When my mother went to buy groceries in the market, she was not allowed to touch the produce because she was considered a “dirty Jew.” These are only a few indicators of the systematic oppression of the Iranian Jews, some of the oldest inhabitants of Persia. At the age of 20, she was forced to abandon her life in Iran as her family was scattered across the world. My grandmother, Mamanjani, was never allowed to return home because of her active involvement in Jewish organizations. Though she had no ties to any other government, she was warned not to go home for fear of execution without trial. Despite calling Persia home for 2,500 years, in 1979, my family and many Jewish families like my own were forced to forced to flee their homes. My family’s home, business and property was confiscated. We were torn from our homes, forced to flee to whichever country would take us in.

Though these experiences define me, some students on our campus seem to think my history does not count. During the “divestment” meeting two weeks ago, Students for Justice in Palestine tweeted about those opposed to divestment: “the Zizis are literally white people crying about their privilege, lol.” Apparently, Zizi is SJP shorthand for Zionist. And later, Daily Cal Blogger Noah Kulwin discussed a clear division he seems to see between “students of color” and “Jewish students,” implying that Jewish students like me cannot be considered students of color. I am here to address ignorance about what truly defines the Jewish people. Amid claims — or rather accusations — of “privilege” or the inability of Jews to understand the plight of “colored people,” I realized many people on this campus are unaware of who the Jewish people actually are.

My story is not unique among those who stood against divestment. Many of my peers who spoke against divestment come from families that experienced similar persecution before making it to America. For some, it was the Iraqi Farhud, where hundreds of Jews were killed and injured as Baghdad’s Jewish community was destroyed. For others, it was the oppression Jews faced under Soviet rule in Russia. And for others still, it was the Holocaust of Eastern Europe. But although they come from different corners of the globe, these Jewish students are here for a single reason: because making it to America was the difference between a new life and death in the countries they used to call home.

In the second half of the 20th century, millennia-old Jewish communities throughout the Middle East and North Africa were completely destroyed. The number of Middle Eastern Jewish refugees like my parents is on par with the number of Palestinian refugees following the Arab-Israeli War of 1948.

Not every Iranian Jew achieved asylum in America. For those who were not fortunate enough to make it here, Israel was the only country to which refugees could go. That’s what it means to have a Jewish State. It is a place — the only place — Jews like my family are guaranteed security. For our senate to refuse to recognize Israel as the Jewish State means that they are refusing to acknowledge my right to a place where my family, and others like me, are safe.

The pro-divestment movement wants you to believe that its cause is a struggle between the ethnic minority Palestinians and the “white” and “privileged” Jews and Israelis. By pretending that Jews are white Europeans, they argue that Israelis are foreign occupiers. But Jews are not a homogenous group of white people; we are an ethnically Middle Eastern people, comprising many unique communities from across the globe. After centuries of persecution, we have found security in this country and in our nation’s first home, Israel. And although we have achieved the privilege of statehood, our personal histories are defined by our recent struggles.

If there is one thing we can accomplish at a university, it is to educate ourselves. It shames me to see students at one of the most prestigious universities in the world denying the oppression of my people. True justice comes from recognizing the struggles and stories of every student. It is both offensive and counterproductive to define the ethnicity and history of another student group for political gain. Each student, regardless of race, ethnicity, color or creed, faces unique circumstances. To alter a commonly used sentiment on this campus, we all must check our prejudices.

Aryella Moreh is a student at UC Berkeley.

The post Keeping prejudice under control appeared first on The Daily Californian.

It looks something like Chancellor Robert Birgeneau’s statement that was recently released in response to SB 160, the ASUC bill that calls for targeted divestment from companies complicit in Israeli apartheid and illegal settlement.

Birgeneau explained his opposition to SB 160 just hours after the student senate passed the bill but waited over two weeks to condemn an April 1 assault on a Students for Justice in Palestine member.

The SJP member was publicly attacked in Sproul Plaza for vocally affirming Israel’s status as an apartheid state – a description which notable figures like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, award-winning author Alice Walker, former President Jimmy Carter and former Israeli attorney general Michael Ben-Yair agree with.

When the chancellor is quick to condemn a decision by the student senate majority but drags his feet before condemning an assault on a SJP member, it should be obvious which group is being marginalized.

