On Sept. 15, by a vote of 12 to 0, and 2 abstentions, the UC Student Association, which represents hundreds of thousands of students at all the UC campuses, passed a resolution condemning recent attempts to censure boycott and divestment efforts by Palestinian human rights activists on campus, and demanding that the UC system stop profiting from Israel’s human rights violations.
The UCSA’s decision marks another chapter in the struggle taking place throughout college campuses between proponents of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions and its detractors.
The BDS movement was established in 2005 when 170 Palestinian civil society organizations called upon people of conscience throughout the world to boycott, divest and sanction the state of Israel until it compiled with obligations under international law and 1.) ended the colonizing of Palestinian lands, 2.) recognized the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees, and 3.) treated Arab-Israelis as full citizens of Israel and gave them equal rights as Arab Jews.
Since then BDS has played a critical and divisive role in Berkeley politics. BDS supporters on campus have repeatedly called upon the ASUC, UCSA, the UC Regents and UC Berkeley to cut their ties and divest from the state of Israel. The BDS movement reached its climax two and a half years ago when a divestment effort was narrowly defeated in the Berkeley senate after three extremely contentious all-night senate debates.
Many articles have been written in these pages both advocating for and fighting against the BDS movement. However when witnessing the rival demonstrations BDS supporters and detractors put on Sproul, many students wonder why can’t these groups get together and hammer out an agreement? Why can’t they simply figure out a way to talk and get along? Why can’t we all be friends?
The division on campus is not fundamentally a failure of the two communities to interact socially. Some of the biggest proponents of BDS are close friends with some of its biggest detractors. Nor is it a failure of one side or the other not to understand the “facts.” There are individuals who are both with and against the BDS movement who are extremely well versed and educated on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Both BDS supporters and detractors have traveled to the region and lived there extensively and experienced the conflict first hand.
The two sides do not disagree fundamentally on the facts. They instead disagree about how they should be ordered. The fight over BDS is a fight between two narratives. These two narratives are rooted in the historical memories of different communities on this campus. On one-side BDS supporters views themselves as activists engaged in a modern day civil rights struggle. On the other side, BDS detractors view BDS as another chapter in thousands of years of historical persecution against Jews.
On the Berkeley campus the BDS movement is spearheaded by an organization known as Students for Justice in Palestine. SJP members come from a wide variety of religions, ethnicities, and backgrounds, including many Jewish students. SJP members are generally left-leaning activist minded students. Their allies include the Middle Eastern Muslim and South Asian communities and the politicized minority communities that make up the CalSERVE constituencies. Increasingly Christian students have become involved in SJP in viewing the Palestinian struggle in the context of liberation theology.
The narrative of BDS supporters argues that the Palestinian struggle is the civil rights movement of our generation. The struggle for Palestinian human rights is analogous to the struggle against apartheid in South Africa or the struggle to end racial segregation in the United States. It is a struggle that pits an oppressed against an oppressor. BDS supporters advocate for boycotting, divesting, and sanctioning the state of Israel as a way of righting a power imbalance and putting pressure on the state of Israel to comply with international law. BDS advocates believe students are “a nation’s conscience” and have a responsibility to take political action when their nation deviates from their values.
In contrast vocal BDS detractors are generally limited to Jewish students. BDS detractors view BDS as disingenuous and misguided in its claims to advocate for Palestinian human rights. Consciously or unconsciously BDS advocates are simply participating in another of history’s many anti-semitic movements. Many BDS detractors will admit to Israel having many flaws but wonder why not similar attention is focused on other countries on this campus such as China, Iran, or Syria. BDS detractors argue that there is limited historical evidence that boycotts work, thus BDS advocates are not motivated by a desire to advocate for Palestinian rights but rather as a way to attack Israel out of spite. Boycotting the Jewish state is inherently anti-semitic as it is analogous to boycotts against Jewish businesses that took place throughout Europe in the early 20th century leading up to Holocaust. The plethora of student groups in favor of BDS simply demonstrates the pervasiveness of anti-semitism throughout world history.
