Rather than charge in with our own position, Tikkun decided that we would be most helpful by respecting the intelligence of our own readers to decide on their own what they think of the current debarte about the Student Senate Bill calling for divestment from two companies that help Israel maintain the Occupation of the West Bank.
As you will see, this is a debate that has strong opponents of the Occuaption on BOTH SIDES of the issue. The first statement comes from J street and is signed by the New Israel Fund as well. They are important voices for peace and justice in Israel. Then we present the resolution being debated. On the other side we present statements from Jewish Voices for Peace, Bishop Tutu, Naomi Klein, and others. Since their side of the argument is typically given less space in the media, following the Tikkun practice of airing views that we do not necessarily agree with but which have been absent from serious media attention, we give them more space.
We are now planning a roundtable discussion among voices on all sides of the Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions debate that we will tape, edit and run in either the July or September issue of Tikkun (if you still don't subscribe, please do so now at www.tikkun.org).
If you wish to read the general position of Tikkun on these BDS issues, please consult Rabbi Lerner's 2008 statement which can be found at www.tikkun.org/article.php/20090617013141275. How to apply that statement to the particulars of the debate in Berkeley is for YOU to decide.We think we can be more helpful by being a place where others can present their views than by pushing our own perspective, at least for the moment.
J Street Blog
Troubling UC Berkeley Student Senate Bill on Israel
JStreetU, J Street’s student arm, joined with a coalition of groups to send a letter to the University of California at Berkeley Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost in response to the recent anti-Israel bill passed by the UC Berkeley Student Senate.
J Street U joined the following groups in signing this letter: American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, Berkeley Hillel, Chabad Jewish Student Center at UC Berkeley, Hasbara Fellowships, Israel Campus Coalition, Israel Peace Initiative, Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marina and Sonoma Counties, Jewish Community Relations Council, Jewish Federation of the East Bay, Jewish National Fund, Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa (JIMENA), MASA Israel Journey, New Israel Fund, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, StandWithUs/SF Voice for Israel, The David Project, and USD/Hagshama World Zionist Organization.
A version of the following letter was read during debate on the resolution:
Dear University of California, Berkeley Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost George Breslauer:
We are a broad-based coalition representing a wide range of perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, local and national Jewish community organizations that support and partner with students on college and university campuses throughout Northern California, including the University of California, Berkeley. We are writing to you with deep respect and admiration for the commitment that the UC Berkeley student body, faculty and administration has always had for universal human rights and equal opportunity.
We are deeply troubled, however, to learn that the ASUC Student Senate has passed a dishonest bill, based on misleading and contested allegations, that unfairly targets the State of Israel while also marginalizing Jewish students on campus who support Israel.
While the bill states that it is “in support of ASUC divestment from war crimes,” it focuses solely on one country, Israel. Though it states that the “ASUC resolution should not be considered taking sides in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict,” the exclusive focus on Israel suggests otherwise. Furthermore, the bill’s call for the University Regents and the ASUC to divest exclusively from Israel contradicts the bill’s own claim by, in fact, explicitly taking sides.
We request that the administration at UC Berkeley strongly and unequivocally condemn the ASUC Student Senate resolution. Furthermore, we urge you to state firmly your intention not to divest university holdings from any company doing business with Israel. While the ASUC is a separate entity, its actions affect the atmosphere on campus for which the Chancellor’s office has primary responsibility. Your voice is needed now.
The students associated with our coalition of organizations are deeply committed to securing human rights around the world. For this reason they have suggested that the ASUC Student Senate adopt a single, standard, socially responsible investment policy which would be applicable across the board. A single standard would allow students to fairly question the actions of anyone engaged in behavior that threatens and diminishes human dignity anywhere, without doing so under a pall of apparent lop-sided motives.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complex and goes back decades. It is tempting to look exclusively at one side or the other to shoulder the blame, to judge one discrete incident without consideration of the larger picture, and to respond with full force. But one-sided reactions do not serve to improve complicated circumstances, rather they exacerbate them.
We believe that this complexity should be reflected in the dialogue on campus rather than singling out one side or another for condemnation and punishment. This open debate, conducted civilly, will lead to a healthier environment on the Berkley campus for students with a range of political views. Thank you for your time and consideration. If you would like to discuss this topic further with any one of our agencies, please contact Rabbi Adam Naftalin-Kelman, Executive Director of Berkeley Hillel at (510) 845-7783 ext. 11 or adamnk@berkeleyhillel.org.
* RESOLVED, that the ASUC will ensure that its assets, and will advocate that the UC assets, do not include holdings in General Electric and United Technologies because of their military support of the occupation of the Palestinian territories; be it further * RESOLVED, that the ASUC will further examine its assets and UC assets for funds being invested in companies that a) provide military support for or weaponry to support the occupation of the Palestinian territories or b) facilitate the building or maintenance of the illegal wall or the demolition of Palestinian homes, or c) facilitate the building, maintenance, or economic development of illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territories; be it further * RESOLVED, that if it is found that ASUC and/or the UC funds are being invested in any of the abovementioned ways, the ASUC will divest, and will advocate that the UC divests, all stocks, securities, or other obligations from such sources with the goal of maintaining the divestment, in the case of said companies, until they cease such practices. Moreover, the ASUC will not make further investments, and will advocate that the UC not make futher investments, in any companies materially supporting or profiting from Israel’s occupation in the abovementioned ways; be it further * RESOLVED, that this ASUC resolution not be interpreted as the taking of sides in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, but instead as a principled expression of support for universal human rights and equality; be it further * RESOLVED, that the ASUC Senate engage in education campaigns to publicize the divestment efforts and violation of international human rights law, and that furthermore, a committee of 5 members, 2 senators selected by the senate body as a whole, 2 members of or students selected by the UC Berkeley Divestment Task Force, and the ASUC President or a representative from his/her office, form at the end of this semester to monitor and promote university progress in regards to the above mentioned ethical divestment goals; and,* BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that this Committee will recommend additional divestment policies to keep university investments out of companies aiding war crimes throughout the world, such as those taking place in Morocco, the Congo, and other places as determined by the resolutions of the United Nations and other leading international human rights organizations
Respectfully,
American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, Berkeley Hillel, Chabad Jewish Student Center at UC Berkeley, Hasbara Fellowships, Israel Campus Coalition, Israel Peace Initiative, Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marina and Sonoma Counties, Jewish Community Relations Council, Jewish Federation of the East Bay, Jewish National Fund, Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa (JIMENA), JStreetU, MASA Israel Journey, New Israel Fund, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, StandWithUs/SF Voice for Israel, The David Project, and USD/Hagshama World Zionist Organization.
