Nathaniel Solley/Staff

The campus Jewish Student Union voted Wednesday to deny membership to J Street U at Berkeley, a Jewish student political advocacy group on campus whose application to join the union also was denied two years ago after the group faced accusations of being anti-Israel.

The bylaws of the Jewish Student Union, an umbrella organization for Jewish student groups on campus, stipulate that a member organization must not host speakers who demonize Israel, said Jewish Student Union President Daphna Torbati.

That requirement was a point of contention surrounding J Street U, which advocates a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Much of the disagreement focused on J Street U’s relationship with Breaking the Silence, an Israeli military veterans’ organization that criticizes Israel’s military operations in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, said Elon Rov, a co-chair of J Street U.

“We are not afraid, as American Jews, to address those (difficult issues),” said Shayna Howitt, J Street U’s national communications co-chair. “We are not afraid … to host people who we might disagree with. We’re not afraid to stand up and question how we can best support Israel, because we’re committed to the safety of Israel.”

Breaking the Silence, however, has garnered serious criticism from other Jewish groups that belong to the Jewish Student Union. Torbati said she was concerned the group unfairly disparages Israeli soldiers.

Jewish Student Union members Avi Hecht and David Eliahu said Jewish students with connections to Israel would be alienated if J Street U were allowed to host Breaking the Silence under the Jewish Student Union umbrella.

“For a lot of members … the (Jewish Student Union is) the only place where they can express their love for Israel because of such an anti-Israel campus climate,” Torbati said. “A lot of people have said that they want the (Jewish Student Union) to stay a place they feel comfortable saying they love Israel.”

Hecht added that Breaking the Silence does not offer a fair picture of Israel’s military operations.

“Regardless of J Street’s intents, the effect of bringing a public event like BTS is detrimental to the image of Israel on our campus,” Eliahu said.

J Street U invited Breaking the Silence to campus in fall 2012, and its founder, Yehuda Shaul, will appear on campus again in November.

J Street U last applied to the Jewish Student Union in November 2011 but was rejected for inviting a co-founder of the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement to campus in spring 2010, among other reasons.

Members of J Street U said they believed their relationship with the Jewish Student Union had improved after working with the campus Jewish community against the ASUC Senate’s contentious divestment bill last spring.

“We did want and expect that the Jewish community was finally going to legitimize our voice,” Rov said. “But we were disappointed.”

J Street U needed eight votes from the union board and its member organizations to be admitted but received only two, with eight votes against it and two abstentions, Torbati said.

Howitt said that J Street U is not anti-Israel but that it is critical of Israel’s policies in the disputed territories.

“The best way to support Israel is not by refusing to talk about the politics that are often uncomfortable and scary — it’s by addressing those politics,” Howitt said.

As of Tuesday afternoon, a petition circulated online by J Street U calling for the Jewish community to be more inclusive had collected 166 signatures, including those of Jewish ASUC Senators Grant Fineman and Liza Raffi, according to Rov.

“We’re not appealing the decision,” Rov said. “We want to prove to the wider Jewish community that the decision does not reflect the vision of Jewish students … We think this decision is inconsistent with what Jewish students actually want.”

Contact Connor Grubaugh at cgrubaugh@dailycal.org

Clarification(s):
A previous version of this article implied that a number of students at last Wednesday’s meeting of the Jewish Student Union walked out in response to J Street U’s failure to secure membership. In fact, the vote on J Street U was the last item on the meeting’s agenda, so students left the room at the meeting’s natural conclusion.

The post Jewish Student Union votes to deny membership to J Street U appeared first on The Daily Californian.

It’s a scene I’ve passed by many times while living in a city where protesting is as normal as breathing — where sometimes the two are mutually exclusive. A palpable charge is in the air because a march is about to happen today, and what that inevitably means is tear gas and police skirmishes around the city.

Caught in the crossfire of such a scene, and maybe you’ll find yourself, as I did this past spring semester in Chile, staring down a military tank.

Most of the time, these Chilean protests are about better public education and lower prices — demands that are echoed halfway around the world at UC Berkeley. But unlike protests back home, these marches of hundreds of thousands quickly escalate to a breaking point.

“It was complete lawlessness in Santiago then,” recalled UC Berkeley senior Julia Villarruel, who studied abroad for three semesters before mine, including at the peak of the movement in 2011. “Things were on fire everywhere. Chaos on the streets … It just felt so dangerous.”

