolution was drafted in response to the 2005 Palestinian civil society call for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel as a means to force it to comply with international law and end its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza; allow Palestinian refugees their internationally guaranteed right to return to their homes and villages; and grant equal rights to Palestinian citizens of Israel. Other divestment successes have occurred at Hampshire College and Evergreen State College, as well as the WeDivest campaign which focuses on pension fund giant TIAA CREF and has resulted in, among other things, the removal of Caterpillar from its Social Choice Funds. 

Sabreen Shalabi, the student representative on the legislative council for the school of social science and co-author of the legislation said, “I am very proud of my fellow council members and of the students at our University. Our work today stands tall in the noble tradition of students advocating for justice, joining the ranks of those brave and visionary students who demanded that our Universities divest from the terrible crimes of South African apartheid.” 

Traci Ishigo, President of the Associated Student of UCI and a member of the UC Irvine Foundation, said “The decision made by ASUCI’s legislative Council tonight clearly shows the strength and integrity of students utilizing their collective power to protect human rights on a global scale and I stand firmly by the students who believe it is their responsibility to have a voice on matters that urge the UC to be an institution that treasures human dignity.”

Text of Irvine divestment resolution, passed 16-0

For more, see http://www.irvinedivest.org/#!/

 

REQUEST FOR ACTION BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 

 

All requests may be typed and submitted to the Executive Vice President no later 5:00 p.m. Thursday in order to be included in the agenda for the following Tuesday. The Executive Vice President reserves the right to delay the Request for Action to a later Council session if the Executive Vice President feels the agenda for the next schedule meeting is full.

 

Item Number: 16 Legislation Number (B: Bill, R: Resolution): R48-15

Author:   Sabreen Shalabi   Second:  Shadi Jafari

Synopsis: Divestment from Companies that Profit from Apartheid

Date of Presentation: November 13, 2012

 

 Divestment from Companies that Profit from Apartheid

 

 

WHEREAS, it is UC Irvine’s duty to maintain the values of “respect, intellectual curiosity, integrity, commitment, and empathy” which includes the promotion of human rights, equality, and dignity for all people without distinction# ;

 

WHEREAS, it is the mission of the UCI Foundation to “ensure the appropriate use of all funds” in order to uphold the values of respect, intellectual curiosity, integrity, commitment appreciation, and empathy #;

 

WHEREAS, students have a legacy of standing against oppression and injustice at UC Irvine and across the U.S.

 

WHEREAS, the role of student activists in exposing South Africa’s apartheid system and  supporting equality, freedom, and dignity sets an example for us to follow as students of global conscience;

 

WHEREAS, as the example of South Africa shows, it is imperative for students to stand unequivocally against all forms of racism and bigotry globally and on campus, including but not limited to Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, homophobia, patriarchy, and Israel’s system of apartheid;

 

WHEREAS, the occupied Palestinian Territory is controlled militarily by the Israeli government#; 

 

WHEREAS, certain companies have promoted and been complicit in these ongoing human rights violations systematically committed by the Israeli government, which have been documented by human rights organizations including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Al-Haq, Defense for Children International, Addameer, B’tselem, Adalah, Badil, and the Israeli Coalition Against Home Demolitions;  

 

WHEREAS, according to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), “the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and its associated régime are contrary to international law”#; 

 

WHEREAS, according to the same ICJ decision, the establishment and expansion of settlements in the West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem is also illegal by international law#;

 

WHEREAS, according to the UN General Assembly’s application of the Fourth Geneva Convention to occupied Palestinian territory, the establishment and expansion of settlements “…in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, especially settlement activities…remain contrary to international law and cannot be recognized, irrespective of the passage of time”#;

 

WHEREAS, a US Department of State official said that the US policy “on Israeli settlements has not changed and will not change. Like every American administration for decades, we do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity.”#; 

 

WHEREAS, according to the UN General Assembly’s application of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the exploitation of natural resources in the occupied Palestinian territory is also illegal by international law#; 

 