The Students' Resolution:
A Bill In Support of UC DIVESTMENT FROM WAR CRIMES
Authored By: Emiliano Huet-Vaughn and Tom Pessah
Sponsored By: Senators Gaurano , Carlton, Kwon, Oatfield
1. WHEREAS, the ASUC notes the complexity of international relations in all cases, including the Middle East, and recognizes the inability of a body such as the ASUC to adjudicate matters of international law and human rights law, or to take sides on final status issues on wars and occupations throughout the world. Yet, we do note the following findings from the United Nations and other leading human rights organizations regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict, and use it as a case study; and,
1. WHEREAS, prior and subsequent to the bombing the Israeli government has engaged in collective punishment of the whole of the Palestinian population, in the view of the human rights community,3 as exemplified by the ongoing 32 month blockade on Gaza, of which Physicians for Human Rights-Israel has written, “the prolonged siege imposed by the Israeli government on Gaza, the closing of its borders, the tightening of policies regarding permission to exit Gaza for medical purposes, and the severe shortage of medications and other medical supplies all severely damage the Palestinian health system and endanger the lives and health of thousands of Palestinian patients,”4 and of which the Red Cross has said “the whole strip is being strangled, economically speaking” making life in Gaza “a nightmare” for the civilian population, with essential supplies, including electricity, water, and fuel, being denied to the 1.5 million inhabitants 90% of whom depend on aid to survive;5 and
1. WHEREAS, within the occupied West Bank (including East Jerusalem), the Israeli government continues a policy of settlement expansion that, in the opinion of the United Nations Security Council, Human Rights Watch, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and numerous other organizations concerned with enforcement of international law, constitutes a direct violation of Article 49, paragraph 6 of the 4th Geneva Convention which declares “an occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territories it occupies.”6; and
2. WHEREAS, in the context of this bill, “occupation” refers to the current state of Palestinian life under Israeli’s military control in the West Bank and Gaza; a definition that is consistent to commonly-held international law; and
1. WHEREAS, student research9 has revealed that, according to the most recent UC investment report10, within the UC Retirement Program fund and the General Endowment Program fund there exist direct investments in American companies materially and militarily supporting the Israeli government’s occupation of the Palestinian territories, including American companies General Electric and United Technologies; and
1. WHEREAS, General Electric holds engineering support and testing service contracts with the Israeli military and supplies the Israeli government with the propulsion system for its Apache Assault Helicopter fleet, which, as documented by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, has been used in attacks on Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, including the January 4, 2009 killings of Palestinian medical aide workers11; and
1. WHEREAS, United Technologies supplies the Israeli government with Blackhawk helicopters and with F-15 and F-16 aircraft engines and holds an ongoing fleet management contract for these engines, and, Amnesty International has documented the Israeli government’s use of these aircraft in the bombing of the American School in Gaza, the killing of Palestinians civilians, and the destruction of hundreds of Palestinian homes;12 therefore, be it
********************************************************************
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/ls100410.html
Why Are American Jewish Groups So Intent on Defending Illegal Israeli Settlements and Other Human Rights Violations?
by Sydney Levy and Yaman Salahi
10.04.10
A coalition of nearly 20 Jewish groups, ranging from the right-wing David Project and the Jewish National Fund to the liberal J Street, is distributing a misleading statement condemning a Student Senate bill at UC Berkeley. The ground-breaking bill calls for divestment from companies that profit from the perpetuation of the Israeli military occupation in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza. They refer to the bill as "dishonest" and "misleading" and "based on contested allegations." Yet it is their letter that is both dishonest and misleading. Yet this coalition of Jewish groups does not contest any of the facts. Without offering any evidence, they dismiss findings by reputable organizations like the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International. Instead of condemning these human rights violations, they prefer to misinform the public by suggesting that it is somehow wrong to "take sides" against universally recognized injustice. In so doing, they effectively defend illegal Israeli settlements and the Israeli military occupation that continues to disrupt everyday features of Palestinian life: education, health care, economic life, and art and culture. The Berkeley bill focuses specifically on the Israeli occupation, not on Israel. While a vibrant and necessary debate on the merits of a total boycott and divestment from Israel continues around the world, it is not at issue here. In reality, the bill divests only from two American companies that make money by equipping the occupation, General Electric and United Technologies -- but no Israeli companies. It also announces an intention to divest from any company -- whatever the nationality, and only after further research -- that similarly profit from the occupation. These groups choose to deliberately misreport the language of the bill, which refers specifically and exclusively to companies that: By condemning the humane and ethical policy of what is essentially morally responsible investment, do these groups mean to encourage investing in companies that provide the weapons of occupation, build the settlements of colonization, and render thousands of innocent Palestinians homeless? There is no reason not to name Israel when it violates human rights, but these groups suggest that students should instead pass a bill with no teeth, a bill that merely condemns human rights violations in general without referring specifically to Israel. But it is absurd to suggest that students do not already condemn those violations in the abstract -- or have not already worked to apply similar standards to countries like Sudan and South Africa and will not apply them similarly to other countries in the future. The bill merely applies widely held principles to a particular situation. In effect they are calling on students not to apply the same principles applied elsewhere to Israel. These groups want us to ignore reality and to allow Israel to be the one and only human rights violator that escapes accountability and condemnation. Perversely, they themselves are guilty of singling out Israel in order to defend occupation and the unjustifiable oppression of the Palestinian people. The statement acknowledges no wall, no home demolitions, no Israeli settlements, no Palestinian suffering. All of these, the letter calls "discrete incident[s] without consideration of the larger picture." How many more decades of occupation and dispossession will it take for our nation's major Jewish organizations to issue a statement calling these injustices what they are, an inhumane and morally indefensible system of occupation? By reducing these coordinated events to isolated incidents, they diminish their significance, aid the settlement efforts, and obstruct Palestinian freedom and human rights. In fact, the Berkeley bill was co-authored by an Israeli Jewish student on campus and is supported by many Jews who have testified in favor of the bill and have written thousands of letters of support to the student senators. Then, a similar coalition accused the Presbyterian Church of "one-sidedness" and, in much more explicit terms, anti-Semitism. In other words, they re-cast the very idea that one should be "invested only in peaceful pursuits" in Israel-Palestine as biased or racist. This year the Presbyterian Church is considering divestment from Caterpillar because of the company's refusal to take responsibility for the destruction its bulldozers create in the West Bank and Gaza. The Simon Wiesenthal Center cast all logic aside and accused the church of engaging in "nothing short of a declaration of war on Israel." This kind of hyperbolic language is untrue, harms civil discourse, and only serves to hamper the efforts of those rightfully opposed to the demolition of Palestinian homes and the uprooting of Palestinian orchards. Now in Berkeley, a constellation of Jewish organizations has regrettably mobilized its resources to stand in the way of yet another progressive victory. The letter's deliberate distortions call into question whether the signers would support any method of monitoring, discouraging, and preventing Israeli human rights violations. Instead, the letter's signers suggest that Americans should act with their hands tied behind their backs, without the full toolkit of nonviolent resistance tactics that have been an essential part of all successful human justice movements. However, not engaging in morally responsible investment when faced with the clear findings of human rights organizations and the international community would be morally indefensible.
The bill, available here, is based on extensive, footnoted research.
Further, they claim that the Berkeley bill calls on the University "to divest exclusively from Israel." They imply that the bill calls for divestment "from any company doing business with Israel."
But this is simply not true.
a) provide military support for or weaponry to support the occupation of the Palestinian territories or
b) facilitate the building or maintenance of the illegal wall or the demolition of Palestinian homes, or c) facilitate the building, maintenance, or economic development of illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territories;
They claim that the bill "unfairly targets the State of Israel." But Israel is the country building the settlements and administering the occupation. And it is one of the world's best known human rights abusers that is not already sanctioned by the United States --which provides Israel with over $3 billion annually. Who else should the bill address?
Most perniciously, they refer to the bill as "marginalizing Jewish students on campus who support Israel." The fact that they mention only Jewish students and not other students who might hold similar political positions reveals the true meaning of this statement: This is an intellectually dishonest and misleading accusation of anti-Semitism that cannot be taken lightly. The bill does not target any students: it only targets corporations that facilitate occupation.
Ironically, these groups' statement actually marginalizes both Jews and non-Jews who oppose the Israeli occupation. It especially harms American and Palestinian students who may be harmed by such investments when studying, conducting research, or visiting relatives in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The misinformation campaign targeting UC Berkeley follows the same script that was used in 2008 to defame similar efforts by the Presbyterian Church, which endeavored to ensure that it was "invested only in peaceful pursuits."
Choosing to do something about Israel's human rights violations does not require turning a blind eye to other injustices in the world as these groups suggest; but refusing to take action because of other examples would indeed turn a blind eye to this one. Now is the time to support Palestinian freedom and human rights. Berkeley students have done the right thing. Others should follow suit and divest from the occupation, as part of their general commitment to ethical investment policies.
Further reading:
• Naomi Klein: Open Letter to Berkeley Students on Their Historic Israeli Divestment Vote
• Yaman Salahi: Singling Out Israel Is the Right Thing to Do
• The Magnes Zionist: Invest AND Divest: Where the Liberal Zionists Get BDS Wrong -- and What Their Position towards It Should Be
---------
Sydney Levy is the Director of Campaigns for Jewish Voice for Peace, a national grassroots organization dedicated to full equality between Israelis and Palestinians. Yaman Salahi, a UC Berkeley alumnus and member of Students for Justice in Palestine, is currently a student at Yale Law School. This article was first published on the Web site of Jewish Voice for Peace; it is reproduced here for non-profit educational purposes.