Moreover, the chancellor downplays the severity of the assault by writing in his statement that the SJP member was “struck in the face.” In reality, the SJP member was punched in the face with a closed fist and knocked to the ground by a much larger assailant. The blow was so forceful that a witness reported shortly after the assault that the assailant’s knuckles were bleeding.

Birgeneau’s statement was insensitive, and it employed victim-blaming rhetoric. He argued that it was the divestment campaign that caused a divisive, hostile climate on campus. Nothing could be further from the truth. Divestment is in actuality an effective, nonviolent and legitimate tactic in the struggle against Israeli apartheid.

The chancellor argued that the campus is divided, but who stands on which side?

Thirty-one student organizations endorsed targeted divestment from Israeli apartheid, but Birgeneau sided with a small number of pro-Zionist students. It should be clear that the major division is not within the student body but between students and the administration.

To continue employing rhetoric that builds on a narrative of conflict between “students of color” and “Jewish students” is to disregard developing bonds of solidarity between Palestinian students and diverse networks of allies, including Jewish and Israeli students who supported SB 160.

Even Noah Kulwin, an opponent of SB 160, stated in a Daily Californian opinion blog that Palestine solidarity activists are constantly “demonized,” “delegitimized” and held to an unfair “double standard.” When Palestine activists face hostility, their victimhood is often removed from them, and they are blamed for their own victimization. Merely holding a political opinion is perceived as hostile, and violent reactions to such a “hostile” political opinion are seen as a natural reaction — as if saying violent response to Palestine solidarity activism is only to be expected. As if saying divestment is to blame for violent reactions – not the perpetrators of such violence. Such is the underlying rhetoric being employed in the aftermath of the inexcusable assault on a member of SJP.

UC Berkeley has a rich history of activism – from the Free Speech Movement to the Third World Liberation Front to the divestment campaigns against South African apartheid – that we should ultimately be proud of. What many of us take for granted today – free speech, ethnic studies and the end of South African apartheid – were once deemed “controversial,” publicly demonized and met with repression from authorities.

Whereas the campus administration has repeatedly attempted to suppress students’ activism and democracy, students and community members have nonetheless persisted in connecting many struggles in our own community to the struggle for justice in Palestine. There is a clear connection between American imperialism allied with Israel in the Middle East and the austerity, racism, militarization and violence here in the United States.

We say no to Israeli apartheid and illegal settlement. We say no to victim-blaming and the scapegoating of divestment. We demand recognition and reversal of these policies, and we stand as students united in solidarity for justice in Palestine – and for justice at our school.

Ley Cerezo is a sophomore at UC Berkeley and Alex Schmaus is a current student at Berkeley City College.

The post Coming together for campus justice appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The chancellor’s concern about the “rancor and divisiveness” caused by the divestment vote (Daily Cal, April 18) reveals little sensitivity to the role of the university as a forum for discussing and debating controversial issues. The univeresity has a proud tradition of hosting such debates but often in conflict with the administration. It was here at Cal in 1964 that civil rights activists sought to fundraise and recruit students for civil rights work in the South by setting up in tables in Sproul Plaza, activity later generations of student activists have taken for granted. But in 1964, this tabling activity was banned by chancellor’s office, citing university regulations prohibiting advocacy of political causes at Cal other than for the Democratic or Republican parties.  This effort by to muzzle Free Speech led to the famous sit-in at Sproul Hall in 1964, the arrests of hundreds of UC students and the birth of the Free Speech Movement.
Later that decade, Cal students, often at great personal cost, protested the war in Vietnam, seeking to end campus ROTC. In the following years, Cal students protested apartheid in South Africa, other causes and more recently, Berkeley Law professor John Yoo’s key role in justifying the use of torture in Iraq.

In the course of all these protest activities, always the administration has complained, just as the chancellor has done in relation to the divestment debate, that these issues were “divisive,” that activists were disrupting the peaceful, “civil” atmosphere they say fosters learning and the educational mission of the university.  Indeed, all of these protest movements were vigorously opposed by other students and faculty who complained that the protesters threatened something the UC administration now refers to as the “campus climate.” But what the chancellor forgets, in echoing the complaints of those who took offense at the “divisiveness” caused by the FSM, Vietnam War protests and now, the divestment debate, is that advocacy for social change almost always is somewhat “divisive”  and inevitably offends those resisting change. The university is not well served by what author Christina Hoff-Sommers describes as the growing “tyranny of niceness” at U.S. universities.