WHEREAS, these violations of human rights and international law have been recognized and have resulted in the condemnation of the state of Israel by the international community in the UN Security Council, Human Rights Council Fact-Finding mission in Gaza, and the above mentioned governmental bodies and organizations, which consequently resulted in dozens of resolutions concerning the state of Israel (i.e. 106, 111, 127, 162, 171, 228, 237, 248, 250-252, 256, 259, 262, 265, 267, 270, 271, 279, 280, 285, 298, 313, 316, 317, 332, 337, 347, 425, 427, 444, 446, etc.); 

 

WHEREAS, our university invests in, and thereby profits from companies, which have an active role in the human rights abuse and institutionalized structural violence against the Palestinian people, thereby making it a complicit third-party; 

 

WHEREAS, these companies have been previously engaged by various solidarity campaigns and concerned investors about their complicit involvement in the previously mentioned human rights violations of the Palestinian people to no avail; 

 

WHEREAS, the following illustrative and non-exhaustive list of companies, which the university invests in, plays a role in these human rights violations;

 

WHEREAS, Caterpillar has helped sustain the occupation by providing engineering tools and bulldozers to destroy Palestinian houses, neighborhoods (in refugee camps), agriculture, and water cisterns#;

 

WHEREAS, Caterpillar has also provided engineering tools and bulldozers to expand illegal settlements and construct the Wall and checkpoints#; 

 

WHEREAS, Cement Roadstones Holding (CRH) has also contributed to the construction of military checkpoints, the Wall, and the settlement enterprise by providing cement and other building material#;

 

WHEREAS, CRH and Cemex have supplied building materials used to build illegal settlements, the Wall, and checkpoints #;


 

WHEREAS, Cemex also illegally owns and operates manufacturing plants in West Bank settlements, exploiting Palestinian natural resources in violation of international law#;

 

WHEREAS, General Electric Company (GE) manufactures and supplies engines for A64 Apache Helicopters, systematically used by the Israeli military; in attacks on Palestinian civilians which constitute severe human rights violations and war crimes# ;

 

WHEREAS, Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) has supported restricting the freedom of movement of the Palestinian peoples within the West Bank by providing biometric identification systems used in the Israeli military checkpoints#;

 

WHEREAS, Raytheon’s guided missiles were used to ruthlessly level civilian dense regions during Operation Cast Lead#; 

 

WHEREAS, Sodastream operates its main manufacturing plant in an illegal Israeli settlement in the West Bank# ;

 

WHEREAS, L-3 Communications has provided the Israeli occupation with equipment used in military checkpoints throughout the occupied West Bank, used to promote the dehumanization and humiliation of the Palestinians; to take away Palestinian freedom of movement between Palestinian towns and cities; to fragmentize and strangle the Palestinian economy# ;


 

LET IT BE RESOLVED, that ASUCI will further examine its assets and UC assets for investments in companies that a) provide military support for, or weaponry to, support the occupation of the Palestinian territory or b) facilitate the building or maintenance of the illegal wall or the demolition of Palestinian homes, or c) facilitate the building, maintenance, or economic development of illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territory;

 

LET IT FURTHER BE RESOLVED, that we call upon, our university, the University of California Treasury, and the UCI Foundation to divest their holdings from these aforementioned companies; 

 

LET IT FURTHER BE RESOLVED, that if its found that UCI funds or UC funds are being invested in any of the above mentioned companies, UCI will divest, and will advocate that the UC system divests, all stocks and securities of such companies with the goal of maintaining the divestment, in the case of said companies, until they cease these specific practices. Moreover, UCI will not make further investments, and will advocate that the UC system not make further investments, in any companies materially supporting or profiting from Israel’s occupation in the above-mentioned ways;

 

LET IT FINALLY BE RESOLVED, that we, the students, call upon our university to dissociate itself from groups or companies that promote systematic prejudiced oppression, whether this system targets people based on their religion, gender, race or orientation, by divesting from companies that participate in or profit from human rights violations.

 

 

 

 

Referred to: Committee on:

Vote Required: Two-Thirds FINAL VOTE: Passed YEA: 16 NAY: 0  ABS: 0

 

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OFCALIFONIA, IRVINE ON THE DATE OF  HAS TAKEN ACTION ON THIS LEGISLATION.    

   

   

____________________________ _____________________________

Executive Vice President, ASUCI     Verification of Executive Cabinet