**************************************************************************************
What Strategy for Middle East Peace? Grass-roots organizing -- for what?
By Rabbi Arthur Waskow, 3/8/2010
Should a grass-roots movement to make peace in the Middle East focus on US pressure for region-wide peace including Israel, Palestine, and all Arab states — or on boycotting/ divesting from Israel?
On March 4, 2010, I was interviewed on “Democracy Now!” — a progressive nationally viewed TV news show hosted by Amy Goodman — for a 15-minute debate with Omar Barghouti, a Palestinian-American professor. The topic: “BDS,” short-hand for “Boycott, Divest, Sanctions” aimed against Israel.
Mr. Barghouti defined BDS as a boycott of all Israeli life, including universities, music, businesses, etc., aimed at ending not only the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, but also ending discrimination within Israel against its citizens of Palestinian origin, and enforcing the “right of return” for all Palestinian refugees into Israel..
It seems to me that Mr. Barghouti’s version of the means and goals of BDS might depend on and would be likely to result in first demonizing and then dissolving Israel. (See below for why i think so.) I think that is an unethical goal, and therefore unachievable — and if that were to become the goal and a totalistic version of BDS were to become the practice of those who seek a decent peace in the Middle East, it would prevent the achievement of what would be both ethical and possible — a regional peace treaty encompassing Israel, a new Palestinian state, and all the Arab states.
I therefore support a very different strategy — also a grass-roots American movement, but this one aimed to bring the US government to insist on ending the occupation, ending the state of war most Arab states still hold against Israel, and bringing about a just peace between Israel, Palestine, and all the other Arab states. (I can imagine a laser-beam tactic of boycotting specific enterprises most related to the occupation that would fit into this approach— but that is not the totalistic strategy proposed by the BDS “”movement” and Mr. Barghouti. For details of a laser-beam tactic, see below.)
Indeed, Mr. Barghouti explicitly rejected ending the occupation as the principal goal of his version of BDS. He insisted the key issue is what he calls “the right of return.” He made clear that his goal is resettling a million Palestinians — not only real refugees from 1948 but their children & grandchildren — to return to what is now Israel inside the Green Line (rather than to the Palestinian state, where of course they should be welcome).
But that result would shatter any possibility of Israel’s having a special relationship with the Jewish people. To create such a state was why Israel came into existence. Dissolving it is so far from acceptable to Israelis that it means a No-Go on all negotiations. Mr. Barghouti said he has no objection to a “Jewish state,” but that’s meaningless under the conditions he proposed. His totalistic attack aimed at all aspects of Israeli society is integrally connected with a totalistic demand for dismantling the only purpose for Israel’s existence.
This ethical failing is connected with the impossibility of getting a majority for this in the US public, and therefore any change in the crucial factor — US government action. Or in Israeli society and policy.
I’m sorry that I didn’t say it as clearly as that on the program. (To see it, click here.)
Meanwhile, I have learned that during the next few weeks two major umbrella organizations of the official “established” Jewish institutional structures in America - the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the Jewish Council on Public Affairs - are planning efforts to combat what they call “the delegitimization of Israel.” BDS is one of their targets; the other is efforts to bring the Israeli government before the bar of international law.
I have a totally different strategy about that too. My way of preventing delegitimization of Israel would be to insist that the Israeli government stop acting in specific illegitimate ways. I will take up those specific points below.
During the interview and in the hours since, I have kept remembering an extraordinary story from the Book of Joshua.
In the story, Joshua, who has inherited leadership of the Israelite people after the death of Moses; who has led the people in crossing the Jordan; and who seems to have every reason to think God wants the Israelites to conquer the Land of Canaan, meets an awesome figure in full battle dress.
He calls out to this figure, "Are you for us or for our enemies?"
And the figure answers, "NO!"
Think for a moment about that "NO!"
I hear it to mean, "I am not here to support either one of you in your war against each other, nor do I support the conflict itself." - And now the awesome figure continues in its own voice - " For I am a captain in the Army of YHWH, the Interbreathing of all life."
To the extent that in my life I can clumsily try to walk the path of serving only in God's Army, the Infinite Host of that One Whose breathing gives life to all beings -- I understand this to mean:
I am not to blindly support my own government -- or its enemies --- when they clash in unjust conflict with each other. Not the US government when it attacks half a dozen Muslim countries, nor Al Qaeda when it attacks America. I am to hear instead the trumpet-blast of peace that is rooted in justice, the trumpet that awakens the troops of God's Own army.
I am not to give blind support to the government of Israel or those Americans (Jews or others) who bow to its policies --- nor am I to support those who demonize Israeli society and try to bring disaster on its people.
Instead, I see my task as seeking to bring about an independent, God-centered vision of a just peace. I understand God's desire -- command -- to be ending the wars, not winning victories for either side over the other.
It is now clear that neither the divided government of Palestine nor the government of Israel can take the necessary steps to make peace. They are like two hostile adults, thrown in a room together after childhoods of terrible abuse. They take out their traumas on each other. Only an outsider can break into the cycle and help a different process emerge.
That requires focusing the power and influence of the United States to bring about a decent peace among the warring parties in the Middle East -- Israel, Palestine, all the other Arab states, and the US itself. Unlike the South African case, which BDS supporters often cite in support of the effectiveness of BDS, the US government - not private banks and companies - is the main economic support for the Israeli occupation.
For me, the notion of a two-state peace settlement means that the "right of return" for Palestinians should be exercised chiefly in and with the new Palestine, while Israel like all other sovereign states defines its own immigration policy; and the discrimination against Israeli Palestinians should be dealt with chiefly by Israelis in an atmosphere of peace, no longer dominated by fear of the Arab "enemy."
How do we get to this point? The Obama Administration seems to believe, as a matter of rhetoric, in the regional peace settlement I have sketched. But rhetoric is not enough. The Arab League has offered to negotiate, with such a regional peace settlement as the goal. But the Israeli government will not end the occupation and make peace with Palestine, Syria, and other Arab states when met with US rhetoric alone. And so far, only some parts of Hamas seem willing to consider such a peace settlement.
The US government -- and only the US government - does have the power and influence to work with the Arab League and its proposal for a regional peace treaty; with the Palestinian leadership, including those elements of Hamas that have said that if the Palestinian people votes for a two-state solution, they will accept it; and above all with the government of Israel, whose military policy depends on US military aid.
Imagine the US saying that it will put half its military aid to Israel in escrow; that the money will be made available only to pay the costs of resettling the 400,000 Israelis who are now living in Palestinian land beyond the 1967 borders, and will be paid in one-fifth sums when (a) the blockade of civilian goods from entering Gaza is restricted to preventing only actual weapons from being imported into Gaza; and (b) chunks of 100,000 or so settlers at a time have left the West Bank and returned to Israel proper. (Present Israeli residents of the Old City of Jerusalem and any present Israeli settlers who agree to live fully under Palestinian law and sovereignty would be permitted to stay. If a new Palestinian government of national unity agreed to land swaps allowing some few Israeli settlements to become part of Israel while other Israeli land became part of Palestine, those settlers would also be permitted to stay.)
At the same time, the US government would offer aid to a new Palestine on condition that at least some Fatah and Hamas leaders join in a government of national unity, take major steps to prevent attacks on Israel, and agree to take part in a regional peace conference with the clear aim and commitment of making peace among Israel, all Arab states, and the nascent Palestine on approximately the pre-war 1967 boundaries.
And the US government would call for and use all its political, diplomatic, and economic clout to bring about a Middle East regional peace conference to accomplish exactly that result.
(For a fuller discussion of this proposal and a call for public support, see http://www.theshalomcenter.org/boldaction )
Why put in escrow only half, instead of all, US military aid to Israel? Because ethically and in practical politics as well, the US needs to be absolutely clear that it is ready to ensure Israel's security while at the same time, and with the same level of commitment, ready to insist on the end of the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the end of the blockade of civilian goods from entering Gaza.
