Recently, the UC Students Association passed a resolution rejecting California Assembly Bill HR 35. Following this vote, pressure groups attempted to bully the UCSA into reversing its vote and decision. This effort has proven unsuccessful to date, but the following article examines criticism of the UCSA resolution published in the UCLA Daily Bruin and shows why critics are largely misleading the public or arguing in bad faith:
Daily Bruin article criticising the UCSA:
http://www.dailybruin.com/article/2012/10/ucsa-unfairly-sides-on-divisive-issue
http://www.dailybruin.com/article/2012/10/ucsa-unfairly-sides-on-divisive-issue
1. “The UCSA resolution condemns the state of Israel as a violator of international human rights law, encouraging all institutions of higher education to “cleanse” themselves of investments with the nation.”
FALSE. The resolution says “encourages all institutions of higher learning to cleanse their investment portfolios of unethical investments in companies implicated in or profiting from violations of international human rights law, without making special exemptions for any country;”
http://calsjp.org/?p=1297 This isn’t just a technical difference, it’s fundamental. The resolution says Israel should be treated exactly like any other country. Our opponents are saying it should be treated differently , and that every regular procedure (such as the UCSA) should be changed when dealing with it. The author of the op-ed had the resolution in front of him, quoted it, and deliberately misrepresented it. (here – maybe some background on this person – has he any connections to external advocacy groups?) 2. “rejecting California Assembly bill HR 35, a piece of legislation seeking to quell anti-Semitic activity on college campuses”
FALSE. HR35 doesn’t just quell anti-semitic activity on campuses, in uses this excuse to quell criticism of Israeli policies. The author of the op-ed had the UCSA resolution in front of him. It reads: “While HR 35 purports to oppose anti-Semitism, much of HR 35 is written to unfairly and falsely smear as “anti-Semites” those who do human rights advocacy focusing on Israel’s illegal occupation http://calsjp.org/?p=1297
By deliberately ignoring this criticism the author misleads the readers. 3. “To begin with, no representatives of the Jewish campus community attended the meeting”
By deliberately ignoring this criticism the author misleads the readers. 3. “To begin with, no representatives of the Jewish campus community attended the meeting”
FALSE – one of the students who presented at the meeting in favor of the bill is an Israeli Jew.
MISLEADING – the UCSA meets once a month do discuss a packed agenda, allowing about half an hour for every item. There are no “representatives” of any community at these meetings. This misrepresents the process of that body. 4. Not until the day of the vote did Arielle Gabai, president of the UC Berkeley Jewish Student Union, even hear of the meeting.
MISLEADING – the UCSA meets once a month do discuss a packed agenda, allowing about half an hour for every item. There are no “representatives” of any community at these meetings. This misrepresents the process of that body. 4. Not until the day of the vote did Arielle Gabai, president of the UC Berkeley Jewish Student Union, even hear of the meeting.
This exposes the hidden agenda of the author – not to represent Jewish students, but to represent students paid to advocate on behalf of Israeli policies. http://www.hasbarafellowships.org/israel-program/additional-fees
Including Gabai – http://www.hasbarafellowships.org/cgblog/266/69/UC-Berkeley-s-Friend-Request-Pending-Campaign
Including Gabai – http://www.hasbarafellowships.org/cgblog/266/69/UC-Berkeley-s-Friend-Request-Pending-Campaign
The Jewish Student Union at UC Berkeley is not a representative body, since it excludes groups like JStreet which aren’t popular among hasbara fellows:
Article by hasbara fellow Jacob Lewis http://www.hasbarafellowships.org/news/hasbara-in-the-news/articles-written-by-hasbara-fellows
http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/63819/cal-jewish-groups-right-to-deny-j-street-u-admission/ 5. “Furthermore, the hearing took place on the Sabbath, which happened to fall a day before the Jewish New Year of Rosh Hashanah, impeding members of the Jewish community from attending.”
FLASE and MISLEADING. The hearing took place two days before Rosh Hashana, a date that has no religious significance for Jews. The UCSA meetings, convening busy students who study during the week, are always held on Saturdays. There was no special timing for this meeting. While one could argue that in general, ultra-orthodox observant Jews would be unable to travel on that day, most Jewish students are not ultra-orthodox. Pro-Israel advocates showed up to the very next UCSA meeting which was also held on a Sabbath, since like most other Jewish students on campus they are able to travel on that day. 6. By blatantly omitting the Jewish narrative from dialogue over the resolution, the UCSA failed to garner a truly collective voice on this divisive issue.
FALSE The resolution which was co-authored by an Israel Jew, mentions “expressing the UCSA’s opposition to all racism, whether it be the racism of campus and global anti-Semitism or the racism of Israel’s human rights violations, neither of which our campuses should tolerate, support, or profit from.”
