BOYCOTT U.C. BERKELEY - PART II

Here’s an update to the Boycott U.C. Berkeley Article that I wrote last week after the disappointing vote by the ASUC (11-9) to adopt Senate Bill 160 which actively asks for divestment by the University of California from a few companies that are doing business with Israel.

Like many people I was and remain very disappointed in this issue. Since that first article, I actually received a call from the Chancellor’s office and had an opportunity to present my point of view in full. I have to say in all fairness to the University, that their response to this situation has been relatively positive and I do believe thoughtful.

However, in my opinion, the response from the University also falls short of where I believe it needs to be.

First let’s look at exactly what the relevant parts of  SB 160 says:

LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the ASUC [Associated Students at the University of California] will examine its assets and UC assets for funds being invested in companies that a) provide weaponry or other military support for the occupation of the Palestinian territories or b) facilitate the building or maintenance of the wall or the demolition of Palestinian homes, or c) facilitate the building, maintenance, or economic development of illegal Israeli settlements on the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

LET IT FURTHER BE RESOLVED, that if at any time it is found that campus or UC funds are being invested in any companies meeting any of these criteria, including Caterpillar, Cement Roadstone Holdings, and Hewlett Packard Company, the ASUC will itself divest, and will advocate that the UC system divest all stocks and investments in such companies with the goal of maintaining the divestment, in the case of said companies, until they cease the specific offending practices; moreover, the ASUC will not make further investments, and will advocate that the UC system not make further investments, in any companies materially supporting or profiting from Israel’s occupation in the above-mentioned ways, until a point in time at which they cease such practices;

Now in response to this passage the Chancellor of UCB had this to say: (Excerpt):

To the members of the UC Berkeley community:

In the wake of the ASUC Senate’s passage of SB 160, “A Bill In Support of Human Rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip,” I want to offer some thoughts about how we can move forward as a campus community. I also want to acknowledge that this may be the first step in a process that could, among other things, include consideration of other proposed bills that support Israeli-Palestinian cooperation.

As you all know, the ASUC is an independent student organization, and its vote in this matter will not change investment policy established by the Regents of the University of California. In addition, it is my personal opinion that targeting a single nation or state in this highly complex world is not appropriate and does little to advance the cause of peace and coexistence.....

ASUC President Connor Landgraf could have vetoed this as did his predecessor William Smelko did when this bigoted measure last arose in 2010. Landgraf, who had been known as a “friend” to Israel decided NOT to veto this important issue, and while he spoke strongly against it in a letter to the Daily Californian, condemning it as part of a One-Sided narrative that in his words “Divided campus”, foster(ed) anger, and encouraged divisiveness” he did nothing to push this aside. Here is Langdorf’s letter in full

But there is one other telling thing in this letter… Langdorf says:

“I want to make clear that Senate Bill 160 is not linked to the International Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. The International BDS Movement, which has been known to attach itself to this legislation cannot and should not take this as its victory.”

Well newsflash to Langdorf, whether you think it cannot or should not take this is as a victory, IT DOES. Regardless of what you may think, there is a reality out there which tells a completely different story. The International BDS Movement is portraying this – (and I don’t hear anything different from “Pro-Divestment” Activists) as a “victory” for their side and just one more piece of campus activism that supports their ultimate goal. Remember, that night, the ASUC also rejected bills calling for a Two State Solution AND recognizing the legitimate rights of self determination of the Jewish people.

Remember also, that the bill expressly makes a call to not only boycott what it calls the “Occupation” (without defining what they mean by “Occupation”, as remember… Hamas and much of the Palestinian Polity call Israel’s existence an “Occupation”) but it calls for a boycott of things that the Israeli Defense Forces use to defend Israel. Caterpillar bulldozers are used for many more things than demolishing housing. HP systems are used in all manner of ways. Cement is used to build many other things other than walls.
And that is the deeper intent of the bill. Aside, from of course, beginning to establish dialogue that demonizes one side and reduces all their actions to cartoon like villainy, it also seeks to make sure that Israel doesn’t have the means to physically defend itself.

So back to the boycott…. I was asked by the University “IF you could have anything done about this what would it be” (and Kudos to them for asking that question). My response was that I think the University HAS to make a much more forceful statement on the issue than Chancellor Birgenaeu’s initial letter which in my mind tries to give the University an “easy out”.