This approach can only be taken by a US government if there is a strong public movement for it. So far as I can see, the only Americans who care enough about the Middle East, with enough passion and numbers to make a difference, are American Jews, Christians, and Muslims whose religio-ethnic identifications with the history and the peoples of that region are strong enough to move them into action - for war or for peace.
For the first time in decades, or ever, there is within the Jewish community not only an inchoate desire for a decent peace, but the organizational forms that are sufficiently independent of the Israeli government to pursue it.
For the first time ever, American Muslims are on the way to creating a coherent public voice on American foreign policy.
And for the first time in decades, some Protestant churches are willing to take on these questions in public, as they get less fearful of being labeled anti-Semitic when they criticize Israeli government policy.
So for the first time, it might be possible to put together a Jewish-Christian-Muslim coalition to work for strong insistence by the US government on a decent Middle East peace. Those who say it is hopeless to move the US government to such a policy because it has never behaved that way before, are forgetting there has never been a powerful coalition demanding that it act that way.
In the context and only in the context of such a coalition, it is conceivable that economic pressures could be aimed specifically and narrowly at the Occupation. For example, stockholder pressures on Caterpillar Tractor to prevent the use of its bulldozers to destroy Palestinian homes, and refusals to buy products that are identifiably produced and sold by Israeli settlers on Palestinian land, could be combined with economic support for grass-roots fair-trade joint Israeli-Palestinian enterprises (like PeaceOil, an olive-oil import enterprise with exactly that commitment. See http://www.peaceoil.net )
But this kind of activity is not what the present BDS movement is calling for. And even such a laser-beam economic pressure would only be worth the effort in the context of a multireligious and multicultural social movement initiated by local coalitions of Jews, Christians, and Muslims and focused on changing the outlook of US Congressmembers and the President.
Meanwhile, what do I make of the plans of the two major Jewish "umbrella organizations" to combat what they call the "delegitimization of Israel"?
I agree there is a danger of Israel's delegitimization. . But it does not flow chiefly from the actions of non-governmental organizations that the present Israeli government is attacking. It flows in larger measure from some actions of the Israeli government itself.
I urge American Jewish organizations to prevent the delegitimization of Israel by urging the Israeli government to end those of its actions that are themselves illegitimate.
For instance, they should publicly urge both the Israeli government and the Hamas government of Gaza each to create at once a fully independent commission with full judicial powers to investigate all allegations that its own forces -- either Palestinian or Israeli -- committed war crimes before and during the Gaza invasion.
That is what the Goldstone Report called for. Only if either party failed to do this, said Judge Goldstone, should the International Criminal Court take up the case concerning that party. The evidence of war crimes is strong enough, and refusal to have an independent body investigate the claims is so illegitimate, that both governments are bound to be "delegitimized" if they refuse.
And these American Jewish bodies should urge the Israeli government to end at once the illegitimate blockade on the entry of civilian goods into Gaza; to freeze all settlements in the Palestinian areas, including East Jerusalem; to end all demolitions of Palestinian homes; and to meet with the Arab League to aim at a full regional peace settlement.
If the Israeli government took these steps, almost all efforts to "delegitimize" Israel would swiftly melt away.
If on the other hand, JCPA and the Conference of Presidents put their efforts into attacking NGO’s and other groups that are already under attack by the Israeli government and its allies, the result might very well be a descent into a McCarthyist blizzard of slanders and attacks. I know that many of the member groups and their leaders would abhor such a result; I hope you will act to reaffirm the desirability, not just the acceptability, of listening to a very wide variety of opinions.
And finally, I would ask both the national organizations of Muslims, Jews, and Christians -- and local grass-roots groups of people from the Abrahamic traditions:
Are you ready to come together not just for intellectual "dialogue" but for common action toward the peace our sisters, brothers, and cousins so desperately need?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
* Rabbi Arthur Waskow is director, The Shalom Center http://www.theshalomcenter.org; co-author, The Tent of Abraham; author of Godwrestling — Round 2, Down-to-Earth Judaism, and a dozen other books on Jewish thought and practice, as well as books on US public policy. The Shalom Center voices a new prophetic agenda in Jewish, multireligious, and American life. To receive the weekly on-line Shalom Report, click on -- http://www.theshalomcenter.org/subscribe
****************************************************************************************
Statement by Naomi Klein
On March 18, continuing a long tradition of pioneering human rights campaigns, the Senate of the Associated Students of the University of California, Berkeley (ASUC) passed "A Bill In Support of UC Divestment from War Crimes." The historic bill resolves to divest ASUC's assets from two American companies, General Electric and United Technologies, that are "materially and militarily supporting the Israeli government's occupation of the Palestinian territories" -- and to advocate that the UC, with about $135 million invested in companies that profit from Israel's illegal actions in the Occupied Territories, follow suit.
Although the bill passed by a vote of 16-4 after a packed and intense debate, the President of the Senate vetoed the bill six days later. The Senate is expected to reconsider the bill soon; groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace are asking supporters of the bill to send letters to the Senators, who can overturn the veto with only 14 votes.
Here is the letter I just sent:
Dear members of the ASUC Senate, I am writing to urge you to reaffirm Senate Bill 118A, despite the recent presidential veto.
It comes as no surprise that you are under intense pressure to reverse your historic and democratic decision to divest from two companies that profit from Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory. When a school with a deserved reputation for academic excellence and moral leadership takes such a bold position, it threatens to inspire others to take their own stands.
Indeed, Berkeley -- the campus and the wider community -- has provided this kind of leadership on many key issues in the past: not only apartheid in South Africa but also sweatshops in Indonesia, dictatorship in Burma, political killings in Nigeria, and the list goes on. Time and again, when the call for international solidarity has come from people denied a political voice, Berkeley has been among the first to answer. And in virtually every case, what began as a small action in a progressive community quickly spread across the country and around the world.
Your recent divestment bill opposing Israeli war crimes stands to have this same kind of global impact, helping to build a grassroots, non-violent movement to end Israel's violations of international law. And this is precisely what your opponents -- by spreading deliberate lies about your actions -- are desperately trying to prevent. They are even going so far as to claim that, in the future, there should be no divestment campaigns that target a specific country, a move that would rob activists of one of the most effective tools in the non-violent arsenal. Please don't give into this pressure; too much is on the line.
As the world has just witnessed with the Netanyahu government's refusal to stop its illegal settlement expansion, political pressure is simply not enough to wrench Israel off its current disastrous path. And when our governments fail to apply sanctions for defiant illegality, other forms of pressure must come into play, including targeting those corporations that are profiting directly from human rights abuses.
Whenever we take a political action, we open ourselves up to accusations of hypocrisy and double standards, since the truth is that we can never do enough in the face of pervasive global injustice. Yet to argue that taking a clear stand against Israeli war crimes is somehow to "discriminate unfairly" against Israelis and Jews (as the veto seems to claim) is to grossly pervert the language of human rights. Far from "singling out Israel," with Senate Bill 118A, you are acting within Berkeley's commendable and inspiring tradition.
I understand that there is some debate about whether or not your divestment bill was adopted "in haste." Not having been there, I cannot comment on your process, though I am deeply impressed by the careful research that went into the decision. I also know that in 2005 an extraordinarily broad range of Palestinian civil society groups called on activists around the world to adopt precisely these kinds of peaceful pressure tactics. In the years since that call, we have all watched as Israeli abuses have escalated dramatically: the attack on Lebanon in the summer of 2006, a massive expansion of illegal settlements and walls, an ongoing siege on Gaza that violates all prohibitions on collective punishment, and, worst of all, the 2008/9 attack on Gaza that left approximately 1,400 dead.
I would humbly suggest that when it comes to acting to end Israeli war crimes, the international response has not suffered from too much haste but from far too little. This is a moment of great urgency, and the world is watching.
Be brave.
