Hundreds of students stood in two rows to voice their opinions on divestment until close to dawn at a student government meeting last February.
Now our student government is gearing up for round two. This time the meeting will probably be over before the sun rises Wednesday morning, but tensions will still run high.
At the end of Tuesday’s meeting, the Undergraduate Students Association Council should vote “yes” on the second resolution to divest from “companies engaged in violence against Palestinians” since last winter.
The council won’t be voting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or trying to find the solution to one of the world’s most intensely debated geopolitical conflicts: They are voting on a document that calls on the University of California to withdraw some of its unethical investments.
The UC currently invests in companies that do business in the occupied Palestinian territories and profit from selling equipment such as helicopters and missiles to the Israeli government. This equipment is then used in ways that harm Palestinian civilians. For instance, Caterpillar bulldozers are used to demolish Palestinian homes during land grabs like the one in the West Bank over the summer.
The most frequently used arguments made against this bill have nothing to do with its ethical implications, or really even with its text or meaning. Many of the resolution’s critics contend that this issue does not fall under USAC’s purview as a student governing body. They argue that USAC should remain neutral on global geopolitical conflicts that threaten to disrupt campus climate and divide communities.
But the problem with this argument is that choosing to staying quiet about the issue of divestment is not a neutral stance.
The decision to invest our student fees in these companies in the first place was not a neutral one; providing finances to corporations that enable human rights violations is making a statement and taking a side. In reality, divesting, and therefore withdrawing support from either side of the conflict, would be the closest thing to true neutrality on the matter of Israel-Palestine.
Many students, most notably members of the Jewish community, have also taken issue with the resolution’s ties to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which they say is anti-Semitic and denies Israel’s right to self-determination. One of the movement’s founders, Omar Barghouti, is often accused by the resolution’s detractors of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.
But accusations of anti-Semitism against Barghouti do not delegitimize BDS’s tactics or all the movement’s participants. Boycotts, divestment and sanctions are all nonviolent forms of achieving political change that have been historically effective.
Furthermore, students should recognize that USAC is only voting on the language of this specific resolution, not on BDS as a movement. Nowhere in the language of the resolution is USAC called upon to endorse a boycott of Israel; in fact, the word “boycott” does not appear once. The resolution is solely concerned with the UC’s divestment from a number of American corporations, and should not be perceived as an attack on another country.
And it’s not like the UC has had qualms about undoing irresponsible investments in the past. The UC made an ethical choice to divest from tobacco and gun manufacturers in recent years.
In 2006, the UC divested from companies that did business in Sudan as a partial result of student action in the face of the genocide in Darfur. Previously, it divested from companies doing business in apartheid South Africa.
The principles behind this resolution are similar to those that guided preceding divestment decisions, but it has been stalled by the divisive nature of this specific conflict on our campus. Human rights were violated in Sudan, South Africa and in Israel-Palestine, regardless of the difference in scale. The UC addressed its involvement in violence in other countries and should do the same for Israel-Palestine.
Another argument against the resolution is that it will have little to no practical effect: The UC Regents have said that they will not divest from companies doing business in Israel. But a student government resolution is one of the only things that could potentially pressure the regents to change their investment policies, even if such an outcome is unlikely. And even if divestment doesn’t cause the targeted companies to lose substantial profits, it would at the very least remove the UC’s complicity in human rights violations. That alone is enough for students to fight for.
However, there are still the immediate consequences of voting on such a heated topic. Some students are worried that passing the resolution could have a negative effect on the campus climate. But as we saw last year, it doesn’t matter how councilmembers vote – someone will always take issue with their decision. Divisive decisions shouldn’t be shied away from because of potential disagreements. That’s just the nature of decision-making and leadership.
The problems posed by these investments may seem distant from our campus – about 7,500 miles away to be more precise. But the fact of the matter is that USAC is funded by our student fees, just as the UC gets a good deal of its money, either directly or indirectly, from those same fees. This money, our money, is being invested irresponsibly. Students have a stake in voicing their opinions about how our money should be used.
The first step in ending our complicity is the resolution’s passage, and USAC should acknowledge that reality. The relationship between ethics and investments often gets complex, but USAC’s decision shouldn’t be.
Aram, your arguments fail on a number of levels.
1. The UC is investing in many different “unethical” companies. Are there Nestle products in the cafeterias? Are there Chinese products in use anywhere on campus? Does any of the oil used for campus vehicles come from Saudi Arabia? By singling out companies that work with Israel, you are not making a moral choice. You are singling out Israel and Israel alone, and that’s a bigoted double standard.