The University’s strategy (if I understand it correctly) is to quietly address issues and work directly with students to reassure them of their value to the University and Campus Community. They feel that by assuring Jewish students of their support they can work towards “smoothing over” the situation.
Could this be effective? I suppose it could be. BUT, I don’t think it will be.

Why? Well for two reasons. The first is that this bill sets the groundwork for bigger and more expansive condemnations of Israel and its supporters. It gives the divestment activists a “foot in the door” and allows for future much more heinous type of legislation all of which would do nothing but create tension and a hostile atmosphere for Jewish students. I don’t think that the words of the Chancellor or President Langdorf do anything to address this possibility. If anything their actions only encourage it.

Secondly, it creates an overall atmosphere (as President Langdorf) mentions of divisiveness and hatred. Quiet diplomacy is nice, but, now the campus is primarily known as a place where BDS and this kind of bigotry is acceptable. Nothing that is done in private can change the overriding statement made when the ASUC passed SB160 and President Langdorf allowed it to stand.

So I ask that you all join me in insisting that the University make a much more forceful statement rejecting this vote and the bigotry behind it. They can’t undo the bill and they can’t outlaw it (First Amendment issues) but they can make a statement to counter it and effectively and publicly reject it.

IF they cannot do this, then I say, BOYCOTT! It is time to stand against bigotry and hate in all of its forms. Anyone who was at that meeting or saw the twitter feeds from that meeting can tell  you what really happened as well as the prejudice and bigotry that was expressed there.

If the University feels that it does not need to reject this kind of hateful legislation then we need to let the University know just how we feel and use tools at our disposal (such as boycotts) to make sure that this behavior is rejected.

Heads You Win... Tails I lose

So Syria has used Chemical weapons in its civil war… now what?

U.S., British and Israeli Intelligence all seem to be stating that the Syrian Government of Bashir al-Assad has used Sarin gas against rebels (and civilians) in its on-going civil war.

According to Israeli Military Intelligence:

“To the best of our understanding, the regime used lethal chemical weapons,” said Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, head of the Research and Analysis Division at the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate.

Speaking at a security conference in Tel Aviv, Brun said further that based on the pictures of the victims — the size of their pupils, “and the foam coming out of their mouths” — the army believed that Assad’s troops had used the lethal nerve gas Sarin as a weapon.

 

The British have also reached this conclusion:

Britain's Foreign Office said on Thursday it had information showing chemical weapon use in Syria, and called on Assad to cooperate with international bodies to prove he had not sanctioned their use

"We have limited but persuasive information from various sources showing chemical weapon use in Syria, including Sarin. This is extremely concerning. Use of chemical weapons is a war crime," a Foreign Office spokesman said in a statement. 

And an un-named Israeli source had this to say:

A second senior Israeli military officer, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, said on Tuesday that chemical weapons appear to have been used in five cases. He said “dozens” of people were killed in the attacks when a “Sarin-type” chemical was dispersed.

So now Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry have weighed in with the following commentary:

US intelligence has concluded "with some degree of varying confidence," that the Syrian government has used Sarin gas as a weapon in its two-year-old civil war, Defense Secretary Chuck

Both the U.S. and Britain are now doing assessments to see if indeed the intelligence matches with actual events, though for this to come out so definitively means that both the U.S. and the British are inclined to believe the Israeli report.

 But all this said… What next? 

Syrian resistance calls on the U.S. to act decisively here and actively enter the fray to take out the Assad dictatorship. Now certainly this dictatorship ranks amongst the worst in human rights violators on the planet (though strangely enough human rights groups are remarkably silent about this). Estimates have the placed over 70,000 deaths in the course of the two year civil war.

This information seems to create a fairly compelling case for U.S. involvement to help end the misery that the Syrian people suffer at the hands of the murderous Assad dictatorship. After all, how could we “sit on our hands” while watching the Syrian government use Chemical weapons on its’ own populace.

But, the decision in this case is not that easy due to the fact that the Syrian resistance is littered with and to a large degree influenced by Salafist and al-Qaeda elements. Active U.S. and Western European involvement in this conflict on the part of the rebels could in fact cause a worse set of outcomes.

How?

1. Should the U.S. and Europe get involved there is no doubt that this would change the course of fighting in Syria, and that the regime in Damascus would be seeing its last days. But what of the government afterwards? Right now rebel groups are split amongst themselves as far as “end results”, the majority of them certainly want nothing to do with the West and an alliance with us. There is a strong Salafist presence in these groups and what would they do once they won? It is my opinion that we could be looking at the recreation of a second Taliban like government in Syria.