This conflict on campus cannot be solved only through dialogue groups or social groups, like Bears Breaking Bread, although these organizations are important to our campus in helping facilitate more civil debate. The conflict is fundamentally political and therefore can only be resolved through political action in the political bodies that represent students.
This conflict will be resolved in one of three ways. First, one or the other narrative will disappear from this campus, which is highly unlikely. Second the situation in the region, a peace agreement or full-out war, will completely shift the paradigm of the political debate. Or finally, students will find a way to synthesize these narratives and take political action based upon a synthesized narrative. This is extremely difficult as both sides are predisposed to view the other as complicit in the marginalization of their community.
On a final note, it is my observation that there appears to be a pervasive and appalling lack of empathy on both sides to how one’s actions can contribute to the perceived or real marginalization of another’s community. A wise friend once told me “never forget that people different from you can be empathetic to you” and any attempt to synthesize these narratives will have to begin with that understanding.
George Kadifa is an ASUC senator with the Student Action party.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
The BDS vote was contentious because it was proclaimed to have been done in secret – see Ickowitz’s piece on the issue. I find that this issue isn’t outright divisive as his piece entails because the language of HR 35 seeks to condemn a rising antisemitism on Californian campuses on the guise of free speech. There is indeed antisemitism, and to condemn such hate speech is both necessary and justified, but to conflate criticisms of Israel with antisemitism is completely off base. The UCSA bill makes this belief clear, saying that the use of BDS to represent the moral obligation institutions possess not to monetarily support human rights abuses.
I believe Kadifa when he writes that political action will be useful in congealing a historically difficult narrative, one that is subject to revisionism and religious bias so strong that the condemnation of the veracity of the story brings hellfire to the one purporting such claims. The process will have to be one of admitting hard truths, but these truths are hard only because each side believes that they are divine in their word and are as such saints. Justifying illegal settlements is happening, an act that flies in the face of belief in both the rule and spirit of law. Terrorist attacks and the use of a potential Palestine as a launching pad for attacks against Israel rightfully creates fear in the hearts of those who love the Jewish state. Third parties abound in their support for either side, and what this has the potential to culminate into is a proxy battle for the next world war – as do many conflicts that take place in the Middle East. It’s a dangerous place in dangerous times, and what we should remember is that the reasonable goal here is peace. Being friends (which I hear isn’t the real title of this article anyway) is a great backdrop to a discussion that will be heavy, but if that needs to fade for issues to be truly dealt with in an arena like a University Student Council then so be it.
On that note, Israeli students have every right to be upset that they were not allowed to purport in the same space as the UCSA their belief that Israel shouldn’t be targeted outright as a sponsor of human rights violations. Nonetheless, I believe that they are wrong, and given the context of HR 35, topically wrong as well.
I think further that if discussions of this nature are to occur and are stifled by the political struggle touched by the impact of such bills, then discussion should focus on the strength of the tool used as a measure to solve moral dilemmas created by investing in those who perpetrate genocide. Why is BDS a tool that is more likely than not to be abused? Can we target specific companies? Do we start targeting individuals on the board of regents who make the specific investments themselves instead of the political backdrop those companies may somehow have some influence on (and I understand, Israeli company, Israeli GDP, Israeli arms, Israeli backup for settlement construction).
And if we are truly upset about investing in companies that profit from human rights abuses on our campus, the next time I see anybody with a coke I’m going to slap that shit out their hand and sing a song where every odd numbered word is in Hebrew and the even numbered words in Arabic and all it will say is
“you just gave 26 cents to people who have bombs i should slap the shit out you but instead i slapped your coke if there’s a god he would hate all of us because commandment one is thou shalt not kill”
That, however, is unfair of me. Every religion says thou shalt not kill, except in the name of Justice. If Justice is practicing your religion, and your religion condemns the existence of others, then I don’t know anymore.
