Sureya Melkonian/Staff

The UC Board of Regents appointed UC Berkeley senior Sadia Saifuddin as student regent-designate at its meeting Wednesday, despite some controversy over her selection. When Saifuddin’s term begins in July 2014, she will be the first Muslim student regent.

Saifuddin’s appointment was met with controversy during the meeting’s public comment session when some raised concerns about her support of a recent movement to divest UC funds from companies affiliated with the Israeli military. In a rare move, UC Regent Richard Blum abstained from the vote to approve Saifuddin, citing similar concerns regarding her political activity. All other regents voted in Saifuddin’s favor.

This spring, Saifuddin co-sponsored a UC Berkeley student government bill aiming to divest ASUC funds from companies that provide equipment, materials and technology to the Israeli military. Supporters cited concerns regarding Israel’s alleged human rights violations in the region and encouraged the UC system to also take action in withdrawing investments.

During the public comment session, Saifuddin’s critics alleged that her support for divestment would be a divisive force within the UC system and would alienate Jewish students.

Some, including ASUC Senator George Kadifa and former student regent Jonathan Stein, refuted those claims, supporting Saifuddin’s appointment.

“Those who do know her personally know her to be a woman of openness,” Stein said. “She invited students to Muslim student town halls (and) Muslim students to Jewish student town halls.”

Although many regents disagreed with Saifuddin’s position on divestment, they largely approved of her appointment, with explicit support from Regents Sherry Lansing, Bonnie Reiss and Frederick Ruiz.

“We disagree with her position on divestment, but we do so respectfully,” Lansing read from a statement she wrote in collaboration with UC President Mark Yudof and Regents Bruce Varner and Ruiz.

Blum abstained from the final appointment vote, saying that he strongly disagreed with Saifuddin’s point of view but did not know her well enough to justify a negative vote.

“When you’re going to be the student representative, you have to represent all the students, and you don’t want to alienate a lot of people,” Blum said.

After the vote, Saifuddin briefly addressed the meeting, thanking both her family for their support as well as the regents for the opportunity to serve the UC community.

“I think that the UC is standing at a critical juncture right now, and it’s really important for us to come together,” Saifuddin said during the meeting.

Later, at a press conference, Saifuddin addressed some of the criticisms she has received in light of her nomination as student regent.

“I think being on the receiving end of these attacks is difficult, but it’s not something that’s unexpected or unforeseen, and it’s something that I’ll learn to deal with better every day,” Saifuddin said.

Contact Simon Greenhill and Mary Zhou at newsdesk@dailycal.org.

The post UC Board of Regents appoints Sadia Saifuddin as student regent-designate appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Benny Grush/Staff

The ASUC Judicial Council has unanimously ruled parts of controversial divestment bill SB 160 unconstitutional, removing clauses that require the ASUC to divest from companies affiliated with the Israeli military.

In an opinion released Sunday, the council ruled that the ASUC Senate lacked the authority to divest ASUC funds, saying that investment decisions must be made by the ASUC Investment Committee.

The council included an updated version of the bill in their opinion, which removes about 30 words that would divest ASUC funds but preserves other parts of the bill detailing Israel’s alleged human rights violations and encouraging the UC system to divest.

“The ASUC Senate has no constitutional power to craft specific investment policies,” the opinion states. “According to the By-Laws, the only body in the ASUC with the authority and expertise to write investment policy is the Investment Committee. Thus, when the ASUC specified companies by name and issued strict directives such as ‘will divest’ in SB 160, it overstepped its legislative bounds.”

Noah Ickowitz, former SQUELCH! party chair and a former columnist for The Daily Californian, was among those who filed charges against SB 160 on April 26. He said that while other components of the bill are still problematic, he is satisfied with the decision.

“(The decision) takes out any of the concrete action items in the bill that would have an effect (to divest funds),” Ickowitz said. “Taking away the clauses asking the ASUC to divest its funds takes away the core of the bill.”

Feelings among the bill’s proponents are also optimistic. Despite some of the bill’s language being removed, they say the symbolic message of the bill remains in place.

“The final (bill) that the Judicial Council produced is nearly identical to the one we passed,” said Student Action Senator George Kadifa, who authored SB 160. “It contains all relevant clauses asking the UC to divest. The ones that were stricken were added as afterthoughts; the ASUC has no investments in companies that actually profit (from alleged violations). We’re glad it’s over.”