Remember, these groups are heavily supported and funded by Conservative / Reactionary Wahabite regimes. In this case our involvement would be creating a more problematic regime than the brutal Assad dictatorship. Given the presence of al-Qaeda in the ranks of the rebels, I am not sure that this would be any kind of improvement over the current situation.

2. Should the rebels win, they have promised to spread their “Jihad” to U.S. ally (and one of the last remaining nations at peace with Israel) Jordan. Though some rebel elements are training in Jordan (supposedly with the help of U.S. Special Forces and the CIA), parts of the Jihadist elements of the rebel forces have threatened to take the fight to Jordan in an effort to create a Muslim Brotherhood sponsored “wall” (for lack of a better term) around what they like to call the “Zionist Entity” (Israel to you and I).

The Jordanian regime is not that powerful that they can fight off a sustained and asymetrical jihadist effort, particularly one backed by a State government, without radically changing their political orientation (away from the West and certainly OUT of their Peace treaty with Israel). They are already facing hardships from inside their own polity. So, as we can see…. a rebel victory could put a Salafist, Neo-Jihadi government in place of a reliable Western ally.

3. With respect to Israel, a rebel win means that on the Northern border Israel would face Lebanon / Hizbollah (Iran’s last and strongest client in the area), and an unstable Islamist Syria. Should the rebels win there would be strong regional pressure on Jordan (or see above total collapse) to abrogate its peace agreement with Israel, a move that would certainly de-stabilize the Central Front. And in the South of course there is the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood government that while sticking to the 1979 Camp David peace treaty (they would lose all that needed aid from the U.S. if they didn’t) certainly could change that at any time.

4. The Assad regime is a last stronghold of Russian influence in the Middle East, not too mention an outpost for the Iranian theocracy. While Iran couldn’t step into the war in any effective manner (the Revolutionary Guard already is on the ground there) against Western Military forces, Russian military involvement (through advisors not ground troops) could complicate matters. The Russians have provided the Assad regime with cover in the U.N. but if the Russians saw their interests in the Mediterranean threatened I would not be surprised to see their military advisors begin to get involved.

5. Finally, should the rebels win, there are two places that these chemical weapons can end up. The first is in the hands of the rebel military, basically this would mean that al-Qaeda and/or Muslim Brotherhood factions in Syria would end up with a stockpile of Chemical Weapons. OR the weapons would end up in the hands of Hizbollah as the Syrian government would reward their allies with some choice military technology. Either way, that is incredibly bad news for both the U.S. and Israel.

Basically, what I am saying is that a rebel win in Syria could very easily destabilize the entire region and cause a much larger than regional problem.

BUT at the same time… the Assad regime is using Chemical Weapons on his own people. How can anyone sit back and watch that when they have the power to change it? In reality, how can our consciences rest at ease watching the slaughter of men, women, and children at the hands of a brutal dictatorship? Given our history, how can we as Jews do anything but stand against this kind of horrific behavior of a government against its own citizens?

Honestly, there are no good answers here. On one hand the Assad regime cannot be allowed to stay in power given their heinous use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. If they have indeed done this, there is really no way that they can be allowed to stay in power. At the same time as amply showed above, any active move to take them out doesn’t necessarily improve the situation for anyone, including the Syrian people.

Personally, I can’t think of any good solutions, just solutions that are less bad and none of them involve “sitting on hands”. If we do nothing we are faced with either a victory by Iran, Hizbollah and one of the worlds worst offenders of Human Rights, the Assad regime…. OR we are faced with the likely creation of an al-Qaeda / Jihadi client state.

It’s head’s You win or tails.. I Lose.

WHAT. AN. A-HOLE!

Sometimes, you just have to say that.

 There are just some people that you read what they said and you think... "WHAT AN A-HOLE".

That is it, very simply put. There really is not much more to say about these folks other than... "What a complete, and total waste of space" when referring to this person. Who am I talking about? None other than well known "Truther", self-hating Jew, and all around C.T. monger, U.N.H.R.C. Official Richard Falk.

And just Why is Richard Falk such a completely useless human being?

Well he did post this cartoon at his website (and check out the time here as well):



And he did have this to say about the Ayatollah Khomeini

"The depiction of him as fanatical, reactionary and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false."^[36] Falk wrote that Khomeini's "entourage was uniformly composed of moderate, progressive individuals,"^[75] and that "having created a new model of popular revolution based, for the most part, on nonviolent tactics, Iran may yet provide us with a desperately-needed model of humane governance for a third-world country."^[76]

Though apparently Falk later "changed his mind" and called the Iranian regime, the most oppressive regime since Hitler.