Yours sincerely,
Naomi Klein
*********************************************************************
Singling out Israel is the right thing to do
By Yaman Salahi
Thursday April 08, 2010
Two weeks ago, UC Berkeley's student senate made a historic 16-4 decision to divest from General Electric and United Technologies, two American companies that profit from the Israeli occupation. A week later, the student body president vetoed the bill, citing its “focus on a specific country,” Israel. His veto echoed identical claims by Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, that “in a world filled with human rights abuses across Africa, Asia and the Americas, the UC Berkeley students vote to single out Israel for censure is hypocritical.” As the international movement calling for Palestinian freedom and urging boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel grows, this particular defense will likely become more pronounced. Thus, it merits a response so that its troubling implications for people who organize for justice and human rights can be cast aside once and for all. So: what does it mean to "single out Israel," and is it really “hypocritical” to do so? Under one meaning, it is unclear how anyone could ever do, say, or think anything pertaining to Israel without necessarily "singling out" Israel. Anytime one talks about Israel one must, by definition, "single out" Israel -- whether cognitively or linguistically. In that sense, "singling out" means focusing in some way on its actions. For example, for decades the US Congress "singled out" Israel to receive the largest share of the United States' foreign aid budget, amounting over the past half-century to more than all aid to sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean combined. [1] Under another meaning, the critic might be claiming that divestment "singles out" Israel unfairly. In order to assess that claim, one must look at the merits of criticisms toward Israeli policy to see if they are fair. What are these criticisms? Namely, that Israel repeatedly engages in gross violations of human rights and international law. The evidence for such claims comes from sources as numerous, varied, and reputable as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Committee on the Red Cross, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, B'Tselem, the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, the Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, the United Nations Commissioner on Human Rights, Reporters Without Borders, the European Union, and finally, the United Nations General Assembly. In the face of such evidence, any claim that there is no basis on which to fairly "single out" Israel requires a remarkable amount of self-delusion or deliberate ignorance. Under a third meaning, the critic could be saying that "singling out" Israel for criticism is unfair because while Israel is under scrutiny, other human rights violators are off the hook. But is it really true that those who report on Israel never hold other violators to task for their actions? In addition to extensive documentation of Israeli human rights abuses, every single organization above, without exception, has also documented and investigated claims about other parties. Some even have reports about nearly every country in the world. These organizations are not above criticism or scrutiny, but they also do not have reputations for dishonesty. While these organizations are routinely cited when discussing human rights violations in Darfur, Tibet, Sri Lanka, Burma, Russia, and China, just to name a few – it is only their criticism of Israel that is deemed “unfair,” “biased,” or “one-sided.” Who, then, is “singling out” Israel, and why? There are certainly anti-Semites who criticize Israel because they are racist, but these marginal people simply do not characterize those organizations mentioned above, the Palestinian people, or those of us in the international movement to boycott Israel for its long-standing human rights abuses. Indeed, refusing to address fair claims because of the occasional unfair accuser removes the anti-Semites from the margins and sacrifices the entire system of rights and the majority who support it at their altar. Under a final meaning, the critic could be claiming that "singling out" Israel for divestment is unfair, because divestment does not target every other country that also violates human rights. This argument is disingenuous. On its face, it appears to advocate for greater action on more human rights issues. In practice, however, it is deployed in order to silence those who would call for greater action in the face of Israeli war crimes and other violations of Palestinian rights under international law. Indeed, many of those who argue that divestment “singles out” Israel have no similar reservations when applying economic and political pressure to other countries and conflicts, such as Darfur. As Naomi Klein has written, divestment is not a dogma: it's a tactic. Up against powerful state and corporate actors, civil society must focus its energies for collective actions such as boycott or divestment to succeed. Such was the case when companies that enabled the South African apartheid regime were targeted for divestment. A similar campaign succeeded regarding Darfur, and today another campaign is underway against Sri Lanka for its continuing oppression of the Tamil people. In all three cases those nations were or are singled out for divestment while at the same time other injustices loomed in the world. To do so made tactical sense while re-inforcing the principle that companies are legitimate targets for boycott and divestment wherever they are integral actors in a system of oppression. When all other measures fail, consumers and investors have one last recourse: to chose to spend and invest their money elsewhere. For many around the world, this is the best way to intervene against Israel’s systematized racism and oppression of the Palestinian people. Those who believe that confronting Israel is unfair are themselves relying on an unacceptable double standard, "singling out" Israel, so to speak, as the one country expressly permitted to wantonly attack and persecute its minority citizens and subjects while the rest of the world passively watches. However, there can be only one universal standard of human rights. Privileging one state or actor over all others to remove it from accountability creates double standards that undermine the integrity of social justice activism all over the world. No one who chooses to engage in war crimes, colonization or human rights violations should expect the complicity of people around the world. Today, more than ever, is the time to single out Israel for criticism and boycott – not because it is the only purveyor of injustice in the world, or even necessarily the worst – but because no other international institution has succeeded in stopping the injustices against the Palestinians that continue to unfold before our eyes and in the full light of history.
[1]“In fact, from 1949 through 1997, the total of U.S. aid to all of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean combined was $64,127,500,000—considerably less than the $71,077,600,000 Israel received in the same 1949 through 1997 time period. According to the Population Reference Bureau of Washington, DC, in mid-1999 the sub-Saharan and Latin American and Caribbean countries have a combined population of 1.142 billion people, while Israel’s mid-1999 population is 6.1 million people.“ Washington Report on Middle East Affairs
Yaman Salahi, a UC Berkeley alumnus and member of Students for Justice in Palestine, is currently a student at Yale Law School.
*********************************************************************** Israel Divestment Assaults Democracy
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, March 06, 2009
In the struggle to defeat Israel, those who support terror as a weapon against Israelis certainly have no difficulty in distorting the truth, even it is in the form of a divestment petition on a university campus. The purpose of boycott and divestment campaigns is not only to hurt Israel's economy but to cast her as a pariah state. These campaigns are sponsored by anti-Israel and anti-Semitic groups in the United States and around the world. The Arab boycott of Jewish interests began in 1921, more than 27 years prior to the establishment of Israel in 1948. The boycott remains in effect today under the sponsorship of the Arab League and its Central Boycott Office in Damascus, Syria. Divestment and boycott efforts not only include products produced in Israel, but also companies that do business in or with Israel. Ships that have docked in Israeli ports regardless of the cargo's point of origin or ultimate destination have also been blacklisted. Despite the best efforts of antisemitic and anti-Israel activists, including some gains among church groups, the divestment campaign's main negative impact has been on Israel's image. A divestment movement at Harvard University drew censure from Lawrence Summers, then the university president. Summers called the efforts to single out Israel for divestment as anti-Semitic "in their effect, if not their intent. In May 2008, the United Methodist Church rejected five petitions calling for divestment from companies which support or profit from Israel." Nonetheless, these divestment campaigns must be condemned as they perpetuate lies about Israel, including the lie introduced by the UN which asserts that "Zionism equals racism." Zionism is a term coined in 1896 to describe an international philosophy maintaining that Jews should have a single national homeland in the Middle East where they would not have to worry about discrimination, pogroms, or other persecutions, but be able to live peacefully. Today 22 countries are officially Muslim and 48 countries-and growing-maintain Muslim majority populations. Yet condemnation of Zionism is ridiculous when one recognizes that Zionism has created a country which is tolerant of all individuals and minorities, including Muslims. Arab Christian and Muslims today serve within the Israeli government and enjoy a higher standard of living than any other country in the Middle East. The few remaining Jews in Islamic countries live in fear of persecution, spurring them to leave their native lands if possible; only last week some Jews from the ancient Jewish community in Yemen had to flee from murderous al Qaeda-inspired attacks. Israel accepted the notion of a Palestinian state back in 1948 when even the Arabs did not wish for it. In recent decades, Israel uprooted Jewish settlements and gave land to Egypt and Jordan in return for peace treaties. Under the Oslo Accords, Israel granted Palestinian autonomy and received non-stop terror in return. Furthermore, unlike Arab governments which have used Palestinians as scapegoats, Israel absorbed indigenous Jewish populations of the Middle East who today amount to more than half of the Israeli population.