A protest junkie, Villarruel admitted she has been detained by the Chilean police on two occasions and has experienced tear gas numerous times.

“I have a tear gas mask,” she said with a chuckle. “I’ve had three of them.”

Each year, hundreds of university students go abroad to politically or socially unstable countries in the midst of riots, revolution and reform.

With tensions especially prominent in Middle Eastern countries such as Israel and Turkey, students who choose to pursue a semester overseas often have to consider the added risk of personal danger.

This year, the UC Education Abroad Program had 141 UC Berkeley students in England, the highest number among all program countries. In comparison, considerably fewer participants went to countries in the Middle East or Africa — just three UC Berkeley students went to Egypt, six went to Israel and a mere two went to Senegal, to name a few.

But given the hassle and the risks, the question on some potential applicants’ mind is if it’s even worth going at all? For some students, the answer is yes.

Students in sticky situations

UC Santa Barbara senior Ariel Brotman started her fall semester last year in Jerusalem, a place she had fallen in love with after going on a Birthright trip. Upon arrival, she soon faced the normal challenges of studying abroad and culture shock, such as making friends and navigating the city.

Toward the end of Brotman’s stay, rockets were fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip.

“The alarm went off, and you could hear it throughout the entire city,” she said. “I was at a friend’s house, and there was no bomb shelter nearby so we had to be in the staircase … I had never experienced something like this.”

For eight days in November 2012, Israel was under attack. The conflict, called Operation Pillar of Defense, involved firing more than a hundred rockets into Israeli territory.

“I think we were all pretty shaken up,” Brotman said, noting that two rockets had exploded close to Jerusalem. “No one knew what to think. We waited to hear what the university was going to say.”

When asked whether she was ever scared about her safety, Brotman laughed.

“Definitely,” she said. “I definitely thought I was going to die.”

Even so, Brotman did not opt to go home right away, despite her parents’ insistence that she could. By then, she had developed a deep connection to Israel and its people.

“The fact that this happened — I kind of feel like I went through it with (the Israelis),” she said. “It was kind of like, ‘wow I feel more of a bond with this country.’”

Brotman said her program was good with keeping students and parents in the loop about safety and security, always with her best interest in mind.

“We had known things in Israel were escalating by the time I left (the United States),” she explained. “I figured if something were to happen, (EAP) would send me home.”

Such was the case for participants in the fall 2013 program in Egypt, which was halted in July due to an “escalation in violence.” UCEAP also recently announced in a press release the suspension of the spring 2014 Egypt program at the University in Cairo.

Jean-Xavier Guinard, UCEAP’s associate vice provost and executive director, affirmed in an email that the programs abroad are committed to promoting a safe environment.

“Our around-the-clock risk assessment and crisis and incident response management allow us to monitor and react to world events,” Guinard said. “The protocols we have established include contingency planning and effective response to safety, security or health emergencies, which are all critical to the success of our programs and participants.”

The safety issue

Of course, the question of safety is undoubtedly an important one, but sometimes the risks are not always upfront.

“I didn’t expect it to be that bad,” said UC Merced senior Patrick Breen, who spent fall 2012 and spring 2013 in Ankara, Turkey. “The year prior, Syria wasn’t nearly as bad. There was no attacks against the U.S. embassy. I didn’t expect it to be as dangerous or crazy as it was.”

Double-majoring in economics and political science, Breen had chosen a study-abroad location relevant to his career goals in international security, with the Middle East region being an obvious choice.

“February 1, I remember I was moving from the dorms to off campus,” Breen recalled. “I had gotten an apartment a few blocks from the U.S. embassy. There was a suicide bomber at the embassy: Someone went in and blew himself up.”

For Breen, who was expecting to go to a party at the embassy later that evening, the bombing came out of nowhere and hit, literally, too close to home.

Like Brotman, Breen had never experienced anything so dangerous, so close. He too figured that UCEAP would shut down the program if the situation got too critical.

“All my friends were worried about security there (in Turkey),” Breen said. “More than anything, I was just excited.”

Of course, Breen said, his friends and family were worried each time news of the occurrences in Turkey reached U.S. media. But growing more accustomed to the city and its way of life, Breen took the incidents in stride and appreciated what his study abroad experience was turning out to be.

