The original headline accompanying this article contained information that was unclear and has been changed. See the bottom of the article for additional information.
The undergraduate student government is set to vote tonight on a resolution in support of a peaceful campus approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and investments in specific companies that have worked to promote economic growth for both Israelis and Palestinians.
Undergraduate Students Association Council Internal Vice President Avi Oved said he wrote the resolution to mediate the discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at UCLA, to take a proactive and all-encompassing approach to the issue and to encourage dialogue on campus.
The resolution calls for USAC to support a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and solely consider legislation that represents the conflict’s “complex, multi-faceted nature” and the rights of both Israeli and Palestinian people.
The resolution also asks the council to support what the resolution terms “financially sound” investments by the Associated Students UCLA and the UCLA Fund in companies such as Sadara Ventures, Al-Bawader, Cisco Systems Inc., Microsoft Corp., Intel Corp. and Google Inc., since it asserts that those companies have used their resources to encourage cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians by supporting both groups’ economic growth.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a regional dispute over the occupation of the Palestinian West Bank by the Israeli military and the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip, among other issues, is a consistently contentious topic on campus, and the focus of numerous events throughout the year.
Oved said the resolution is not meant to polarize students or to encourage USAC to take sides on the conflict, which he thinks causes division on campus and prevents students with different perspectives from forming relationships and collaborating. General Representative Sunny Singh also sponsored the resolution and said he hopes it will foster constructive dialogue on campus.
“For years, UCLA has struggled to create a campus climate that encompasses the (Israeli-Palestinian) conflict,” Singh said. “Other campuses have struggled with this as well.”
The resolution and the emotionally charged topic it addresses have sparked confusion and anger in some students.
Agatha Palma, a graduate student in anthropology and the director of boycotts, divestments and sanctions for Students for Justice in Palestine, said she plans to fight the resolution at tonight’s USAC meeting because she disagrees with its goals.
Palma added that she thinks the resolution misrepresents Palestinian students and goes against the initiatives some of them support – such as boycotts, divestments and sanctions.
“The entire bill acts as if it speaks for Palestinian students and pretends to know what Palestinian students want, when really it is grossly representing them,” Palma said.
Palma said she supports economic divestment and disagrees with the resolution’s call for USAC to support specific investments.
Oved said the resolution is not meant to speak on behalf of students and represent their opinions about the conflict.
One portion of the resolution that bothered Palma in particular was a clause that referred to the “inalienable rights of both Palestinians and Israelis to self-determination in their respective homelands,” she said.
She said she thought the reference to “respective homelands” clearly advocates for a two-state solution, on which she does not think council should be taking a stance.
Oved disagreed with the claim that the resolution is advocating for any particular solution to the conflict.
He added that he included a call for USAC to support certain investments in companies rather than divestment because he thinks divestment is one-sided and not constructive.
“If we want to talk about peace solutions, divestment will not lead to that at all,” Oved said. “It’s counterproductive, it’s not pro-Israel and its not pro-Palestine.”
Tammy Rubin, a third-year human biology and society student and director of public affairs for Bruins for Israel, said she thinks the resolution’s call for USAC to support investments in companies that promote economic growth for both Israelis and Palestinians is a good idea, since she thinks calling for divestment from companies has caused division on other University of California campuses.
“The way I see it is that, unfortunately, there is no consensus between not only Israelis and Palestinians, but between those groups represented on campus,” Rubin said.
She added that she thinks this resolution is a proactive way of framing the dialogue on campus to mediate the tension between Israeli and Palestinian students on campus.
Multiple councilmembers said they were confused by the resolution and interested to learn more about it on Tuesday.
External Vice President Maryssa Hall said she was surprised when she found out about the resolution, since USAC had not discussed the issue at recent meetings.
“(My initial reaction) was one of confusion, because it felt like (the resolution) was coming out of thin air in many ways,” she said.
USAC President John Joanino said he thinks mentioning specific companies in the resolution could complicate the issue, since some companies could support peace between Israel and Palestine, but have ties to other issues USAC does not want to encourage.