The UC administration also does a disservice to campus community when it weighs in on this debate by describing the divestment vote as “not a positive force for (the) campus climate” or “rais(ing) passions without moving the issues perceptibly forward.” (Daily Cal, April 24). Without question, the controversy on all UC campuses over divestment and Israel-Palestine stirs strong passions on both sides. But that passion should inspire, not stifle, debate and discussion here at the university over the serial wars in the Middle East, the failures of U.S. foreign policy there and the dire consequences especially for Palestinians.
Equally unavailing is the chancellor’s complaint that criticism of Israel is one-sided and the not so-veiled accusation underlying this complaint that this “one-sidedness” reflects anti-Semitism. Even the insinuation of that charge raises rather than dampens, the “temperature” on the campus relative to these issues. Understandably, those opposing Apartheid in South Africa spent most of their energies seeking change there and not elsewhere. And one can oppose North Korea without “balancing” one’s views with criticism of South Korea.

To be clear, many of the students protesting Israeli policies are sharply critical of the anti-democratic policies of Israel’s Arab neighbors – hence the near-universal celebration of the Arab Spring within the pro-divestment community. But there is no “equal criticism” burden on the exercise of First Amendment rights. And it is entirely understandable why pro-divestment students focus on Israel: This conflict threatens world peace and drains enormous resources. But more fundamentally and from a moral perspective, support for Israel perpetuates the displacement of hundreds of thousands of refugees from the 1948 war, in clear contravention of international laws, and abides the continued and often very brutal occupation of the territories seized in 1967.

A few years ago, Chancellor Birgeneau climbed on top of a police car on Sproul Plaza to honor the legacy of Mario Savio and the Free Speech Movement. If the chancellor really respects UC Berkeley’s historic role as a forum for debate, he should encourage, not stand in the way of, vigorous advocacy for human rights and equality as exemplified by the divestment campaign, even if it upsets some members of the UC community.

Jewish Voices for Peace member Liz Jackson contributed to this op-ed.

Matt Ross is a UC Berkeley alum. Maggie Sager and Nathan Stuckey are members of Students for Justice in Palestine.

The post Palestinians deserve an open discussion 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.

As word broke yesterday that ASUC President Connor Landgraf would not veto SB 160,  the divestment bill targeting companies involved in Israeli human rights violations, which passed in the ASUC last week, I was not sure how to respond.

On the one hand, it means divestment passed – an end with which I am not pleased. At last Wednesday’s senate meeting, I spoke against the divestment bill and criticized how it did not consider the inextricable link between Jewish and Palestinian self-determination. Nor did the bill propose a strategy of political engagement with which to advance American diplomatic leadership in the region.

But on the other hand, I am sort of relieved. There will be no more all-night Senate meetings, no more claims of pro-Israel lobbies buying off ASUC senators and, thankfully, an end to the repeated claims of many of my peers in Berkeley’s Jewish community that this bill’s very nature “silences” the Jewish community on campus.

Berkeley’s Jewish students are blessed with tremendous resources, including many that came to bear fully in opposition to divestment.  Whether it was coming together in our multi-million dollar Hillel building to voice our complaints, or strategize with professional support staff and Jewish ASUC Senators to provide a legislative alternative to divestment – Jewish students have had ample space in which to voice their frustrations and feel supported.

I don’t doubt that some Jewish students do indeed feel marginalized. I do, however, wonder if they are aware of how much damage these accusations of “marginalization” do to our community when we frame our own claims as mutually exclusive to those of Palestinian students and their allies.

Is a senate chamber divided between “students of color” and “Jewish students” the kind of portrait of campus engagement that we want to symbolize our community? Is it possible that the privilege of the established Jewish community at Berkeley has blinded them to these harmful dynamics?

This self-awareness is absent from the discussion in the recent Daily Cal op-ed written by ASUC leaders Natalie Gavello and Oren Friedman. According to their version of events, divestment supporters “had the opportunity to take a progressive and innovative approach to this issue but instead renewed feelings of alienation and discomfort reminiscent of 2010.”

Let me backtrack– I applaud Gavello and Friedman’s support for a two-state solution in their piece, and attempt not to “detract from the Palestinian suffering.” Sadly, the authors still have a long way to go.

First, I don’t know what an “innovative approach” to this issue looks like, or why the authors felt they should be involved in how to handle divestment. Most vocal leaders of the Jewish community have unfortunately never before indicated that they care to make change on this issue (except when they are trying to defeat divestment). This has become evident as almost none of these leaders, including Friedman and Gavello, returned to advocate for SB 158, the pro-Israel bill they were championing the week before.