Later that spring, protests over planned development for Istanbul’s Taksim Gezi Park took an intensified turn all over the country. Whereas many around the world read about the news, Breen was there in person, bracing the tear gas and seeing the protests outside his apartment.

“The reason why I went there was to see this,” Breen said. “If anything, I was more glad that I got to experience this. You don’t otherwise get to witness the politics and history in the making firsthand.”

Coming home

“How was coming back?” I asked Villaruel at Cafe Durant in Berkeley over a round of tacos, as we reminisced about our respective Chile experience.

Without hesitation, she answered: “Horrible.”

Villaruel tells me she wants to go back to Chile someday, that she owes it to the country that changed her life. She said she wants to study the social movement in places around the world, to “taste their tear gas.”

I had left the country feeling like Villaruel did — like my study abroad experience was unusual but had pointed me in some clearer direction to fight the good fight, just as those Chilean students did that freezing July morning. Though, I could do without the tear gas.

“It all feels like a dream sometimes,” Villaruel said. “I question myself sometimes if this really happened.”

The sentiment, anecdotally, carries over to many UCEAP returnees.

Since her time abroad, Brotman has gone back to Israel, spending a month there this past summer. Moreover, she has decided to join the Israeli army after graduation, citing an intensified “passion for Israel.”

Breen, too, feels a compulsion to the country he once inhabited. If anything, he said, the challenges confirmed his career goals further.

During each application cycle, the EAP office is bombarded with study-abroad applications. Not all students who go overseas will know the sting of tear gas. Not all students who study abroad want that as their experience. Some students, however, will find themselves in that situation — love it or hate it.

The country we choose says a lot about what we want or at least what we’re expecting. Sometimes the answer isn’t clear until you’re there.

“I know France and Spain are interesting, but they’re not all that different from the U.S.,” Breen said. “I think you can learn more from a nontraditional location. Some will come with extra risks — but that’s all part of the experience.”

Whether they would repeat that experience? The answer was a unanimous yes from all sides.

“One hundred percent,” Brotman said.

The post Turmoil abroad builds strong bonds appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Yi Zhong/Staff

Although public skepticism of President Obama’s call for military intervention in Syria is mounting, California’s two senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, are supporting military intervention in Syria. The former is a confirmed neoconservative, and the latter is known for her opposition to the war in Iraq. Their support is disturbing, because however admirable the president’s motivations might be, he and his team have failed to explain either how a targeted military intervention would protect Syrian civilians or why they think they can successfully engineer a regime change in Syria when our track record suggests otherwise. Instead of presenting Congress with a plan, the administration is demanding unconditional backing, and instead of asking tough questions, California’s senators are rushing to sign up for an undefined conflict.

The threshold for military action that violates international law should be high indeed and must at a minimum be actually capable of helping Syrian citizens who are victims of civil war. (“primum non nocere” seems like a good guideline for any humanitarian intervention)  The administration seems driven by a compulsion to act, irrespective of either the consequences of its actions or the likelihood of achieving its objectives — objectives that are conspicuous by their absence, either because the administration has none or because it has not deigned to share them with the public. The problems with mounting an intervention when you don’t know what it is you’re trying to achieve seem blindingly obvious, yet California’s senators don’t appear to see them as they prepare to endorse a military attack.

Over the weekend, the president claimed that there is no danger of intervention in Syria drawing us into a quagmire like those in Iraq and Afghanistan. But how can he possibly know that if he can’t articulate objectives or a strategy? “What we’re talking about is not an open-ended intervention,” he said. And yet if he were serious about a humanitarian goal, he would understand that an open-ended commitment is precisely what such humanitarianism would require.

Feinstein is trying to guilt her colleagues into war by bludgeoning them with videos of the horrific chemical attack — without establishing that the culprit behind the attacks is the government she is asking those colleagues to bomb. A humanitarian intervention should be motivated by the prospect of success rather than blind emotion. And if Feinstein is peddling the premise that we need to act to protect civilians and also making the argument that there will only be limited engagement, she’s also selling an untruth. I wouldn’t want anyone to be on the exploding end of an intervention riddled with so many inconsistencies.