However, supporters also disagree with the Judicial Council’s ruling, which effectively placed the authority of senate subcommittees above the senate itself.

“To say the senate does not have the power to do something is a little funny, because the senate is what creates these subcommittees,” said Independent Senator Sadia Saifuddin, who also sits on the investment committee. “Subcommittees construct policy based on what the senate says.”

But Ickowitz said that the council’s decision represents an important check on senate overreach.

“I think the fact that it was a unanimous decision speaks to the power and voracity of the charges filed, and I think it sends a strong message that the ASUC Senate cannot overstep structures regardless of the issue or topic at hand,” Ickowitz said.

Jacob Brown is a news editor. Contact him at jbrown@dailycal.org.

The post Judicial Council rules divestment bill violated ASUC bylaws appeared first on The Daily Californian.

SB 160 divests ASUC funds from companies affiliated with the Israeli military. The Judicial Council originally issued the gag order around 8 p.m. Saturday evening, demanding silence on the case from all parties involved. The gag order came after the ASUC rescinded its previous decision to approve a settlement of charges against SB 160 that removed any clauses that required the ASUC to divest its funds.

“While the judicial procedures allow for a gag order to be placed any time, I believe that their reason was not sufficient to overstep the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” said Noah Ickowitz, a petitioner in the case, SQUELCH! party chair and a former Daily Cal columnist.

In an email obtained by The Daily Californian, Associate Justice Scott Lara thanked all parties involved for their patience during the gag order and stated that currently, “the confusion about trial procedure and the judicial process between the parties has largely been cleared up.”

Members of the ASUC Judicial Council could not be reached for comment as of 4:30 p.m.

On Friday, the Judicial Council voted in favor of a settlement between the petitioners and the bill’s author, Student Action Senator George Kadifa. The settlement would have removed clauses that petitioners had said were unconstitutional. Petitioners alleged that the bill had not been approved by the appropriate ASUC committees and was not passed by the necessary two-thirds vote. Two ASUC officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the gag order, were sharply critical — even angered — at what they called the council’s freehanded use of the gag orders, which the officials said was an overreach of the council’s authority.

The original charges will now go to trial, and the Judicial Council will rule on their validity. The trial for Ickowitz-Freeman v. ASUC Senate & SB 160 is scheduled for Wednesday at 11 a.m. at a location to be determined.

UPDATE at 6:12 pm: The trial will be held at Anna Head Hall and is open to members of the public.

Staff writer Jeremy Gordon contributed to this report. 

Contact Shirin Ghaffary at newsdesk@dailycal.org

The post Gag order lifted on divestment settlement case appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The settlement calls for the removal of clauses in SB 160 that dealt with ASUC investments and appropriations. It effectively thwarts the ASUC’s effort to divest its own funds from companies involved in Israel’s alleged “human rights abuses” against Palestinians, leaving a purely symbolic piece of legislation that requests similar divestment by the UC Regents.

The charges that brought about the settlement claimed that the bill was not approved by the proper committees and should have been passed by a two-thirds vote instead of a simple majority.

“I think SB 160 has lost a lot of weight through this settlement,” said Noah Ickowitz, SQUELCH! party chair and a former columnist for The Daily Californian. “The bill that passed is now a completely different bill once these clauses are stricken. It loses almost all its authority. I hope the public understands that this is no longer ASUC divestment.”

Chancellor Robert Birgeneau said in a public statement that the passage of SB 160 would in no way affect the investment policies of the university.

The settlement, which is pending approval by the Judicial Council, was reached between Attorney General Hinh Tran — representing the ASUC — and Ickowitz and former external affairs vice president Joey Freeman. Tran, who was tasked with defending the ASUC in the matter, conceded the legitimacy of the constitutionally grounded charges against SB 160 but added that in his opinion, the charges did not have enough merit to warrant nullifying the bill.

“It’s a sign on cooperation and compromise on a very difficult bill,” Tran said.

Student Action Senator George Kadifa, who authored the bill, disagreed that the settlement watered down the bill in any way, emphasizing that the purpose of the bill has been largely symbolic since its inception.