Congress passed a law creating the Office of Antiboycott Compliance within the Department of Commerce in 1977. This law disallows U.S. firms from partaking in actions in support of unsanctioned foreign boycotts against a country that is an ally to the United States. Because Israel is an ally of the United States and the government does not sanction the Arab boycott of Israel, the law prohibits actions that further or support the Arab League boycott of Israel. US legislation forbids participation in such boycotts in order to prevent private citizens from potentially generating a de-facto foreign policy.
These divestment campaigns have gained momentum since 2000, mostly on college campuses where movements have become more like street theater, but also in cities and towns, churches, businesses and non-profit organizations. These campaigns, moreover, were initially inspired by the Palestinian Authority, which is part of the official Arab League boycott of Israel.
The real reason for the lack of peace has everything to do with Arab Nationalism and Islamic radicalism. It has nothing to do with bogus charges of human rights violations against the Jewish state where the rights of all citizens, regardless of nationality or religion, are protected.
From March 1st to the 8th universities, both in the United States and the United Kingdom, will be pushing anti-Israel divestment campaigns on their campuses. These divestment campaigns will perpetuate lies about the state of Israel, painting the Jewish state as racist and a colonial usurper, all this despite the fact it's no larger than the state of New Jersey and its territory doesn't even amount to one percent of the Middle East.
Students are preparing to address the hypocrisy of Israel divestment campaigns. Utilizing resources from organizations like the Simon Wiesenthal Center's campus division, i-Act, students on college campuses will have the ability to print flyers and coordinate events which point to how silly divestment campaigns are as they certainly don't stop citizens of the Arab world from using technology developed in Israel.
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, explained the motivations of Israel divestment and boycott campaigns. "The real goal of the boycotts, calls for divestment and sanctions is to cast Israel as the 21st Century version of the hated regime of Apartheid South Africa," Cooper stated. "Israel is far from perfect but doesn't deserve the vicious double standard applied to the Jewish state and her alone," he stressed.
A flyer that defends Israel, which is available here for downloading and printing, points out that Israel is a leader in innovation that we all take for granted. Rabbi Aron Hier, the Director of campus Outreach, can be contacted at iact@wiesenthal.com for information about the campaign and how to get involved.
Other informative brochures, from groups like StandWithUs, demonstrate freedom and tolerance in Israel, comparing Israel to neighboring Arab nations in which shocking human rights violations occur without much international condemnation. Brochures and materials for students are available here and are designed to help students combat anti-Israel campaigns.
Divestment is an assault on democracy, the free market economy and US laws which protect our allies like the State of Israel-which also happens to be the only democracy in the entire Middle East.
*********************************************************************
Archbishop Tutu
April 10, 2010
On the Web at:
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/04/tutu-issue-is-the-same-in-palestine-as-it-was-in-south-africa-equality.html
Dear Student Leaders at the University of California - Berkeley It was with great joy that I learned of your recent 16-4 vote in support of divesting your university's money from companies that enable and profit from the injustice of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and violation of Palestinian human rights. Principled stands like this, supported by a fast growing number of US civil society organizations and people of conscience, including prominent Jewish groups, are essential for a better world in the making, and it is always an inspiration when young people lead the way and speak truth to power. I am writing to tell you that, despite what detractors may allege, you are doing the right thing. You are doing the moral thing. You are doing that which is incumbent on you as humans who believe that all people have dignity and rights, and that all those being denied their dignity and rights deserve the solidarity of their fellow human beings. I have been to the Ocupied Palestinian Territory, and I have witnessed the racially segregated roads and housing that reminded me so much of the conditions we experienced in South Africa under the racist system of Apartheid. I have witnessed the humiliation of Palestinian men, women, and children made to wait hours at Israeli military checkpoints routinely when trying to make the most basic of trips to visit relatives or attend school or college, and this humiliation is familiar to me and the many black South Africans who were corralled and regularly insulted by the security forces of the Apartheid government. In South Africa, we could not have achieved our freedom and just peace without the help of people around the world, who through the use of non-violent means, such as boycotts and divestment, encouraged their governments and other corporate actors to reverse decades-long support for the Apartheid regime. Students played a leading role in that struggle, and I write this letter with a special indebtedness to your school, Berkeley, for its pioneering role in advocating equality in South Africa and promoting corporate ethical and social responsibility to end complicity in Apartheid. I visited your campus in the 1980's and was touched to find students sitting out in the baking sunshine to demonstrate for the University's disvestment in companies supporting the South African regime. The same issue of equality is what motivates the divestment movement of today, which tries to end Israel's 43 year long occupation and the unequal treatment of the Palestinian people by the Israeli government ruling over them. The abuses they face are real, and no person should be offended by principled, morally consistent, non-violent acts to oppose them. It is no more wrong to call out Israel in particular for its abuses than it was to call out the Apartheid regime in particular for its abuses. To those who wrongly accuse you of unfairness or harm done to them by this call for divestment, I suggest, with humility, that the harm suffered from being confronted with opinions that challenge one's own pales in comparison to the harm done by living a life under occupation and daily denial of basic rights and dignity. It is not with rancor that we criticize the Israeli government, but with hope, a hope that a better future can be made for both Israelis and Palestinians, a future in which both the violence of the occupier and the resulting violent resistance of the occupied come to an end, and where one people need not rule over another, engendering suffering, humiliation, and retaliation. True peace must be anchored in justice and an unwavering commitment to universal rights for all humans, regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender, national origin or any other identity attribute. You, students, are helping to pave that path to a just peace. Desmond Tutu.
I heartily endorse your divestment vote and encourage you to stand firm on the side of what is right,
God bless you richly,
Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town.
******************************************************************
Selective Divestment from Companies that Profit from Human Rights Violations in Israel and Palestine: A Campaign to End Apartheid and Promote Peace
In September of 1986, Georgetown students united to call for an end to our university's ties to apartheid South Africa, initiating a campaign that led the university to divest from corporations tied to South Africa's military and government. In April of 2008, Georgetown students successfully convinced the Board of Trustees to divest from companies that supported the Sudanese government in carrying out human rights abuses. On April 13, 2010, Georgetown students will unveil a campaign to encourage our university to divest from companies in Israel and the Occupied Territories that violate human rights and support apartheid.
With the decisions of the Presbyterian Church the Academic Union of Teachers in the United Kingdom, the Norwegian government, the Board of Trustees at Hampshire College, and many other organizations to pursue divestment from companies that violate international law and violate human rights in Israel and Palestine, a growing international movement is building to pressure Israel to reform its policies and end its illegal occupation of the Palestinian Territories. Georgetown Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) seeks to make Georgetown a relevant player in this grassroots movement for change. SJP encourages the Board of Trustees to acknowledge Georgetown's commitment to social justice and human rights.
Coalition member Jackson Perry will formally present the case for pursuing selective divestment in the Israeli-Palestinian context. The event will also include a panel comprised of Father Raymond Kemp (Campus Ministry), Professor Mark Lance (Program on Justice and Peace), and Shelley Fudge (Jewish Voices for Peace). Join us as we launch this historic campaign at Georgetown to end apartheid and bring peace to Israel and Palestine!
Access » This event has been marked as open to the public.
Contact gusjpalestine@gmail.com
Sponsors: Students for Justice in Palestine
Web site:
For more information, see http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=107633695937918&ref=ts
Calendar Students for Justice in Palestine Events.
This calendar is maintained by a student group.
_______________________________________________________________
Brown University movement for divestment against the Israeli occupation of Palestine --
"Student group speaks out against profiting from Israel-Palestine conflict"
By Crys Guerra and Anne Artley
Contributing Writers
BROWN DAILY HERALD, AT:
http://www.browndailyherald.com/student-group-speaks-out-against-profiting-from-israel-palestine-conflict-1.2181202
Published: Friday, March 5, 2010
With the hope of building a campus-wide movement, Brown Students for Justice in Palestine held their spring kick-off event, Education without Occupation, on Wednesday, presenting their campaign for divestment from companies profiting from what the group called the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
The presentation, an hourlong slideshow, focused on the terms and the reasons used to frame their position. As a part of a weeklong series, this event is in coordination with the 6th annual International Israeli Apartheid Week.