I would expect Kadifa to claim that BDS has support from all groups, but the Israeli side only has support from Jews. However, objective people know lots of non Jews who support Israel. We should BSD Palestine, because you know that Palestine violates the human rights of non-Muslims ,women, and homosexuals, since Shari’a is the law for the territory.
George
Well written piece.
Your former FP teacher
Could someone explain this conundrum for me?
Why is it Muslims are free to violently conquer lands anywhere and everywhere
without a word of protest from American Muslims, or any Muslims for that
matter, but if Jews have a legally established homeland Muslims will never stop
protesting against it? Why is this do you suppose? What explanation can be
given other than as the Qur’an states repeatedly that Islam’s goal is to
establish a worldwide caliphate in which all non-Muslims are subjugated.
For instance, Mohammed was born around 571 AD thousands and thousands of years
after Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism existed. But within a few centuries of
Mohammed’s birth Islam had violently conquered vast sections of Asia, all of
North Africa and smaller sections of Southern Europe.
Now Muslims tell us that all this land belongs to them even though, for
instance, in Afghanistan they killed every last Buddhist who once lived there.
According to Muslim logic per Israel shouldn’t this land belong to the
Buddhists?
Or in North Africa all the Berbers have been forcibly converted to Islam or
have been killed and now we’re told all this vast landmass belongs to Islam.
That’s interesting, if not completely hypocritical. And what about Southern
Thailand. Did anyone know that in the last several years something like 5,000
Buddhists have been killed by Muslims because, or so we’re told, the land the
Buddhists are on belongs to Islam. And Southern Russia? Muslims are
relentlessly waging a slow reign of terror in Russia because, you guessed it,
Russians are treating Muslims poorly and they should give up the Southern
section of that country to Muslims.
Or, let’s take Sudan as another example. How many millions have been killed in
Sudan? How many babies and children have starved in Sudan while Islamists steal
the food from aid compounds? How many women have Muslims gang-raped in Sudan
all because that land belongs to Muslims and only Muslims. All other people can
go somewhere else to live, I guess.
And Kashmir? The same. Despite Hindus having lived there for 3,000 years –
something like 2,000+ years before Mohammed was born – Muslims tell us Kashmir
belongs to them. Amazing logic isn’t it?
And that brings us to Israel. Israel also belongs to Islam. Did you know that?
It’s true. Even though it’s no bigger than a small pimple on the caliphate’s
ass it is still their land and they will fight to the death to prove their
point.
Doesn’t the logic here make a lot of sense. Isn’t it as clear as day? Of course
it is. The world belongs to Islam and we’re mere players on their stage.
To be fair, titles of op-eds are usually written in by the newspaper’s editors, not the author (and in this case, the editors made a childish choice in “Why can’t we all be friends”). Note in particular the title of that same op-ed in the paper copy is different: “Our inability to agree on the issue of Israel-Palestine”.
I don’t think George’s op-ed is at all naive as the title the editors chose suggests. Indeed, he says: ”
This conflict on campus cannot be solved only through dialogue groups or social groups, like Bears Breaking Bread, although these organizations are important to our campus in helping facilitate more civil debate. The conflict is fundamentally political “
Inaccurately grouping and labeling large groups of your peers based on your perception of their feelings does not simplify the problem and it wont help us to “all be friends.” Rather it appears to be patronizing and shows an insensitivity to the conflict and the students who are deeply invested in the many sides of this serious discussion.
Take some of your own advice and next time you approach this topic take a little time to find a deeper understanding of the students you are talking about and the issues that they are concerned with. When you suggest that “this conflict will be resolved in one of three ways” and offer one of the simple options to be “a peace agreement or full-out war,” remember that it is the family and friends of many of the students you are speaking about who would be the individuals fighting and dying on both sides of that war.
Please show some respect to everyone involved and refrain from inaccurately simplifying an international conflict and its resulting campus discourse, so that it is easier for you to understand.
maybe even bother asking some people about what efforts they’ve made to reach out to the other side before you publicly accuse them of a lack of empathy? otherwise you come over as pretty arrogant