“The settlement changes very, very little about the bill,” Kadifa said. “A part of the reason (we were willing to compromise) was that the ASUC wasn’t invested in any of these companies. That wasn’t the main focus. All language calling for the UC Regents to divest is still in the bill.”

While the settlement represented a compromise between the parties involved, it was not necessarily a consensus of the affected communities.

Despite being on the opposite side of the divestment debate, Jewish Student Union President Daphna Torbati agreed that the settlement did not really change the essence of the original bill.

“Although this is definitely a change in the right direction, these changes are largely inconsequential, as the bill still contains the same sentiments that ignore much of the Israeli narrative,” she said.

Both Tran and Ickowitz said they believe that the settlement reflects an important ability to compromise on an issue that has been divisive. They echoed a sentiment similar to that of ASUC President Connor Landgraf when he announced that he would not veto the bill in an effort to expedite the campus’s healing process.

“Not going through a hearing definitely helps campus climate,” Ickowitz said. “We really don’t need a trial right now, and the settlement avoided a big public spectacle. I’m sure there are people in both communities left unsatisfied, but in this case, I’m sure it was the right decision.”

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post Settlement of charges against divestment bill SB 160 to remove major clauses appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Former external affairs vice president Joey Freeman and former SQUELCH! senator Noah Ickowitz, a former columnist for The Daily Californian, have jointly filed charges alleging that the ASUC Senate violated the ASUC Constitution in its passage of SB 160.

Ickowitz and Freeman filed the petition early Friday afternoon, and it is currently pending review. The charges, if accepted, would lead to a trial addressing the alleged violations of SB 160.

“I strongly believe the ASUC should follow the correct procedures in passing these bills,” Ickowitz said. “Because SB 160 has such an intense conversation around it, to not follow the procedures does a disservice to the campus.”

The root of the charges lies with the language of the bill, which Ickowitz said “presupposes that the bill has the authority to restrict spending and funding without having gone through appropriate channels.”

The charges begin with the fact that the bill was not passed with a two-thirds senate majority, which the ASUC Constitution states is required for deliberations regarding ASUC financial appropriations or revenue reductions.

They also argue that the bill “restricted” the ASUC’s investment practices, a responsibility that lies with the Investment Committee and requires consent from the Constitutional and Procedural Review Committee. The bill, with its “commanding” language, oversteps these bodies and “overextends the powers of the ASUC Senate without due process,” Ickowitz said.

In the charges, Ickowitz and Freeman suggest that SB 160 be sent back to the senate for a two-thirds vote to either follow or suspend the bylaws requiring review by these committees.

Before filing, Ickowitz and Freeman notified Student Action Senator George Kadifa and independent Senator Sadia Saifuddin, author and sponsor of SB 160, respectively, of their intent to petition the bill.

“I’m disappointed that the students who brought the charges didn’t bring these up earlier,” Kadifa said. “I’m a little curious, now that the bill has passed, why they’re bringing this up now. If the petition is accepted, we would rewrite the bill to ensure there are no violations.”

The petition has joined other suits that the ASUC Judicial Council must review in the coming weeks, including charges against Safeena Mecklai, a Student Action senator and external affairs vice president-elect.

ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran said Ickowitz and Freeman raised some “interesting points,” noting that both of them have a “strong understanding of ASUC policies.” Tran said that should the petition be accepted and litigation begin, a trial would hopefully be scheduled before the end of the semester — if not, it might be held during the summer session.

Ickowitz said he felt that there was a “high likelihood the charges will be accepted,” emphasizing that the arguments were made on legal rather than ideological grounds. However, he did note that ideology was part of the impetus for filing.

Ickowitz pointed to the charges filed by Cooperative Movement Senator Jorge Pacheco and Student Action Senator Mihir Deo against ASUC President Connor Landgraf’s executive order to place the health and wellness referendum on the ballot as an example of people filing “that which is relevant to them.”

Notably, the senators did not charge the Class Pass referendum, even though it allegedly violated the same bylaws as the health and wellness referendum.

“When people sue over legislation, it’s not at all out of the ordinary that legislation is relevant to them,” Ickowitz said. “It’s also coupled with relevance to me and my community.”

View the petition evidence below:

Contact Sophie Ho at sho@dailycal.org.