2. The BDS movement is sponsoring and calling for divestment resolutions like this one. If it passes, BDS will claim victory. Supporters of UC cannot with any honesty claim they do not support BDS and yet support this resolution. They are one and the same. And the BDS movement in general is undeniably bigoted and anti-Semitic. UC students cannot vote in favor of a BDS resolution and then claim they do not support BDS in general. That’s not how it works.
3. You claim that divestment is OK because it was used against apartheid South Africa, but then you claim this divestment resolution is not about taking sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. How can both be true? Divestment was used against the apartheid South Africa government. None of those in favor of divestment from South African claimed it wasn’t against the SA government, because it clearly was. If you think the Israeli government is wrong and should be opposed, just say so. But then you have to admit that you’re taking sides in a complex Middle East conflict, and trying to drag the entire UC student population into the conflict on your side. What a conundrum!
The entire language of the editorial gives lie to the premise. Siding with BDS is indeed taking a stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict. It is the stance that Aram has already taken and proudly wears on his sleeve throughout the editorial, that Israel is illegitimate and purposely committing genocide in the occupied territories.
Furthermore, UCLA did not invest in those companies specifically to endorse Israel, but because they are profitable, major companies. Divestment is not a neutral action, but a condemnation of the State and people of Israel, which is why the SJP is gunning so hard for this measure. The only thing it accomplishes is a symbolic endorsement of the BDS movement, that UCLA stands with their efforts against Israel.
It is fine for Aram to take this view, but the blatant attempt at subterfuge does not suit him. The 13 people voting on this measure must know exact what they are deciding and how it will be perceived.
This columnist has a public affiliation with the Armenian Students Association, which is one of the sponsors of the BDS divestment initiative. He also has written in favor of banning students who go on trips to Israel from being on USAC (though no such similar ban would presumably be in place for students who go to elsewhere in the Middle East, including tyrannical countries that repress human rights like Egypt or Jordan or Saudi Arabia). The Daily Bruin used to have policies for avoiding conflicts of interest (such as restricting students from writing columns when student groups they are affiliated with have taken a stance, but apparently the anti-Israel editors at the Daily Bruin seem to have abandoned all pretense of editorial integrity.
Wow, what a load of crap…..!
you people have waaayyy too much time.
The entire premise, 100% of the ‘factual’ foundation for the bds movement is fraudulent and based on fiction.
It’s predicated on a) taking the blatantly kleptocratic, clerical fascist, neo-na zi, anti civil rights policies of both fatah and hamas, and directly attributing these policies to the Israeli government. Some would say that a person must have severe Jew issues if they examine all of the places in the world where they can attribute the neo-na zi policies of US/EU pets to their victims, and they decide to focus their efforts against the Jews.
b) it is good to study what actually took place in 1948. After all, the bds movement and its elitist sponsored rhetoric are all about attacking the ‘evil colonialist’ Jews, and protecting their hapless SS Handzar supporting victims.
Thus we can look at the May 8, 1948 issue of the Nation Associates, aka ‘British Record on Partition’:
***************************************************************************************
The facts will show, moreover, that:
The British have allowed 10,000 foreign invaders to enter Palestine, offering the feeble excuse that the British armed forces, consisting, at the outset, of over 80,000 men, could not adequately protect the border.
Although since December 11, 1947 the British have been promising to return to Transjordan the contingents of the Arab Legion brought to Palestine for police duty, they have allowed the members of that force to remain in Palestine and to attack Jewish communities. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the Arab Legion constitutes a major part of the effort to coerce the Jews into accepting less than the Jewish State granted by the United Nations.
At no time has the British government, in spite of its alleged impotence, requested any help from the United Nations; in fact, as the record shows, the British have continued to deprecate the situation, refused to identify the invaders, and have consistently denied that the Arab states as such are involved.
Through their action they have admitted into Palestine Arabs of known na zi allegiance in command of the invading forces, and have even admitted escaped na zi prisoners of war, now to be found in command of Arab detachments. From secret British intelligence reports, which are quoted extensively in this record, it is clear that the British know and have always known of every single Arab troop movement in Palestine, and that their relations with the Arabs are such that they could ask Arab leaders to request the invading forces to remain unobtrusive.
British sabotage has resulted in turning Jerusalem into an armed camp, has permitted the Arabs to seize the Old City and to hold as hostages some 2000 Jews.
The British have failed to take any action to insure that Haifa should remain an open city, even though they were fully aware of the desire of local Arabs to achieve this and that the Jews wanted only to be safe from attack.
Their prejudice against the Jews has been clearly indicated in their refusal to allow the Jews to arm for defense against Arab attack, and their blowing up of Jewish defense posts;”
***************************************************************************************
Thus what we’re left with is: why, after over 65 years, do the BDS/EU supporters harbor such intense hatred for the Jews that survived the Brit-Arab-German attempt to exterminate them?
When do the negativity, the lies and the hatred end?