Then there is this:

In 2002 Falk wrote on Princeton Divestment's website that "to divest from companies profiting from business with Israel at this time is to express solidarity with victims of massive crimes against humanity and to call upon Israel to respect U.N. authority and the elemental rules of international law by withdrawing from occupied Palestinian territory."^[88]

In a June 2007 article, "Slouching toward a Palestinian Holocaust", Falk compared some Israeli policies with regard to the Palestinians to the Nazi record of collective punishment, warning that Israel may be planning a Holocaust in the same way Nazi Germany did. Identifying himself as a Jewish American, Falk stated that his use of the term 'Holocaust' "represents a rather desperate appeal to the governments of the world and to international public opinion to act urgently to prevent these current [Israeli] genocidal tendencies from culminating in a collective tragedy [for the Palestinians]". Falk also stated that "the comparison should not be viewed as literal, but... that a pattern of criminality associated with Israeli policies in Gaza has actually been supported by the leading democracies of the 21st century." Falk argued that Western and Arab states were associated in a "pattern of criminality" akin to states which let Hitler oppress German Jews in the 1930s. He also denied that Hamas was a terrorist organization and that it was always ready to work with other Palestinian groups towards "acceptance of Israel's existence", called Israel's disengagement from Gaza a "sham" in which 300 Gazans were killed since Israel's "supposed physical departure", and stated that Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip had brought Gaza to "the brink of collective starvation, imposing a "sub-human existence on a people" through "collective punishment, and that Israeli policies were "indeed genocidal".^[5] In late December 2009, Falk again criticized Israel's blockade, and called for Israel to be threatened with economic sanctions if the blockade was not lifted.^[89]

In April 2008 Falk compared Israeli actions in Gaza to those of the Nazis and responded to criticism of his statements saying, "If this kind of situation had existed for instance in the manner in which China was dealing with Tibet or the Sudanese government was dealing with Darfur, I think there would be no reluctance to make that comparison." He attributed the reluctance to criticise Israel's policies to the sensitive history of the Jewish people, as well as the state's ability to "avoid having (its) policies held up to international law and morality".^[90]

HOWEVER.... Not to be outdone for his pure asshattery... Falk had this to say on April 21st rambling screed about the evils of America and how we actually somehow deserved the Boston Bombing.

The war drums are beating at this moment in relation to both North Korea and Iran, and as long as Tel Aviv has the compliant ear of the American political establishment, those who wish for peace and justice in the world should not rest easy.

 and:

Now at the start of his second presidential term, it seems that Obama has given up altogether, succumbing to the Beltway ethos of Israel First.

ahh the old dual loyalty smear - it never really gets old. 

and then this:

The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world. In some respects, the United States has been fortunate not to experience worse blowbacks, and these may yet happen, especially if there is no disposition to rethink US relations to others in the world, starting with the Middle East.

 Bombing a marathon IS NOT "resistance in the post colonial world". Falk is saying in so many words that "America had it coming" and frankly should not have been surprised.

To that I say... NO! No one had it coming. The terrorist attack in Boston was exactly what it was.. an attempt to terrorize normal American citizens in order to influence policy. The Tsarnaev brothers simply went out to kill Americans with some encouragement from radical al-Qaeda clerics.

Someone should explain to Falk that "resistance" does not mean killing innocent kids at race. It doesn't mean carjacking people. Those are not legitimate targets of "resistance". The fact that Falk calls this attack "resistance" is telling in it's own right.

Anyway... sometimes you just have to say... "What a complete and total a-hole" about certain people. Richard Falk... is one of them.

Big Surprise, Neo Crusaders Get It WRONG Again.