Feinstein dismissed concerned constituents, saying that “they have not seen what I have seen or heard what I have heard.” Nor are we likely to, for Feinstein is both an architect and defender of the rogue military-intelligence complex which is assailing civil liberties at home and unleashing terror abroad. The senator added that she has “some skills in separating the wheat from the chaff.”  But her record — support for the war in Iraq, agitation for an escalation of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a defense of the administration’s domestic spying program and a failure to exert adequate oversight over the rogue intelligence agencies — suggests otherwise.

Our track record matters in this scenario. The atrocities in Syria are no more horrific than the many bombing campaigns launched by the U.S. over many years, often for transparently self-interested and immoral reasons. This does not excuse whoever launched the chemical attack (and if the administration has intelligence proving that it was Assad, it should release this to the public and our allies). But it does explain why the administration lacks moral legitimacy and why people remain suspicious of its motives. To me, it looks as though Syria is in danger of becoming the first hot battle of a new cold war, in which the U.S., Russia, Iran and Israel ransack another country in pursuit of their twisted power politics.

Neither our interests nor those of Syrians are served by careless military action. In irresponsibly writing the president a black check, Feinstein and Boxer are failing in their duties to their constituents and are endorsing an aimless intervention that will likely have catastrophic consequences for Syrians, will diminish the moral stature of the U.S., may well provoke a backlash or even a wider war and will undermine future humanitarian efforts when it fails for a lack of clarity, purpose and resources.

Taking these factors into account, both senators need to reconsider their ill-advised support for the president’s request and should instead demand that the administration devote its efforts to humanitarian relief and diplomacy aimed both at securing a peaceful settlement within Syria and, if necessary, achieving a consensus for an international rather than unilateral intervention as last resort.

Members of the campus community should be proactive in making it clear to our senators that we do not support an undefined military intervention that contains only one certainty: that it would escalate rather than reduce violence in Syria.

Jeff Schauer is a graduate student in the UC Berkeley department of history.

The post We must think before we strike appeared first on The Daily Californian.

This development marks a welcome departure from the conclusions reached by the UC Office of the President’s controversial Council on on Campus Climate, Culture & Inclusion. The findings from that July 2012 report contended pro-Israel Jewish students were routinely maligned and singled out by anti-Israel sentiment on UC campuses and urged the university to adopt stricter guidelines on combating perceived incidences of anti-Semitism.

The department’s ruling that the campus does not foster an anti-Semitic environment is positive for a few reasons. First, it’s always encouraging to hear that Jewish students won’t be harassed or intimidated because of their identity. Second, this provides an opportunity to reevaluate and strengthen the efforts made to build as inclusive a campus community as possible for students of all backgrounds.

And after a five-year period that included two divestment bills, multiple “Israel Apartheid Weeks” and “Israel Peace and Diversity Weeks,” a universitywide “campus climate report” and a bill passed by the California State Legislature that targeted pro-divestment campus activists, the Department of Education’s decision could mark a new era for the campus community. This means it’s important that the university double down on its efforts to maintain a healthy climate for Jewish students and their Muslim counterparts.

It’s also important to credit the role of groups like the dialogue-focused Olive Tree Initiative, which has provided a critical safe space for students from different communities to engage on what are difficult and emotionally wrought issues. The campus should look to develop more of these programs, perhaps reviving former ASUC president Noah Stern’s “Bears Breaking Bread” group dinners, which sought to carve out more safe spaces of discussion for students of traditionally opposed student communities.

In spite of the passage of SB 160, a bill calling for UC funds to be divested from companies complicit in the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, last semester the campus appears to have reached a calm for the time being. It’s now up to the campus and student leaders to ensure it stays like this.

The post Toward a calmer campus appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Uday Mehta/Staff

Situated in an area of the world that spawns many great ideas and businesses (and far more horrendous ones), UC Berkeley students can often have difficulty making their work stand out in a field of an equally bright colleagues. “Standing out” has been the mantra instilled in the vast majority of us for a long time — starting with (presumably) college applications and culminating … well, never. It’s understandably convoluted to do so when one doesn’t even have the slightest scintilla of sapience as to the work of the competition and their allies. Enter Cal student Adam Remba.

While working away at a summer internship in the far reaches of Tel Aviv, Israel, Remba met Ben Lang, a man who managed to consolidate more than 1,000 startups and their information in his website, which he appropriately titled “Mapped in Israel.” It grew from being merely a location tool to one that granted exposure to companies through agglomeration. As any startup would appreciate, exposure is the cardinal goal. Upon recognizing the practicality of such an endeavor in California, Remba began his personal creation, correspondingly titled “Mapped in Silicon Valley.”