Moreover, if Israel love-a-thons like “Israel, Peace and Diversity Week” with a giant, spinning Star of David in the middle of Sproul Plaza are the best our community has to offer in terms of “innovative” campus engagement with this issue, then no wonder many don’t consider us partners for change.

Friedman and Gavello are correct that divestment “renewed feelings of alienation and discomfort” – the problem is that it goes both ways. For every Jewish student complaining of their “marginalization” on this campus, there is a pro-divestment student with a similar claim that divestment supporters are being painted unfairly as anti-Semitic and that members of our community are trying to whitewash their oppression.

This also perpetuates alienation within the Jewish community. It is a sad day when my fellow opponents to divestment attempt to create this illusion that the Jewish community is united on this issue by smearing Jews who support divestment as somehow less relevant and, implicitly, less legitimately Jewish.

I remember when I, sitting in the “Jewish” section during the senate meeting, heard my peers snicker when Palestinian students told stories of their families’ suffering. And while I too am frustrated by cheers of a Palestine from the “river to the sea,” I was also stunned hearing some in the Jewish community condemn a peaceful student protest in solidarity with Palestinian hunger strikers as a “hate rally.”

I have heard many in the Jewish community cite what Israeli politician Natan Sharansky calls “the three D’s” that distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism: demonization, delegitimization, and double standards. It is with a deep sense of irony that I realize one could apply those same criteria to my community’s behavior this week.

Palestinian students and divestment supporters are “demonized,” slurred as bad people, for pursuing non-violent political actions in our student government. And they also are “delegitimized,” as many in the Jewish community simply dismiss the real tragedies of occupation as being mistruths or mischaracterizations. And Jewish students treat divestment supporters with a “double standard,” content with the other side feeling silenced or marginalized if it in any way threatens our own comfort on campus.

If the Berkeley Jewish student community wants to be fair-minded and inclusive, I fully support that goal and will work aggressively toward that end. That being said, as long as venomous discourse and acts of exclusion typify how we, as a community, respond to acts like divestment – nothing will change, nothing will get better.

Celebrated American Rabbi Joachim Prinz, speaking right before Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at the famous 1963 March on Washington, urged that “America must not become a nation of onlookers. America must not remain silent.”

If Jewish students seek to build bridges with minority communities on this campus, it begins with a refusal to be “silent” and remain “onlookers” of the struggles communities of color face on this campus and in our country. It will not come if our loudest voice is the one that complains about being “silenced.”

Image source: kateausburn via Creative Commons.

Contact Noah Kulwin at nkulwin@dailycal.org or follow him on Twitter: @noahkulwin.

The post Some thoughts on divestment and the Berkeley Jewish community appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Chancellor Robert Birgeneau acknowledged the altercation, which was allegedly about a disagreement regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in his response to the passage of SB 160 — a bill that divests ASUC funds from companies affiliated with Israel’s military.

The victim, who was handing out fliers for a student group’s pro-Palestinian event, was asked by his alleged assailant whether he thought Israel was an apartheid state. When the victim responded affirmatively, the attacker allegedly punched him in the face with a closed fist, causing the victim to fall to the ground.

The victim, who has asked to remain anonymous due to safety concerns, said that while he appreciates the chancellor’s condemnation of the assault, he feels campus officers and officials took the incident lightly.

“In terms of campus climate, (the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) is a big issue, and there are definitely two sides to it,” the victim said. “The truth is, initially, the university administration took what happened to me lightly. It took (the campus) two weeks to have a public statement in the chancellor’s response to divestment condemning the assault, but it took the chancellor only a few hours to condemn the divestment bill.”

Lt. Eric Tejada of UCPD said that police have not yet apprehended the suspect but have sent out a sketch of the alleged assailant.

“A leap that’s being made is that the attacker was pro-Israel,” Tejada said. “We don’t know what the motivation was. Until we have more solid information of what the motivation was, it’s kind of hearsay.”

Alex Schmaus was tabling alongside the victim when the assault occurred.

“I didn’t witness the punch, but I turned around and saw the victim, who’s my friend and colleague, on the ground on his back,” Schmaus said. “He had scrapes on his elbow, and his cheek, where he was punched, was starting to turn color, and he seemed disoriented and confused.”