Rather than learn from their mistakes, Republicans and their ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) allies still refuse to learn from history. Desperately, they try to find something... anything that will cast doubt on the evil, "heinous administration" of President Barack HUSSEIN Obama </snark> and turn the Jewish community (and vote) away from the Democratic Party. Then, like a band of three year old children learning to speak, they blindly repeat it over and over again. The only problem is that unlike a band of three year old children who don't know any better, these are adults, and this behavior illustrates that they simply have lost their ability to do any critical thinking other than repeat the mantras told to them by those who suffer a deranged hatred of Teh Ebilz Mooslim President Barack HUSSEIN Obama </snark>. (I just stress the HUSSEIN part of the Presidents name because that is all the Neo-Crusaders see when they view the Obama Administration)

Today's manufactured outrage by the "Neo Crusader" crowd comes from goofy rightists complaining about Secretary of State John Kerry's commentary in Turkey. Admittedly today's comment, at first glance by Secretary of State Kerry does not seem to be the smartest thing the man has ever said (to say the least). According to reports (though I would like to see the entire transcript for context), Kerry stated:

“I know it’s an emotional issue with some people. I particularly say to the families of people who were lost in the incident we understand these tragedies completely and we sympathize with them.”.

“I mean, I have just been through the week of Boston and I have deep feelings for what happens when you have violence and something happens and you lose people that are near and dear to you. It affects a community, it affects a country. We’re very sensitive to that,”

Now, anyone with half a mind would see that this is an obviously bungled attempt by Secretary Kerry to try to express sympathy for Turkish parents who lost children in the Mavi Marmara incident.  The Secretary is over in Turkey trying to build a regional alliance against Iranian hegemonistic actions and is as they say, "playing to the crowd". I mean, what is he supposed to say to these folks "Hey, your kids were supporting Terror and you know, the Israelis were right, in fact, they didn't use enough bullets, so tough shit."

He knows that the Mavi Marmara incident is front and center in the minds of Turks and is trying let them know that we Americans are sympathetic to parents who have lost children no matter what the circumstances. I don't think he was intentionally comparing the Bombing of the Boston Marathon to the deaths of Turkish nationals trying to run Israel's legal blockade of Gaza.

That said, this is a bungled comment from the Secretary. The Mavi Marmara and the Boston Marathon bombing are two completely different types of events. One was a terrorist bombing of an internationally famous race, and the other was the Turkish citizens running an armed blockade of Gaza, an area ruled by the terror group Hamas. In light of this, hopefully the U.S. will offer a clarification of Kerry's comment and explain this further.

At least however, the Israeli leadership understood what happened and while I am sure they were none too pleased at Kerry's miscue they rightly commented:

Senior Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, Regional Cooperation Minister Silvan Shalom, Economy Minister Naftali Bennett, and Deputy Foreign Minister Ze'ev Elkin all made a point of not responding to Kerry's comparison on Monday.

High ranking diplomatic officials in Jerusalem said they believed Kerry was misunderstood and he was really only trying to show empathy with the people of Turkey on a national level. The officials accused the press of deliberately trying to twist what Kerry had said.

 But unlike high officials in Israel, the American ODS drones that repeat nonsense like: 

"We have to understand that when it comes to the Jewish people and when it comes to Middle East foreign policy the Obama administration does not only not know what the hell it is doing, but they honestly believe that Jewish self-defense is a form of aggression.  This administration seems deeply enamored of the old medieval view that the only good Jew is a weak and defenseless Jew."

Ok... now I know we should feel sorry for these folks. Obviously, the only thing they are using their heads for is a hat rack. Still it is hard to see the kind of commentary like this, that populates the Rightwing, as anything other than utterly and completely delusional... UNLESS of course these folks simply don't understand the meanings of the nonsense that they utter.

For instance, when they talk about the "defenseless Jews", do these people actually even read the news or understand the words that are spoken and actions that are taken. For instance, is it wanting Jews to be defenseless when Sec. Kerry is talking about the IAF (Israeli Air Force) using Turkish Air bases as part of making a strike on Iran?

OR, I guess it is wanting Israel to be "defenseless" when noted anti-Semite and hater of Israel </snark> Sec. of Defense Chuck Hagel says this:

"Israel is a sovereign nation and every sovereign nation has the right to defend itself and protect itself. Israel will do that. It must do that," Hagel told reporters aboard a U.S. military flight to Israel.

"Iran presents a threat in its nuclear program," Hagel said. "Israel will make the decisions that Israel must make to protect itself and defend itself."

As well as this report coming in:

Hagel told reporters as he flew to Israel he intended to offer to sell Israel new, advanced weapons that could make an attack on Iran more decisive.

These include V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, which can transport troops and patrol borders and nearby seas, and KC-135 Stratotanker aerial refueling military aircraft, as well as anti-radiation missiles and advanced radar for Israeli fighters.

The Pentagon said Friday it was finalizing the deal.

