“Bringing down Israel really will benefit everyone in the world, everyone in society,” Lara Kiswani told UC Berkeley graduate students. To those who did not share her belief, she later went on to add, “As long as you continue to be on that side, I’m going to continue to hate you.”
Hate. What a painful, divisive and ugly word. Yet it stirred no objections from the University of California graduate students. They came for an “educational” panel sponsored by the BDS Caucus of UAW 2865. BDS stands for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel. It includes a boycott of Israeli academia.
UAW 2865 is the union that represents all teaching assistants across the University of California – from Berkeley to LA to San Diego. Its leadership endorsed the boycott of Israel. Members will vote on the boycott Dec. 4. Kiswani was invited to Berkeley to “educate” members in advance of the vote. What she provided was an education in hate.
Teaching BDS is the union’s policy, according to its leaders. The union’s leadership affirmed, “We have a responsibility as educators to both learn about and teach the … struggle of the Palestinian people for liberation from settler-colonialism and apartheid.” They allocated thousands of dollars to the effort. At UCLA, they invited Michael Letwin who has said that all of Israel is occupied Palestine.
Dissenting voices are shunted. Seven pro-BDS events were hosted, co-sponsored and promoted by the union at UCLA. How many events featured an anti-BDS speaker? Exactly zero. Many respected voices in the academic and labor communities are appalled by the boycott. The union refused to sponsor or even alert members to hear a single one.
Anti-BDS voices have no place in our union. The union’s refusal to expose members to a single anti-BDS voice should not be surprising. Their policy is to boycott every Israeli university and academic association. This is a direct effort to shut out idea-makers. It has a secondary, more pernicious effect of delegitimizing Israel and Israeli scholarship, stigmatizing Israeli scholars and their supporters and intimidating would-be dissenters. Many of my colleagues at UCLA have expressed unwillingness to speak out against this intimidation for fear of professional or social repercussions. The BDS movement wants to limit the discourse, and it is succeeding.
Our union sacrifices its own values in service of BDS. On principle, and on second thought, the Union’s refusal to air discrepant opinions is shocking. A union that prides itself on democracy and on protecting the rights of minorities has forsaken both sets of commitments. For the first time, our union is taking a stand to stigmatize a minority on the basis of national origin. Despite protests to the contrary, it is not possible to boycott the entire commercial, academic and cultural output of a country without stigmatizing the people from that country. Our union, which has taken principled stands to protect other minorities from stigmatization, is doing violence, not only to its own members, but to its own values by adopting BDS.
Should I risk marginalization to justify Israel’s existence, extol Israel’s contributions to society and academia, laud Israeli academia for upholding the values we only profess or point out the lies and slander upon which the BDS campaign is based? In keeping with the spirit of the boycott, I won’t trot out any of the lines promoted by the Israeli government. Instead, I will only quote the BDS movement, itself.
For those who think BDS is a means to promote peace, read its guidelines: “Events, projects, or publications that are designed explicitly to bring together Palestinians/Arabs and Israelis so they can present their respective narratives or perspectives, or to work toward reconciliation … (are) morally reprehensible forms of normalization that ought to be boycotted.”
BDS does not represent our values. It mocks them.
I believe the more you know about BDS, the more you’ll want to vote “No” on Dec. 4.
For more arguments against BDS, visit www.informedgrads.org.
Saidoff is a UCLA graduate student of political science.
Apartheid. What a painful, divisive and ugly word. Yet it stirred no objections from the University of California Hillel.
Dissenting voices are shunted. Pro-apartheid events were hosted, co-sponsored and promoted by the Hillel at UCLA. How many Hillel events featured an anti-apartheid speaker?
Our Hillel sacrifices its own values in service of Israeli apartheid. On principle, and on second thought, the Hillel’s refusal to air discrepant opinions is shocking. A Hillel that prides itself on democracy and on protecting the rights of minorities has forsaken both sets of commitments.
For those who think Hillel is a means to promote peace, read its guidelines.
Considering BDS defines anti-apartheid to mean “violently supporting BDS and against the existence of Israel,” obviously Hillel has never invited any to speak. Nor would they come if Hillel did invite them. But Hillel has invited pro-peace speakers. It has invited people who think the occupation is wrong. It has invited Palestinians.
Nor is it “Our Hillel”. You were not at UCLA. Just like you were not at Rutgers to say the Hillel students treated the protesters anything but peaceful. You comment on every college newspaper and purposely obscure your origin. Yet, you have the temerity to accuse others of being dishonest.
The Hillel is nationwide. And quit lying about the policies of the Hillel.