Correction(s):
A previous version of this article incorrectly identified the petition as a charge sheet.

The post Charges allege senate violated constitution in passing divestment bill appeared first on The Daily Californian.

SB 158, originally introduced as an alternative to divestment bill SB 160, was authored by SQUELCH! Senator Jason Bellet and Student Action Senator Rafi Lurie. The authors themselves requested that the bill be tabled indefinitely saying that to that the bill’s language had been too watered down in the ASUC’s Committee on University & External Affairs.

“The authors of this bill submitted the bill with certain language and the bill was edited down and edited down,” Lurie said during the meeting. “The language we (originally) put in there is what our community wanted to see. Table this instead of passing some half bill.”

The bill would encourage the ASUC to take financial and political action to help end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, recognizing harm inflicted on both side and affirming the right for a Jewish State. The bill would also indicate that the ASUC supports a two state solution.

Lurie maintained that the discussion surrounding the bill would not be laid to rest but instead addressed in a different bill.

Other senators, including CalSERVE Senator Nolan Pack and Student Action Senator George Kadifa, also addressed issues with the bill’s wording.

“I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to passing the bill as it came out of committee, but I am definitely opposed to many of the changes the authors are proposing,” Pack said in an email. “Specifically, the authors are packing the bill with loaded language that implicitly endorses disagreeable policies that may not be obvious at face value.”

Independent Senator Sadia Saifuddin said that that she felt portions of the bill were exclusionary to non-Jewish people living in Israel.

“I was not in support of some of the proposed amendments by the senators because the language was exclusionary by its nature and extraordinarily vague,” Saifuddin said in an email.

Bellet addressed concerns about the language of the bill saying that the bill is grounded in international law and correct in referring to Israel as a Jewish state.

“Jewish people and Palestinian people have a right to self determination,” Bellet said during discussion. “This bill supports Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.”

CalSERVE senator and ASUC President-elect DeeJay Pepito said she voted against tabling the bill because she felt the discussion while worthwhile, was too short.

“To be clear, Senators who voted yes on SB 160 were more than willing to vote yes on SB 158 also,” Pepito said in an email. “We just wanted a conversation on amendments and language use within its text. I am troubled tonight knowing that the conversation on 158 was so short. This bill deserved time on the Senate floor — the community supporting SB 158 deserved time on the Senate floor.”

Ally Rondoni is the lead student government reporter. Contact her at arondoni@dailycal.org.

The post Senate votes to table divestment opposition bill SB 158 appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Henry Ascencio/Staff

In a dramatic vote that was emotional for all sides, the ASUC Senate voted 11-9 to divest from companies affiliated with Israel’s military early Thursday morning.

The heated debate began Wednesday evening and carried on for 10 hours, continuing into Thursday. Anna Head Alumnae Hall overflowed with hundreds of UC Berkeley students, faculty and community members engaging in a contentious debate regarding the bill, SB 160.

SB 160, authored by Student Action Senator George Kadifa, calls the UC system a “complicit third party” in Israel’s “illegal occupation and ensuing human rights abuses” and seeks the divestment of more than $14 million in ASUC and UC assets from Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard and Cement Roadstone Holdings. According to the bill, these companies provide equipment, materials and technology to the Israeli military, including bulldozers and biometric identification systems.

The final vote, which occurred just before 5:30 a.m., was met with cheering, stomping and cries of joy by supporters of the bill.

Independent Senator and bill co-sponsor Sadia Saifuddin said she saw the vote as the culmination of years of struggle.

“Tonight is not about corporations,” she said. “It’s about asking ourselves before we go to sleep whether our money is going toward the destruction of homes, toward the erection of a wall. I am a working student. And I don’t want one cent of my money to go toward fueling the occupation of my brothers and sisters.”

But across the aisle, opponents of the bill were silent, absorbing the defeat with dismay.

SQUELCH! Senator Jason Bellet decried the bill for ignoring an important side in the issue.

“If we walk away with anything tonight, it’s that this conflict is nuanced,” Bellet said. “But divestment and the language set forth in SB 160 frames Israel as the sole aggressor. This is more than just divesting from three companies. Divestment is undoubtedly taking a side in the conflict.”

The vote was emotional for senators as well as spectators. At least three senators broke down in tears as they gave their final comments following the vote.