Oved said he has personal ties to the issue since he grew up in an Israeli household and has seen the polarizing effects of the conflict play out on campus.
“(Writing the resolution) was like therapy for me,” he said. “I wanted to make sure that I was starting the discussion (at UCLA.)”
Students can comment on the resolution on the USAC website or go to the council’s meeting at 7 p.m. in Kerckhoff 417 to give public comments.
Clarification: The names of Israel and Palestine were not capitalized, and the term “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” was not hyphenated.
Neville Chamberlain tried appeasing Hitler. How did that work out?
…………..
The following two quotes are from the Palestinian Authority Daily:
“Had Hitler won, Nazism would be an honor that people would
be competing to belong to, and not a disgrace punishable by law.”
“Churchill and Roosevelt were alcoholics, and in their youth
were questioned more than once about brawls they started in bars, while Hitler
hated alcohol and was not addicted to it. He used to go to sleep early and wake
up early, and was very organized. These facts have been turned upside down as
well, and Satan has been dressed with angels’ wings.”
First, regardless of all circumstances, winners end up writing history.
Second, I’ll be happy once Palestine obtains full membership in the UN (it has the same status as the vatican). That means a two-state solution.
realized,
The world needs one more dysfunctional, terrorist, civil war conflicted Islamic state so if it makes you happy if the Palestinians get this then I am happy too.
Arafat, you are the most disgusting, racist prick I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading comments from.
Khara,
Distinctions for simple minds….
1) Islam is not a race it’s a religion.
2) I do not hate Muslims. Mostly I pity them for being born into a repressive and mean-spirited society thanks to the dictates embedded in Islam.
3) I do not hate Muslims, I hate Islam.
4) Here are a few other people who hated Islam too: Winston Churchill, John Quincy Adams, John Wesley, Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russell, Gregory Palamus, Alex de Tougeville…along with the tens of millions of people killed, raped and made destitute by Islam’s loyal jihadists throughout the last 1,400 years.
Let the flame war begin…
The Israeli government’s deliberate destruction of Palestinian homes is unforgivable. That is all.
Oh the horrors!
For the Israelis to destroy the homes of terrorists responsible for killing women and children is unthinkable. They should be like the Palestinians instead and drag those responsible behind jeeps until they are scraped to death. Is this what you’re saying?
#zionist
khara 3alak,
You’re quite the writer. Do these epiphanies come to you naturally or do you smoke a hookah to help you come by these pithy insights, you Muslim water carrier.
Given the history of the region, a two-state solution seems good. Palestine and Israel existing at the same time.
“She said she thought the reference to “respective homelands” clearly advocates for a two-state solution, on which she does not think council should be taking a stance.”
If you’re pro-Palestinian, and you’re against a two-state solution, what exactly are you advocating for? It sound’s like Palma is in support of the destruction of Israel.
Of course a council without a single Palestinian representative would favor Israeli interest groups. Here’s a video that might shed the light on how the true will of the Jewish Israeli governance is to create another apartheid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPxv4Aff3IA
Talk about not learning from the atrocities of history….
·
Since
the Palestinians were never Israeli citizens, and never wanted to be Israeli
citizens, there’s really no question of Apartheid here.
The
Palestinians’ disenfranchisement comes out of their own rejection of UNGAR 181,
which advocated the establishment of one Jewish state (Israel) and one Arab
state (Palestine, or whatever they might have wanted to call it) on the land of
the Palestine Mandate. Had they accepted the resolution and established their
own state on the land allocated by the UN, there would be no Palestinian
refugees today.
No
country in the world can be forced to accept a belligerent population whose
manifesto includes the destruction of the would-be host country. Neither
democracy nor membership in the UN requires any country to commit suicide,
which is what you seem to be advocating.
If you
really want an example of an Apartheid state, examine the laws of the
Palestinian Authority– it is a criminal offense to sell Palestinian land to a
Jew, and the maximum penalty for someone selling land to a Jew is death.
Mahmoud Abbas has already declared on more than one occasion that “No Jew
will be allowed to live in the new Palestine”.
How’s
that for Apartheid?