You probably ARE a stooge for some anti-Israel organization. I, on the other hand, post under an actual name, and there are people who can attest I was on both Rutgers and UCLA campuses for an extended period of time. You don’t even have a public profile or a name. Who is more likely genuine?
Your “name” Elon doesn’t mean nothing. It could be the name of your cat for all i care. Assumed names. Shocker. “Elon” has never experienced pro-Israeli stooges posting under monikers. Oh wait. For “Elon” that’s different.
That counterargument would make sense IF my name were an assumed moniker, rather than being my name. The fact that you do not realize it is my name, and that people who go here actually recognize it, just shows how out of touch you are with those campuses whose papers you comment upon.
Just because you have a name that resembles someone on campus, doesn’t mean squat. B.T.W. is ThisIsPalestine a name too ?
The Hillel has censorship policies on who can speak there. Quit pretending otherwise.
This is your answer? “I know you are but what am I?” Isn’t UCLA a University and not an elementray school?
My answer is a direct response to Elon pretending that the Hillel does not have a censorship policy. Hard to comprehend ? Take an elementary English class.
I never said it didn’t select speakers. I will post my original answer again, so you can read it.
“Considering BDS defines anti-apartheid to mean “violently supporting BDS and against the existence of Israel,” *obviously Hillel has never invited any to speak*. *Nor would they come* if Hillel did invite them. But Hillel HAS INVITED pro-peace speakers. It has invited people who think the occupation is wrong. It has invited Palestinians.”
The only people it won’t invite are BDS nuts like you.
In addition, Hillel was founded to be a Jewish pro-Israel organization. It is entirely different from a union, which was created to give grad students a fair salary and health insurance, and which is now being hijacked to prevent those grad students from talking to those of another country.
“The only people it won’t invite are BDS nuts like you.” – And among others the Hillel has disinvited a former speaker of the Israeli parliament.
So much for “honesty” from Elon.
Because, it’s not like the Israeli Parliament doesn’t have BDS nut in it, is it?
So the former speaker of the Israeli Parliament is a BDS nut !!!
Clearly so. As you are afraid to say who it was.
If you don’t know the Israeli speaker refused a venue by the Hillel organization, then what do you know of the Hillel. Or are you being deliberately deceptive. ?
I went there, practically every day, for three years. You are the one being deliberately deceptive. Go on. Say who it is.
I said the Hillel organization. Go on do some research on that organization. And its censorship policies.
Great way to avoid a response.
There’s a software called Google. Type “Hillel ban israeli speaker parliament”. That may be a good start. But then i do realize you the results may lead to call Google anti-semitic !!!
Actually, if you do search for those keywords, nothing comes up.
Nonetheless, since you are afraid to actually talk about the incident, I will reveal the details. Avraham Burg was not able to speak at Harvard Hillel, as his trip was sponsored by the Palestinian Solidarity Committee. The PSC and Hillel will not cosponsor events together.
Burg does indeed hold some extreme views, but his views were not what prevented him from speaking. Hillel hosted him for dinner, but the co-sponsorship issue required the talk be given elsewhere.
Nonetheless, in response, Harvard Hillel has sought to reword their policy slightly, so that a speaker can come even if his trip is sponsored by a BDS group. The entire situation ended amicably.
“Avraham Burg was not able to speak at Harvard Hillel,” – need i say more.
Avraham Burg was not a member of BDS. The hypocrisy of “free speech” by the Hillel. Anything inconvenient is banned, because after all Hillel is nothing more than a one-sided propaganda machine.
He was SPONSORED by members of BDS. They brought him to Harvard, and they cannot demand he speak at a Hillel they are estranged from. It had nothing to do with Burg.
Nobody ever demanded the Hillel. But they pointed out the Hillel hypocrisy. Even when Burg spoke at the Hillel it was a CLOSED talk. What was the Hillel so afraid ?
They do not give recognition to organizations that attempt to sabotage their events and beliefs at every turn. Thus they don’t cosponsor with the PSC. It has nothing to do with fear. It is called principles.
Burg , a former speaker of the Israeli Parliament, would’ve “sabotage their events and beliefs at every turn”. And so they had to CLOSE his non PSC sponsored talk !!!. It is called hypocrisy.
It was indeed sponsored by the PSC. The Crimson says so explicitly. But I suppose you know more about Harvard than the students there.
Burg had a NON PSC talk also. That was at the Hillel. You may want to get your facts right. Unless of course if such facts are inconvenient for you.