In the wake of the bill’s passage, several senators, including Student Action Senator Rosemary Hua, who voted against SB 160, have also reported threatening emails and interactions on campus.

“The more extreme circumstance involved 4 men (that identified themselves as Palestinian students who sat through the Senate meeting),” said Hua in an email. “The 4 men aggressively expressed their disgust at my ‘people pleasing tendency’ which I told the audience as context to explain why this decision was so hard for me. Then, one of the men in the group told me he would gladly strap on a bomb as a form of protest.”

The confrontation occurred last Thursday, the day the bill was passed.

Campus officials said that there will be no tolerance for physical attacks.

“I only hope the perpetrator turns out not to be one of our students,” said Vice Chancellor Gibor Basri in an email regarding the April 1 assault. “The vote (on divestment) is not a positive force for campus climate (it has generated a lot of vituperative emails and raised passions without moving the issues perceptibly forward).”

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

The post Assault victim criticizes campus’s handling of incident appeared first on The Daily Californian.

In a statement explaining his decision, Landgraf emphasized that he did not support the bill and that it failed to contribute to any constructive dialogue on the issue. However, he ultimately decided not to veto the bill because he felt doing so would only intensify the conflict and lengthen the healing process for the community.

“I think people on both sides may disagree with my decision,” Landgraf said. “I think it’s the best decision for the campus as a whole, and both communities need to reconsider their perspectives on this issue and reconsider the value of having a 10-hour-long senate meeting that tears communities apart.”

In an interview with The Daily Californian’s Senior Editorial Board, Chancellor Robert Birgeneau said he personally witnessed the emotional turmoil Landgraf underwent prior to making his decision.

“I met with Connor last night, late in the afternoon, mostly just to listen to him.” Birgeneau said. “He was really, really upset, justifiably so, given the threats against his person. I just tried to console him and give him advice.”

Before announcing his decision, Landgraf said he had been verbally assaulted and threatened. He said he has only received a few angry emails since his announcement was made.

Independent Senator Sadia Saifuddin, a co-sponsor of SB 160, said she commended Landgraf for respecting the senate’s decision.

“This issue is clearly one that affects countless students,” Saifuddin said in an email. “But I truly believe it is possible to build bridges in the wake of the passage of the bill.”

Although Landgraf said he sought to hasten the campus’s healing process with his decision, many on both sides of the issue say they feel even more uneasy following his announcement.

While members of the Jewish community acknowledged the difficulty of Landgraf’s position, many said they are disappointed by his decision. Daphna Torbati, president of the campus Jewish Student Union, said she feels that Landgraf’s decision bolsters a one-sided narrative and silences the pro-Israeli voice.

“Regardless of the veto action, much of the damage has already been done,” Torbati said in an email. “Our community is very hurt and disappointed about the sheer amount of anti-semitic and anti-Israel comments made on the senate floor last week.”

Many pro-divestment students said they remain concerned about the climate on campus and that they continue to feel uneasy about expressing their views. Two weeks before the vote occurred, one pro-divestment student was assaulted on campus, allegedly for saying he believed that Israel was an apartheid state.

“The repression is so severe that we have to fear for our physical safety,” said the campus group Students for Justice in Palestine in a statement. “Our physical safety and our right to open debate are at risk.”

SJP also noted that its members feel that their advocacy has been mislabeled by opponents as hate speech.

ASUC President-elect DeeJay Pepito emphasized that all communities need to remain respectful of opposing opinions on this complex issue.

“As students, we need to take responsibility for our own actions,” Pepito said. “Poor campus climate is not determined by a piece of legislation that the senate passes. Poor campus climate is perpetuated by students using hurtful words and resorting to violent threats towards one another.”

Contact Jennie Yoon at jyoon@dailycal.org.

The post Climate remains tense in wake of Landgraf’s decision not to veto appeared first on The Daily Californian.

In a statement released Tuesday night, Landgraf emphasized that his decision should not be taken as an endorsement of the bill.

“I firmly reject its one­sided narrative, and the bill’s complete and utter failure to create any constructive discussion or dialogue on a complex and multifaceted issue,” he said in the statement. “This bill has served to do nothing more than divide our campus, foster anger, and encourage divisiveness.”

SB 160, authored by Student Action Senator George Kadifa, seeks the divestment of more than $14 million in ASUC and UC assets from companies including Caterpillar and Hewlett-Packard. The bill claims that these companies are complicit in Israel’s alleged abuse of human rights in Gaza, including the illegal demolition of Palestinian homes.