The members began by introducing themselves and their reasons for responding to Palestine's call. Six of the members present - Dia Barghouti '12, Janine Khraishah '12, Francesca Contreras '11, Rosi Greenberg '10, Gavriel Cutipa-Zorn '12 and Ghada Abdelqader GS - have all either lived or spent time in Israel or Palestine. They shared a common story of their personal experience viewing and in some cases living through the injustice as driving their support for the campaign.
"I witnessed the occupation firsthand and its progress," said Khraishah, who said she supports the campaign because it addresses "the root of the problem: occupation of Palestine by the state of Israel."
Though faith is sometimes perceived as dividing individuals on the issue, some members said their Jewish faith was the reason they took action.
"I realized that Israeli actions were not in line with my Jewish values," Cutipa-Zorn said.
Identity, however, is not the only reason for the members' solidarity with the movement against Israeli occupation of Palestine. Ruhan Nagra '10, stated that "this isn't about identity, its about fundamental human rights."
The other group members present - Alysha Aziz '12, Lindsay Goss GS, Michael Dawkins '12, Osman Chaudhry '11 and Herald Opinions Columnist Simon Liebling '12 - referred to their support as a responsibility, stating their complicity in the issue as taxpayers through U.S. investment in companies profiting from the occupation.
The group's campaign on divestment from Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories is in solidarity with the 2005 call by "Palestinian civil society" as stated on the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Web site.
"We are basically focusing on initiatives that are specific and relevant to our complicity in Israeli's human rights violations as Brown students," Nagra said.
The group called for Brown to divest from "companies that provide products or services that: contribute to the maintenance of the Israeli military occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem; that contribute to the maintenance, expansion and operations of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; that contribute to the maintenance and construction of the Separation Wall; and that contribute to violent acts against Palestinian and Israeli civilians."
The group compared the Separation Wall, which is often justified as necessary for security purposes, to South Africa's Group Areas Act which reserved 87 percent of the land for the minority white population.
When questioned about the possibility of opposition to the demands, Nagra said the group's "entire campaign is centered around basic human rights and international law." She said she believes that "Brown students would want to uphold those values."
Among the many American companies listed as facilitating Israeli occupation, according to the group, are General Electric, Caterpillar, Motorola and Raytheon, a major arms contractor for Israel which has also recruited on campus.
Emphasizing Brown's divestment campaign from South Africa in 1985, the group noted the parallels between the two movements.
"There is no greater testament to the basic dignity of ordinary people everywhere than the divestment movement of the 1980s," the students said, quoting South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu. "These tactics are not the only parallels to the struggle against apartheid. Yesterday's South African township dwellers can tell you about life in the Occupied Territories."
Special attention was also paid to the use of the term "apartheid" to describe the situation in occupied Palestinian territories.
The group uses the 1973 United Nations definition of apartheid as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them," according to their presentation.
Apartheid's ultimate significance, Nagra said, is "a practice, not an experience. It's a crime against humanity whose scope goes beyond South Africa."
The group said divestment from companies profiting off Israel's occupation of Palestinianterritories is their action of choice toward peace between Palestine and Israel.
"It is nonviolent, grassroots and effective," Chaudry said.
The question-and-answer period prompted questions about the group's evidence of Brown's investment in the companies mentioned.
"We don't know what Brown is invested in, but we can establish a criterion for investment," Nagra said.
A question was also raised concerning Israel's "right to exist" in light of the injustices presented during the event.
"That is not a productive question," Greenberg said. "This is not an idea of how Israel (and) Palestine should be. It is not for us to decide. We are focusing on how we are complicit."
The group said they plan to focus on "mobilizing the student body to approach the administration full force" and on creating a sustainable movement committed to the campaign, which according to them could take two to five years to succeed. This week's events, so far, have given them hope.
"We have been tabling on the Main Green and already we've collected hundreds of signatures," said Nagra. "The support has been incredible."
The rest of the week's events include Activestills, a photo exhibit, and a talk by Susanne Hoder on "Multinational Corporations and Israeli Apartheid."
_______________________________________________________________
Vancouver demonstration for boycott against Israeli Apartheid
Ending MEC's support for Israel's war machine:
Global Day of Action for Boycott Divestment Sanctions against Israeli Apartheid targets Mountain Equipment Co-op
April 10, 2010
At:
http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/story/3229
Last update - 07:51 11/04/2010 IDF order will enable mass deportation from West Bank http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1162075.html Hebrew: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1162171.html By Amira Hass Tags: West Bank, IDF, Israel news A new military order aimed at preventing infiltration will come into force this week, enabling the deportation of tens of thousands of Palestinians from the West Bank, or their indictment on charges carrying prison terms of up to seven years. When the order comes into effect, tens of thousands of Palestinians will automatically become criminal offenders liable to be severely punished. Given the security authorities' actions over the past decade, the first Palestinians likely to be targeted under the new rules will be those whose ID cards bear home addresses in the Gaza Strip - people born in Gaza and their West Bank-born children - or those born in the West Bank or abroad who for various reasons lost their residency status. Also likely to be targeted are foreign-born spouses of Palestinians. Until now, Israeli civil courts have occasionally prevented the expulsion of these three groups from the West Bank. The new order, however, puts them under the sole jurisdiction of Israeli military courts. The new order defines anyone who enters the West Bank illegally as an infiltrator, as well as "a person who is present in the area and does not lawfully hold a permit." The order takes the original 1969 definition of infiltrator to the extreme, as the term originally applied only to those illegally staying in Israel after having passed through countries then classified as enemy states - Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria. The order's language is both general and ambiguous, stipulating that the term infiltrator will also be applied to Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, citizens of countries with which Israel has friendly ties (such as the United States) and Israeli citizens, whether Arab or Jewish. All this depends on the judgment of Israel Defense Forces commanders in the field. The new guidelines are expected to clamp down on protests in the West Bank. The Hamoked Center for the Defense of the Individual was the first Israeli human rights to issue warnings against the order, signed six months ago by then-commander of IDF forces in Judea and Samaria Area Gadi Shamni. Two weeks ago, Hamoked director Dalia Kerstein sent GOC Central Command Avi Mizrahi a request to delay the order, given "the dramatic change it causes in relation to the human rights of a tremendous number of people." According to the provisions, "a person is presumed to be an infiltrator if he is present in the area without a document or permit which attest to his lawful presence in the area without reasonable justification." Such documentation, it says, must be "issued by the commander of IDF forces in the Judea and Samaria area or someone acting on his behalf." The instructions, however, are unclear over whether the permits referred to are those currently in force, or also refer to new permits that military commanders might issue in the future. The provision are also unclear about the status of bearers of West Bank residency cards, and disregards the existence of the Palestinian Authority and the agreements Israel signed with it and the PLO. The order stipulates that if a commander discovers that an infiltrator has recently entered a given area, he "may order his deportation before 72 hours elapse from the time he is served the written deportation order, provided the infiltrator is deported to the country or area from whence he infiltrated." The order also allows for criminal proceedings against suspected infiltrators that could produce sentences of up to seven years. Individuals able to prove that they entered the West Bank legally but without permission to remain there will also be tried, on charges carrying a maximum sentence of three years. (According to current Israeli law, illegal residents typically receive one-year sentences.) The new provision also allow the IDF commander in the area to require that the infiltrator pay for the cost of his own detention, custody and expulsion, up to a total of NIS 7,500. Currently, Palestinians need special permits to enter areas near the separation fence, even if their homes are there, and Palestinians have long been barred from the Jordan Valley without special authorization. Until 2009, East Jerusalemites needed permission to enter Area A, territory under full PA control. The fear that Palestinians with Gaza addresses will be the first to be targeted by this order is based on measures that Israel has taken in recent years to curtail their right to live, work, study or even visit the West Bank. These measures violated the Oslo Accords. According to a decision by the West Bank commander that was not backed by military legislation, since 2007, Palestinians with Gaza addresses must request a permit to stay in the West Bank. Since 2000, they have been defined as illegal sojourners if they have Gaza addresses, as if they were citizens of a foreign state. Many of them have been deported to Gaza, including those born in the West Bank. One group expected to be particularly harmed by the new rules are Palestinians who moved to the West Bank under family reunification provisions, which Israel stopped granting for several years. In 2007, amid a number of Hamoked petitions and as a goodwill gesture to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, tens of thousands of people received Palestinian residency cards. The PA distributed the cards, but Israel had exclusive control over who could receive them. Thousands of Palestinians, however, remained classified as "illegal sojourners," including many who are not citizens of any other country. The new order is the latest step by the Israeli government in recent years to require permits that limit the freedom of movement and residency previously conferred by Palestinian ID cards. The new regulations are particularly sweeping, allowing for criminal measures and the mass expulsion of people from their homes. The IDF Spokesman's Office said in response, "The amendments to the order on preventing infiltration, signed by GOC Central Command, were issued as part of a series of manifests, orders and appointments in Judea and Samaria, in Hebrew and Arabic as required, and will be posted in the offices of the Civil Administration and military courts' defense attorneys in Judea and Samaria. The IDF is ready to implement the order, which is not intended to apply to Israelis, but to illegal sojourners in Judea and Samaria."
