Let’s get this straight: Wednesday’s ASUC Senate meeting was not just about supporting human rights through targeted divestment.
No one will refute the challenge faced by Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank, but there is another narrative that was conspicuously absent in the language of SB 160, “A Bill In Support of Human Rights in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.” The purpose of this ep-ed is not to detract from the Palestinian suffering but rather to bring to light the breakdown in communication and ulterior motives that came about as part of this legislative process.
Some context is required. First of all, even taking a stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a highly complex issue. It is not a black and white issue of Israelis versus Palestinians; rather, it is one that necessitates a much more nuanced approach that takes into account thousands of years of religious and political history.
Death threats and vitriolic accusations targeting Student Action Senators Rosemary Hua and Mihir Deo, who voted against SB 160, demonstrate the hostility that is associated with such contentious legislation. Even prospective students were not immune to the ASUC’s legislation. Both these authors fielded numerous Cal Day questions regarding negative campus climate repercussions for Jews and pro-Israel supporters alike.
Clearly, there is a dissonance between intention and action that is reason enough for opponents of SB 160 to be incensed.
CalSERVE Senator Nolan Pack, who attempted to reduce the bill into a black and white reality, only reinforces the argument that not all stories were addressed. The consequences of this shortsighted approach do a disservice to both Israelis and Palestinians who are living in this struggle.
Such myopia stems from a lack of communication. In his impassioned opening speech, co-author of SB 160 and EAVP Shahryar Abbasi spoke about how this bill has been in the works for the last four months.
As such, both opponents and proponents of SB 160 have to be curious as to why established Jewish student groups, such as Tikvah and the Jewish Student Union, were not consulted once before this bill was submitted for consideration. Let’s not forget that Abbasi worked hard to obtain the Jewish Student Union endorsement during his EAVP campaign just a year ago. It is disingenuous to presume that the Jews and Israelis who spoke in favor of divestment represent widespread Jewish support for SB 160.
If both supporters and opponents of SB 160 call for an end to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state, then why wouldn’t the authors of this bill seek out every party involved to holistically evaluate this issue?
The evidence suggests that this was an exercise in shady politics hidden from public discourse. This is why opponents of SB 160 believe the implications of this bill involve much more than targeted divestment.
The undertones of this bill are aligned with those of the larger Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, one that ultimately calls for a one-state Palestinian solution. The rhetoric surrounding the bill indicates that this was much more than divestment from Caterpillar, Cement Roadstone Holdings and Hewlett-Packard.
The fact that amendments that would have recognized Israel as a Jewish democratic state and/or endorsed a two-state solution failed reinforces the anti-Israel dogma implicit in SB 160. The bill clearly refuses to acknowledge an Israeli side of the story riddled with civilian deaths from Sderot to Ashkelon.
History suggests that the academic year of 2012-13 will be forever known as the year of Israeli divestment. Does anyone remember any other piece of legislation besides Israeli divestment from Will Smelko’s presidency in 2009-10?
The first step toward peace is collaboration, not divestment. The authors of this bill had the opportunity to take a progressive and innovative approach to this issue but instead renewed feelings of alienation and discomfort reminiscent of 2010.
There is one lingering takeaway from the aftermath of this bill: The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian issue is not any closer to a sustainable solution.
Oren Friedman is chief of staff to ASUC executive vice president Justin Sayarath. Natalie Gavello is the ASUC academic affairs vice president.
Contact the opinion desk at [email protected].