However, Landgraf said he decided not to veto the bill because he believed such an act would only lengthen the conflict and make the campus’s healing process more difficult. It is for this reason only, Landgraf said, that he decided not to veto SB 160.

Last week’s ASUC meeting lasted over 10 hours and was attended by more than 500 students, faculty and other concerned members of the community. Three senators cried as they explained their votes, which took place just before 5:30 a.m. Thursday morning.

Chancellor Robert Birgeneau released a statement last Thursday affirming his opposition to SB 160, saying that he believed 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.”

In an interview with The Daily Californian, Landgraf characterized the week leading up to his announcement as one of the worst of his life.

“I want people to know that this was not me siding with either side, and this is not me siding with the bill,” he said. “I couldn’t disagree more with this bill and the way it was done. I think this bill has utterly failed in that it hasn’t resulted in any constructive dialogue and that it’s very clear that this is not a model for how to produce change.”

Read his full statement below:

Sara Grossman is a news editor. Contact her at sgrossman@dailycal.org.

The post Landgraf announces no veto on divestment bill SB 160 appeared first on The Daily Californian.

During the course of the night, we heard many narratives, testimonies and arguments for and against SB 158 and SB 160. What struck me the most, though, was how the proponents of SB 160 were continually accused of “silencing” voices or perpetuating a “one-sided narrative.” I found this incredibly problematic, because it was clear that the Palestinian students afraid to speak for fear of retribution were the real voices being silenced. Not tens, but hundreds of students, from diverse backgrounds, races, ethnicities, religions, and orientations showed up to support SB 160, yet their truths were de-legitimized as “divisive” and “too complex.”

What I find complex was the lack of action, protest and anger over the fact that a member of Students for Justice in Palestine was struck in the face when he replied in the affirmative to the question “Do you believe that Israel is an apartheid state?” What I find divisive is hurtful and bigoted rhetoric labeling an entire community and coalition anti-Semitic because their beliefs vary from your own. Frankly, it is embarrassing to sit at a table and refuse to engage in constructive dialogue on human rights for the reason that “its too complicated.” Furthermore, it’s hypocritical to label the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as “too complicated” then pass a bill calling on a two-state solution. Last time I checked, this issue was “far too complex” for us to possibly understand.

I do not believe that human rights is a complex issue. Either you violate them, or you don’t. Either you perpetuate them through your tuition and tax dollars ($14 million from the University of California and $3 billion annually from the United States), or you don’t. All night, I heard the “complexity” of this issue argued as grounds for disengagement. This was offensive because as students of the No. 1 public university in the world, we are taught to challenge the status quo and deconstruct institutions of power. And if you are not being challenged, then I urge you to actively engage with these issues as they are directly linked to you.

Dialogue is necessary, and so is building bridges. But they are not mutually exclusive with action. Dialogue is constructive when both sides are on equal footing, not when one side is receiving millions of dollars in support of the oppression of the other. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X did not only “dialogue” with white supremacists during the Civil Rights Era. But they did create something to dialogue about. That is what we, as UC Berkeley students, must do. Our job is to create a dialogue, not to use dialogue as a tool to sustain oppression. We must remove the barriers that are sustaining this unequal power relationship and then talk about what steps can be taken to reach compromise and peace. The acknowledgement of human rights abuses is not enough. Claiming to be “pro-peace” and “pro-human rights” is not enough if you continue to allow anti-peace actions to occur. Silence is consent, and remaining mum on the issue only sustains the violence and imbalance that is ripping Israeli and Palestinian lives apart.

Ultimately, the divisions between the pro-Israel and pro-Palestine communities have existed since long before SB 160 or 158 were introduced. A piece of legislation did not cause these divisions, and neither will it perpetuate them. Campus climate has been and always will be an issue that the ASUC must address. It is not a reason to maintain the current status quo, because the reality is that the status quo is what is silencing, divisive and contributes to an unhealthy campus climate.

And if you do not acknowledge that as an issue that requires action and dialogue, it is clear who the real “silencer” is.

Sadia Saifuddin is an independent ASUC senator.

Contact the opinion desk at opinion@dailycal.org.

The post Reflections on divestment: Supporting human rights is not ‘complex’ appeared first on The Daily Californian.

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 opinion@dailycal.org.

The post Reflections on divestment: The first step toward peace is collaboration appeared first on The Daily Californian.