MISLEADING the only “divisive” issue the author mentions is that “The UCSA resolution condemns the state of Israel as a violator of international human rights law”. This is like saying that the connection between smoking and cancer is “divisive” because tobacco companies deny it. Any students who are not trained to be advocates for the Israeli government consider this a well-proven fact, as documented by an endless number of human rights orgnizations. There is no serious human rights organization which disputes this.
7. Students for Justice in Palestine stated that talk of the resolution was avoided to prevent “unwanted lobbying” on the issue. Subversive behavior like this demonstrates a complete undermining of the democratic process.
MISLEADING. Over the past two years pro-Israel advocates at UC Berkeley have initiated two lawsuits and one federal investigation against SJP. Both complaints were dismissed, and the judge wrote that “a very substantial portion of the conduct to which plaintiffs object represents pure political speech and expressive conduct”. The UC Berkeley university spokesperson, Dan Mogulof, referred to the latest investigation as a way to shop for more venues and courtrooms to tell the university to violate the constitutional rights of students involved in the demonstrations.
http://www.dailycal.org/2012/10/04/federal-officials-investigate-complaints-about-anti-semitism-at-uc-berkeley/
To expect students whose constitutional rights are under assault to reach out to the same Israel advocates who are either involved in these attempts, or refuse to denounce them, is beyond absurd. The Jewish Student Campus climate report, which recommended new prohibitions on student free speech on campus, was attended by Arielle Gabai, the same hasbara fellow, who failed to invite Jewish students with opposing politics to represent themselves.
http://www.dailycal.org/2012/10/04/federal-officials-investigate-complaints-about-anti-semitism-at-uc-berkeley/
To expect students whose constitutional rights are under assault to reach out to the same Israel advocates who are either involved in these attempts, or refuse to denounce them, is beyond absurd. The Jewish Student Campus climate report, which recommended new prohibitions on student free speech on campus, was attended by Arielle Gabai, the same hasbara fellow, who failed to invite Jewish students with opposing politics to represent themselves.
8. The UCSA unfairly sided on an issue that has historically divided campuses.
MISLEADING – the UCSA cannot conduct a referendum among students to see who supports each bill and only proceed if 100% of the campus agrees. As OPPONENTS of the UCSA bill recently admitted (letter to UCSA board of directors) “Many members of the Jewish community, and many supporters of this letter, believe HR 35 infringes on our First Amendment rights”. Since advocates of Israeli policies (often working on behalf of external, non-student bodies) will continue to do so in the near future, the expectation of consensus around Israeli policies is another way of saying this small group should always be able to veto the will of the majority. The UCSA bill was passed 12 for, 2 abstentions, zero against.
9. Laden with loaded words and factual errors,
9. Laden with loaded words and factual errors,
FALSE – the author fails to point out one single error in the bill. This mirrors the past tactics of Israel advoctes: during the 2010 divestment debate at UC Berkeley, students were instructed:
“DON’T try to deconstruct the bill. DON’T focus on addressing the fallacies/specifics of the bill. Instead, focus on how it is an attack on the Jewish community” http://mondoweiss.net/2010/04/anti-divestment-talking-points-avoid-the-facts-and-charge-anti-semitism.html
It is interesting to see how many of these talking points from two years ago were repeated in this op-ed. 10. As the document continues, it accuses Israel of being an apartheid state. Yet, Israel has never institutionalized the systematic oppression of any racial group within its borders
“DON’T try to deconstruct the bill. DON’T focus on addressing the fallacies/specifics of the bill. Instead, focus on how it is an attack on the Jewish community” http://mondoweiss.net/2010/04/anti-divestment-talking-points-avoid-the-facts-and-charge-anti-semitism.html
It is interesting to see how many of these talking points from two years ago were repeated in this op-ed. 10. As the document continues, it accuses Israel of being an apartheid state. Yet, Israel has never institutionalized the systematic oppression of any racial group within its borders
FALSE here is a South African legal report on the apartheid analogy: http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Media_Release-378.phtml
11. The UCSA surpassed the scope of its responsibilities while marginalizing students who support Israel.
MISLEADING – here we could mention the many groups of UC students who are marginalized by pro-Israel advocates who work with hate-mongers like AIPAC and Aish International (funders of hasbara fellowsips) – Palestianins, Jewish Israelis and Iranians who want to prevent a war between their countries (something AIPAC is pushing hard for), Armenian students (experienced years of genocide denial by AIPAC), muslims (islamophobic materials produced by Aish International, like the film obsession), etc. Read more on AIPAC here http://www.occupyaipac.org/about/articles-on-aipac/
Advocates of Israeli policies are representing huge external lobbies like AIPAC who have expressed their desire to take over student government:
“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.”
Are they the ones being marginalized, or the student government which is under attack?