The trip was sponsored by the PSC. That talk was still cosponsored by them. It is in the Harvard newspaper. But again, you pretend to know better. Even though you have no source.
Elon invents facts again.
“After noting that Harvard Hillel had sponsored a talk by Burg at a closed, invitation-only dinner during his campus visit, Steinberg wrote: “Harvard Hillel did decline to co-sponsor a subsequent talk by Mr. Burg, which was held elsewhere on campus, because that particular event was sponsored in part by the Palestine Solidarity Committee, which campaigns for Harvard and the U.S. to divest from and to boycott and sanction Israel (BDS).””
Read more: http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/189294/harvard-hillel-falsely-accuses-the-forward/#ixzz3LKMRfTQ6
That exactly supports what I said. The talk was sponsored by the PSC, and therefore they wouldn’t cosponsor. Thank you for finally posting the truth where everyone can see it.
Burg had a NON PSC talk also. – Read the word “Also”. Why pretend the Hillel did not have a closed talk.
Because that was a fancy dinner. Dinners are NORMALLY invite only.
Particularly at Ivy League schools.
The Hillel hosts plenty of open Dinnners. I guess the speaker was too inconvenient this time !!!
Harvard Hillel had sponsored a talk by Burg – Now you want to pretend there was no such talk by calling it a DINNER. They could’ve opened the “Dinner” also.
You don’t open fancy dinners, you moron. Not everything is a conspiracy. Or do you think every corporate party that hosts a politician is hiding something.
Just last week, there was a private dinner for lawyers at the New York Library with a speaker, and it was closed to the public. I suppose that is also censorship.
If they didn’t want to host him, they didn’t have to have him at the dinner
Now Elon hides behing “fancy dinners” excuse. First he pretends that no such event occurred. Then after being provided proof, he suddenly pretends he knows that it was a “fancy dinner”. Elon, you’re incredible in making stuff up.
I DIDN’T FREAKING KNOW you were talking about the fancy dinner, because that isn’t a talk. It’s a dinner.
“After noting that Harvard Hillel had sponsored a talk by Burg at a closed, invitation-only dinner during his campus visit,” – Read the word talk there Elon. Why do you pretend otherwise ?
Did you quote an article at first in a clear way? No, you absolutely refused to do so. Troll.
You started blathering about a talk without mentioning the word dinner. How was I supposed to know what you were thinking of?
A talk with a dinner is still a talk. But then Elon, we all know how you invent facts.
Sure Elon , when the sentence clearly states talk, Elon confuses it with a dinner !!!
It WAS a dinner. Also, you didn’t cite an article originally, remember. This is your fault not mine.
Had you originally complained the dinner was closed, I would have known what you were talking about. As fancy dinners are not generally open to all students and commonly include the speaker, there was nothing unusual there that I would think you’d be whinging about it.
I stated clearly there was ALSO a talk. You claimed no such. Now you state because it was a talk during a dinner it was not a talk !!! There is no extent to which the “Destroy Israel” crowd invent new meanings to words like talk.
You never said ALSO. You only said talk.
I didn’t say there wasn’t a talk. I said you don’t open fancy invite-only dinners to the public. Therefore when you said they wouldn’t let him talk in the open, it made no sense to me. Because I thought you were talking about a non-existent event.
I know. I know. It’s my fault. I realize that I should have known by now that it was just another one of your, vague, stupid, and pedantic rants.
Further, he does indeed advocate a boycott, which is why PSC wanted him to speak in the first place.
And finally, Palestinian groups that refuse to work with anyone not supportive of BDS have no right to complain when Hillel reciprocates.
BDS usually hosts its speakers on a college campus. Anyone can go. Point me to an event they did not allow you to attend or censured you ? Their (BDS) goal is B.D.S. They don’t, unlike the Hillel, claim to represent the voice of all of a people on campus. When Jewish students who don’t agree with BDS point out the hypocrisy of the Hillel, you’ve got a problem.
I have never heard ONE Jewish student who wasn’t in BDS support Open Hillel for any length of time. So no, no problem.
Uh oh, Elon.
“So, too, did students who are explicitly Zionist and personally oppose BDS efforts, but disagree with Hillel’s partnership rules.
Among them was Josh Wolfsun, a Swathmore junior, who helped draft and promote the declaration that his campus would house the first Open Hillel.”
Read more: http://www.jta.org/2014/10/14/news-opinion/united-states/after-rejecting-bds-ban-open-hillel-holds-first-conference-1#ixzz3LGYjVq4Z
This is incredibly bigoted and hateful speech.
You can either support BDS or you can support the human rights of Jewish people.
Choose one.