Dozens of community members spoke at the beginning of the meeting, pleading their cases to the senate late into the night.

Supporters of the divestment bill — which included Muslim and Jewish students alike, as well as members of other campus communities — said they opposed the ASUC and university’s financial involvement with companies that benefit from alleged human rights violations perpetrated by the Israeli government.

“There are few experiences more traumatic than losing your home or being forced out of the place you call home,” said UC Berkeley junior Kamyar Jarahzadeh. “This university’s money — our money — is complicit in the deprivation of human rights.”

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Alice Walker, who said she had visited the Gaza Strip, was present at the meeting and publicly voiced her support for SB 160.

Following the senate’s decision on SB 160, Chancellor Robert Birgeneau released a statement Thursday afternoon expressing disapproval of the bill’s passage.

“It is my personal opinion that targeting a single nation or state in this highly complex world is not appropriate and does little to advance the cause of peace and coexistence,” Birgeneau said in a statement. “Ultimately, we believe that engaging in dialogue on these difficult issues is the best hope that we have for achieving peace.”

In his statement, Birgeneau also revealed that UCPD is currently investigating an incident on Sproul Plaza in which a student who was handing out pro-divestment fliers was struck in the face. UCPD Lt. Eric Tejada confirmed in an interview with The Daily Californian that the incident to which Birgeneau referred is the battery that occurred on April 1, when a student tabling on Sproul was punched and knocked to the ground.

On Wednesday night, the senate was also set to vote on SB 158, an opposing bill to SB 160, but the bill was tabled following the long discussion of SB 160. SB 158 “seek(s) investment opportunities that strengthen Israeli-Palestinian cooperation in pursuit of a two state resolution to the conflict” rather than divestment.

Many members of the Jewish community decried SB 160’s targeted divestment from Israel as choosing one side of the conflict at the expense of the other when suffering has occurred on both.

“Divestment does nothing to better the lives of Palestinians,” said political science professor Ron Hassner. “It seeks to undermine, harm and destroy and offers no vision of an Israeli-Palestinian future.”

Opponents of divestment also reminded the senate of the hostile campus climate Jewish students faced after the 2010 divestment attempt. Many said they felt alienated and unwelcome and warned that the passage of SB 160 could affect Jewish students’ decisions to come to UC Berkeley.

“We will take home that an amendment asking for a two-state solution was failed,” said SQUELCH! party chair and former Daily Cal columnist Noah Ickowitz. “We will take home that an amendment asking for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state was failed. We will take home that this body takes divestment as a weapon of choice when that is not the only weapon in our arsenal.”

Although the bill passed, ASUC President Connor Landgraf has the option to veto it. According to the ASUC Constitution, the president may veto an action by the senate within seven days of the decision. A two-thirds vote by the senate is needed to override a presidential veto.

“It was a very close decision, and clearly, it’s an issue in which our campus is divided about,” Landgraf said in an interview. “I will be thinking about (the vote) and deciding on that.”

In 2010, the senate passed a similar divestment bill that was later vetoed by then-president Will Smelko. In the weeks that followed, the senate failed to reach a two-thirds vote to override the veto.

Daphne Chen contributed to this report.

Contact Jeremy Gordon and Daphne Chen at newsdesk@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC Senate passes Israeli divestment bill SB 160, 11-9 appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The ASUC Senate will be considering a contentious bill, SB 160, that would divest ASUC assets from Israeli-affiliated companies in protest of the Israeli government’s alleged human rights violations in Palestine. The bill has drawn support as well as criticism from various campus communities.

Whether the bill passes remains in the hands of the 20 ASUC senators. While some senators have openly stated their support, others said they remain uncertain or did not return calls for comment.

“The main reason I am undecided is because this is a very complex issue,” said Student Action Senator Mihir Deo in an email. “I’m not saying that the complexity means it should not be brought up, but that it requires a lot of thought. Divestment is a serious thing to call for, and shouldn’t be used lightly. The main question in my head is whether the call for divestment is justified instead of a serious condemnation of settlements in the West Bank; which is still something this ASUC hasn’t done.”

Although SB 160 was written by Student Action Senator George Kadifa, other Student Action senators have said they are against the bill. Every CalSERVE senator will vote in support of the bill, said Matthew Enger, CalSERVE’s communications coordinator.