******************************************
**********************************************************************
Haaretz Sunday, April 11, 2010
********************************************************
A Dangerous Silence http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-koch/a-dangerous-silence_b_534809.html In Rome itself, I have seen the Arch of Titus with the sculpture showing enslaved Jews and the treasures of the Jewish Temple of Solomon with the Menorah, the symbol of the Jewish state, being carted away as booty during the sacking of Jerusalem. Oh, you may say, that is a far fetched analogy. Please hear me out. The most recent sacking of the old city of Jerusalem -- its Jewish quarter -- took place under the Jordanians in 1948 in the first war between the Jews and the Arabs, with at least five Muslim states -- Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq -- seeking to destroy the Jewish state. At that time, Jordan conquered East Jerusalem and the West Bank and expelled every Jew living in the Jewish quarter of the old city, destroying every building, including the synagogues in the old quarter and expelling from every part of Judea and Samaria every Jew living there so that for the first time in thousands of years, the old walled city of Jerusalem and the adjacent West Bank were "Judenrein" -- a term used by the Nazis to indicate the forced removal or murder of all Jews. Jews had lived for centuries in Hebron, the city where Abraham, the first Jew, pitched his tent and where he now lies buried, it is believed, in a tomb with his wife, Sarah, as well as other ancient Jewish patriarchs and matriarchs. I have visited that tomb and at the time asked an Israeli soldier guarding it -- so that it was open to all pilgrims, Christians, Muslims and Jews -- "where is the seventh step leading to the tomb of Abraham and Sarah," which was the furthest entry for Jews when the Muslims were the authority controlling the holy place? He replied, "When we retook and reunited the whole city of Jerusalem and conquered the West Bank in 1967, we removed the steps, so now everyone can enter," whereas when Muslims were in charge of the tomb, no Jew could enter it. And I did. I am not a religious person. I am comfortable in a synagogue, but generally attend only twice a year, on the high holidays. When I entered the tomb of Abraham and Sarah, as I recall, I felt connected with my past and the traditions of my people. One is a Jew first by birth and then by religion. Those who leave their religion remain Jews forever by virtue of their birth. If they don't think so, let them ask their neighbors, who will remind them. I recall the words of the columnist Robert Novak, who was for most of his life hostile to the Jewish state of Israel, in an interview with a reporter stating that while he had converted to Catholicism, he was still a cultural Jew. I remain with pride a Jew both by religion and culture. My support for the Jewish state has been long and steadfast. Never have I thought that I would leave the U.S. to go and live in Israel. My loyalty and love is first to the U.S. which has given me, the son of Polish Jewish immigrants, so much. But, I have also long been cognizant of the fact that every night when I went to sleep in peace and safety, there were Jewish communities around the world in danger. And there was one country, Israel, that would give them sanctuary and would send its soldiers to fight for them and deliver them from evil, as Israel did at Entebbe in 1976. I weep today because my president, Barack Obama, in a few weeks has changed the relationship between the U.S. and Israel from that of closest of allies to one in which there is an absence of trust on both sides. The contrast between how the president and his administration deals with Israel and how it has decided to deal with the Karzai administration in Afghanistan is striking. The Karzai administration, which operates a corrupt and opium-producing state, refuses to change its corrupt ways - the president's own brother is believed by many to run the drug traffic taking place in Afghanistan - and shows the utmost contempt for the U.S. is being hailed by the Obama administration as an ally and publicly treated with dignity. Karzai recently even threatened to join the Taliban if we don't stop making demands on him. Nevertheless, Karzai is receiving a gracious thank-you letter from President Obama. The New York Times of April 10th reported, ...that Mr. Obama had sent Mr. Karzai a thank-you note expressing gratitude to the Afghan leader for dinner in Kabul. 'It was a respectful letter,' General Jones said. I believe President Obama's policy is to create a whole new relationship with the Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, and Iraq as a counter to Iran -- The Tyrannosaurus Rex of the Muslim world, which we are now prepared to see in possession of a nuclear weapon. If throwing Israel under the bus is needed to accomplish this alliance, so be it. I am shocked by the lack of outrage on the part of Israel's most ardent supporters. The members of AIPAC, the chief pro-Israel lobbying organization in Washington, gave Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a standing ovation after she had carried out the instructions of President Obama and, in a 43-minute telephone call, angrily hectored Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Members of Congress in both the House and Senate have made pitifully weak statements against Obama's mistreatment of Israel, if they made any at all. The Democratic members, in particular, are weak. They are simply afraid to criticize President Obama. What bothers me most of all is the shameful silence and lack of action by community leaders -- Jew and Christian. Where are they? If this were a civil rights matter, the Jews would be in the mall in Washington protesting with and on behalf of our fellow American citizens. I asked one prominent Jewish leader why no one is preparing a march on Washington similar to the one in 1963 at which I was present and Martin Luther King's memorable speech was given? His reply was "Fifty people might come." Remember the 1930s? Few stood up. They were silent. Remember the most insightful statement of one of our greatest teachers, Rabbi Hillel: "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?" We have indeed stood up for everyone else. When will we stand up for our brothers and sisters living in the Jewish state of Israel? If Obama is seeking to build a siege ramp around Israel, the Jews of modern Israel will not commit suicide. They are willing to negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians, but they will not allow themselves to be bullied into following self-destructive policies. To those who call me an alarmist, I reply that I'll be happy to apologize if I am proven wrong. But those who stand silently by and watch the Obama administration abandon Israel, to whom will they apologize?:
I weep as I witness outrageous verbal attacks on Israel. What makes these verbal assaults and distortions all the more painful is that they are being orchestrated by President Obama.
For me, the situation today recalls what occurred in 70 AD when the Roman emperor Vespasian launched a military campaign against the Jewish nation and its ancient capital of Jerusalem. Ultimately, Masada, a rock plateau in the Judean desert became the last refuge of the Jewish people against the Roman onslaught. I have been to Jerusalem and Masada. From the top of Masada, you can still see the remains of the Roman fortifications and garrisons, and the stones and earth of the Roman siege ramp that was used to reach Masada. The Jews of Masada committed suicide rather than let themselves be taken captive by the Romans.
On the other hand, our closest ally -- the one with the special relationship with the U.S. -- has been demeaned and slandered, held responsible by the administration for our problems in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. The plan I suspect is to so weaken the resolve of the Jewish state and its leaders so that it will be much easier to impose on Israel an American plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leaving Israel's needs for security and defensible borders in the lurch.