Simple in its execution yet powerful in its purpose, the site offers a map of all the startup-type companies in the Silicon Valley — the vast majority of which are concentrated around Berkeley — and allows one to see basic information, such as tagline, address and website, with a single click. Also available is the option to add your own community. It is very much a community-driven website where registering your startup proves to be a symbiotic relationship. The current function that makes this tool so useful is its organization: It’s guaranteed to let you find others who may be in a similar space to you and open the opportunities for collaboration and the occasional friendly rivalry and to let others find you by virtue of the same process.

Following the mold of pretty much all Berkeley student innovators, Remba is not yet content with the product he has created. Alongside the co-founder and fellow golden bear Eric Katz, he hopes to make his website an outlet that can be used to drive traffic — similar to how his inspiration worked. “Although there are ones for specific communities like Berkeley, San Francisco and Palo Alto,” Remba remarks, “I couldn’t believe there wasn’t one for Silicon Valley.”

The duo hopes to reach a total of 500 startups added to the website by December of this year to match their tagline of helping unite Silicon Valley.

Contact Uday Mehta at umehta@dailycal.org.

The post ‘Mapped In Silicon Valley’ helps connect startups appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Nathaniel Solley/Staff

When former ASUC senator Sadia Saifuddin was appointed to the position of UC student-regent designate at this month’s UC Board of Regents meeting, what should have been a conversation focusing on the candidate’s qualifications devolved into a shameful spectacle.

The conversation to approve Saifuddin failed to assess her preparedness to be a successful student regent in favor of demonizing her for co-sponsoring a campus divestment bill this spring. The bill, which would have divested ASUC funds from companies that provide resources to the Israeli military, initially passed in the senate but was later found to have violated ASUC bylaws and stripped of its financial effects.

In a rare gesture, UC Regent Richard Blum abstained from the vote to approve Saifuddin, stating that he disagreed with Saifuddin’s point of view but did not know her well enough to warrant a negative vote. He justified his abstention by stating that Saifuddin’s support of divestment would alienate the student body and make her too divisive of a figure.

This is flawed reasoning. For one thing, not one current UC student stood up at the regents meeting to speak out against Saifuddin’s nomination or say that she would fail to adequately represent them. In fact, students and alumni, including former student regent Jonathan Stein came to her defense, saying that Saifuddin brought students together in the spring by inviting them to Muslim and Jewish student halls to discuss divestment.

Furthermore, given that UC Berkeley originally passed the resolution with more than half of its student senators in support of the bill and that similar resolutions have cropped up at at least three other UC campuses this past year, it’s clear that the issue is important to many UC students. For that reason, Blum’s claim that her support of divestment will make Saifuddin divisive feels more like an attempt to stifle legitimate political debate than to preserve student unity. Blum’s comments were out of line and seemed to be aimed at appeasing lobbyists critical of divestment.

It would be one thing if the board itself did not pick Saifuddin for the role. But the process of choosing Saifuddin is the same one that is used every year: Applicants must go through a series of interviews with campus and UC student government leaders before being interviewed and selected by a special committee of the UC Board of Regents.

If the regents felt Saifuddin would not be an adequate representative of the student body, they should have voiced their concerns earlier. Some of the regents said that though they respectfully disagreed with Saifuddin, they still respected her appointment through the long-standing student regent selection process. Blum should have taken a similar stance instead of focusing so heavily on divestment.

We are also very disappointed in the way that much of the commentary on Saifuddin’s appointment, both during public comment at the meeting and elsewhere, has been openly Islamophobic and perpetuated stereotypes that have nothing to do with the work she has done as a student senator or how she will perform in the student regent position.

We believe Saifuddin is a qualified candidate and worry that her reputation has been wrongfully damaged by some of the comments made at the board’s meeting. Student government representatives should be able to openly address controversial issues like divestment and involve the student body in honest political conversation, even when there is disagreement among students. The board hindered this conversation at its meeting by focusing on just one aspect of Saifuddin’s experience.

The post Overstepping boundaries appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Charlotte Passot/Staff

I come from a family of refugees. My mother was younger than I am now when she was forced to flee for her life from the Islamic Revolution of Iran. My mother recalls being forced to sit in the back of her classroom along with a group of young Jewish children during her school years.

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.