Some independent senators have also voiced their support.

“I think that the divestment movement itself is about taking a neutral position,” said independent Senator Sadia Saifuddin. “Right now, the UC does not take a neutral position because they’re funding war crimes, funding the building of a wall and funding the demolition of homes. Every student has a right to feel safe. I believe Palestinian people (should be allowed) to-self actualization and decide for themselves the best way to live.”

However, other senators have said that the bill is divisive and not a real solution.

Student Action Senator Rafi Lurie helped author SB 158, an opposing bill that will also be discussed at Wednesday’s meeting. This bill calls for ASUC “investment opportunities that strengthen Israeli-Palestinian cooperation” rather than divestment.

Lurie said that he is fundamentally against divestment because it is not an effective way to promote peace and a two-state solution in the Middle East.

“I believe that a divestment bill in this context is part of the wider Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement, which does not publicly endorse a two state solution and, therefore, the right to have a Jewish State of Israel next to a Palestinian State of Palestine,” Lurie said in an email. “I do not believe that all of the content presented in SB 160 is objectively true and I would feel uncomfortable with the ASUC taking a stance on facts that are clearly not objective.”

Cooperative Movement Senator Jorge Pacheco said that while he is in favor of divesting, he is also open to voting in favor of SB 158 as long as amendments are made to the bill.

“I want to make amendments so that suffering (between the Israelis and Palestinians) is not equated and not normalized,” he said. “I want to make sure the Israeli government is held responsible and condemned publicly for their human rights violations.”

In addition to declarations of support from senators, 114 members of educational institutions across California have signed a letter backing SB 160.

“I am supporting this bill because I believe that Israel is behaving like an apartheid and racist state — indeed, in ways that are highly reminiscent of South Africa,” said UC Berkeley professor Daniel Boyarin of the department of Near Eastern studies. “I believe that the university should desist from supporting racist and oppressive practices economically.”

SB 158 has also drawn support from faculty members, many of whom signed a letter in support of the bill published April 16 in The Daily Californian.

“I not only endorsed the bill’s substance but wanted to convey my support for the example set by the students who helped draft it,” said associate professor of history Mark Brilliant, one of the signers of the letter. “Their ability to transcend their profound differences offers a model to emulate and points to the possibility of bridging at least some of the divides that must be crossed in order to arrive at a just (two-state) solution to the anguishing Israel/Palestine conflict.”

Ally Rondoni is the lead student government reporter. Contact her at arondoni@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC Senate remains divided on divestment issue appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The bill in support of divestment, SB 160, authored by Student Action Senator George Kadifa, calls for targeted divestment of ASUC and UC assets from any companies that provide support to Israel’s military in the Palestinian territories or contribute to the building, maintenance or economic development of Israeli settlements on the West Bank.

The committee meeting, which continued into the early morning, was attended by at least 100 community members, many of whom spoke both against and in favor of targeted divestment from Israel. Many senators who do not sit on the the six-person committee were also in attendance, as were External Affairs Vice President Shahryar Abbasi and Executive Vice President Justin Sayarath.

Abbasi said at the meeting that divestment enabled the ASUC to stay neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by ending financial ties to either side.

“We should not be complicit in violations against human rights,” he said. “By divesting our funds, we are saying that we will not support one side or the other.”

SB 160 targets more than $14 million from the UC Retirement Fund and the UC General Endowment to be divested from three companies: Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard and Cement Roadstone Holdings. According to ASUC Finance Officer Amir Chini, this represents a tiny fraction of the total capital available to these companies — too little to realistically expect the companies to make any strategic changes.

An opposing bill discussed at the meeting, SB 158, calls for the ASUC to instruct managers of its funds to “seek investment opportunities that strengthen Israeli-Palestinian cooperation” as a constructive alternative to divestment. The bill was authored by authored by Student Action Senator Rafi Lurie, former External Affairs Vice President Joey Freeman,  SQUELCH! Senator Jason Bellet, SQUELCH! Chair and former Daily Cal columnist Noah Ickowitz and former Student Action Senator Aviv Gilboa.

Community supporters of SB 158 emphasized that divestment was not conducive to a negotiated peace or the two-state solution and would only cause division  and alienation of campus communities. Many Jewish and pro-Israel students said they felt alienated and unsafe on campus after a similar attempt to divest from Israel in 2010 brought national media attention to campus.

“What we want to do is use our political advocacy to promote a two-state solution,” Bellet said. “That’s more impactful than divesting from four companies.”

The bill was heavily amended by the committee before being passed for consideration by the senate.

Lurie took issue with the amendments to SB 158, which included the striking of clauses that compared SB 160 to the international movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel.

“Our community feels like our voices were silenced on this issue,” Lurie said. “These amendments are destroying the spirit of the bill.”

Freeman expressed that SB 160 harmfully blamed only one side of a complex historical conflict. “Tonight is not about valuing one side of this conflict over another,” he said. “There is very real and serious suffering on both sides of the conflict. But SB 160 is a one-sided narrative that places the burden entirely on Israel.”

Senior Shir Davidovic recalled the rise in anti-semitism that coincided with the last divestment effort, during which swastikas were drawn on the walls of Clark Kerr and her friends were spat on because they were Jewish.

‘The language of the BDS movement has anti-semitic undertones,” Davidovic said. “I considered transferring, and many of my friends did too. I know this is not the campus climate you want.”

Supporters of SB 158 also argued that it was an appropriate way to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would avoid the tensions and hostility that arose after the ASUC Senate considered the similar bill passed in 2010. That bill led to heated debates, which drew hundreds of students to senate meetings and brought international attention to campus. It was passed by the senate but later vetoed by then-president Will Smelko. The senate failed to garner the two-thirds majority vote necessary to override the veto.

Bellet said that SB 158 sought to encourage diplomacy and a more productive conversation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“While Israel’s steps should be criticized, there are other ways we can address this issue that will be more impactful on an international scale,” Bellet said.

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post Divestment bill to proceed to senate floor after approval by committee appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Matt Lee/File

The ASUC Senate will be revisiting one of UC Berkeley’s most contentious issues with the introduction of a bill that calls for the divestment of all ASUC and UC funds from any company associated with the Israeli military or settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The bill — which appeared on the agenda for Wednesday’s senate meeting and was authored by Student Action Senator George Kadifa — calls for divestment of ASUC and UC assets from any companies that provide support to Israel’s military in Palestine or contribute to the building, maintenance or economic development of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories.

Student Action Senator and presidential candidate Rafi Lurie has authored an opposing bill — also introduced at Wednesday night’s meeting — that calls for the ASUC to instruct managers of its funds to “seek investment opportunities that strengthen Israeli-Palestinian cooperation” rather than divesting funds.

Both bills will go to the senate’s Committee on University and External Affairs for consideration on Monday, after which it may be moved to a vote.

Another bill, similar to the one authored by Kadifa, attempted to demand divestment from Israel in 2010. It led to heated debates, which drew hundreds of students to senate meetings and brought international attention to campus. This bill was passed by the senate but then vetoed by then-president Will Smelko. The senate failed to gather the two-thirds majority vote necessary to override the veto.

The bill authored by Kadifa calls the university a “complicit third party” in Israel’s “illegal occupation and resulting human rights abuses.” It identifies and seeks divestment of at least $14 million in UC Retirement Program and General Endowment assets from companies such as Caterpillar and Hewlett-Packard.

“Our campus climate is already divisive because right now we are profiting from human rights violations inflicted on our own students,” Kadifa said. “By refusing to acknowledge injustice in human rights, we are diminishing our humanity.”

UC Berkeley Jewish Student Union President Daphna Torbati said the bill would make pro-Israel students feel unwelcome.

“I feel like the main issue is that potential Jewish students will not feel comfortable on this campus,” Torbati said. “It makes me personally feel uncomfortable.”

ASUC President Connor Landgraf said he hopes not to see a fallout between campus communities similar to what occurred after the previous divestment battle, but he said he is hopeful the bill could foster discussion and the reconciliation of strained relationships this time.

“It’s up to the communities involved to maintain a civil discussion on education and building relationships rather than tearing them down,” he said. “That’s the only way we can have constructive progress.”

Jeremy Gordon covers higher education. Contact him at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC Senate to revisit Israel divestment appeared first on The Daily Californian.