The KC-135s could be especially useful in the event of an Israeli strike on Iran because the tankers would let Israeli warplanes travel longer distances than they could earlier, the Journal said.

Experts have long said Israel's lack of ample refueling capacity was a key obstacle to an effective Israeli strike on Iran.

Yep, selling Israel advanced weaponry to protect it's borders and give it long range re-fueling capability... Man oh man is that leaving Israel defenseless.

But this is just among many things that the U.S. is actually doing to shore up Israeli Defensive and Strategic capabilities. Unfortunately, those things seem to get muted by the goofy right when it comes to talking about an Administration that has gone "above and beyond" to show it's friendship and alliance with Israel.

In the 2012 election American voters were able to see through the Neo-Crusader, deranged mumblings of the Right Wing and voted for the President by the overwhelming margin of 70% - 30%.  Nonetheless (and I think this says something about the overall intelligence of the administrations critics), rather than try to change their losing strategy of ignoring the overwhelming facts and reality that this administration is one of the best friends of Israel and trying to support American efforts with Israel, instead the they continue their silly nonsense of continuously droning on about how President Obama just wants to see Jews enslaved.

Fortunately, we (Jewish voters) have an I.Q. higher than a bag of hammers and we are informed as to the truth of the situation. And because of this, their efforts will always fail. But hey... you know they will simply keep on trying... Heh.

THE BDS CIRCUS IS BACK IN TOWN

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT BLUE TRUTH BY DR. MIKE

 

The BDS circus pulled its caravan into UC Berkeley this week, and the show featured everything we've learned to expect from the Bullying, Defamation and Slander crew:  false assertions about Israel and the history of the conflict; simultaneous denial of their true goal of full divestment from Israel while cheering speakers who referenced that goal; polarization of the campus environment with poisonous denigration of their fellow students; and a "victory" that will accomplish nothing on the ground on Israel or the West Bank, but will encourage extremism and hatred. They should be quite proud of themselves, given their goal is rejection of peace with a Jewish state of Israel within any borders--they made sure that nothing happened that would help promote peace.

After a long, drawn-out session of the ASUC (Associated Students of the University of California) student senate earlier this week, the BDS-sponsored bill passed by a 1 vote margin.  The bill asked the University to divest its investments in 3 specific companies that were charged with abetting Israeli human rights violations in the occupied territories. The bill had the usual one-sided characterizations of Israel, though the sponsors made sure that they could claim it was "even handed" by denouncing attacks on civilians on both sides. (The BDSers even indicated their willingness to have the UC system divest from companies that supported Palestinian terror, but they were apparently saddened that they just couldn't find any.) I won't go through an extensive analysis of all the flaws in the document, as there's an excellent review posted here. Rather, I'd like to focus on what occurred in the room, as well as around it in cyberspace.  I was at one of the meetings held as part of the 2010 edition of the Berkeley BDS Circus, so was perhaps less shocked than others who had not experienced this performance previously.

I'm going to refer to the group in support of the resolution as the "BDS side".  The resolution and the arguments mirrored those used at other campuses and the entire rationale for the effort came straight from one of the BDS playbooks:  
“Divestment campaigns and requests for institutional divestment provide debate material that places Palestine solidarity groups in the most favorable position to present their case." The original text of the resolution even referenced the BDS movement's own website as a source. The UC Regents already had a standing statement that they were not going to change their investment policy based on ASUC resolutions, so there was not even a thought that this could have any practical effect.  So the only reason to bring up such a resolution is, exactly as stated, to provide a forum for Students for Justice in Palestine to lead a discussion to condemn Israel.   I will note that the final amended version of the bill apparently has clauses explicitly rejecting the BDS goal of the elimination of Israel. However, these amendments were inserted after the public comment period.

The tone was set right at the beginning, when one of the Jewish students introducing their alternative resolution (calling for positive investment for peace) mentioned that the leadership of the organized Jewish community was present. A hiss went up from the BDS side that was quickly silenced, but the sentiment was clear.  The BDS side then introduced their featured speaker, the author Alice Walker; Walker has a lengthy history of flirtation with the line between legitimate political criticism of Israel and overt anti-Semitic ideology.  As the open comment period began, the BDS side couldn't quite decide whether their ASUC student fees were subsidizing Israel's occupation or whether they were profiting from it. Or both at the same time. Actually, it's more likely neither-- the student fees pay for student programs, and tuition and university investments pay for the operations of the university.  But like much of the rest of the debate, facts weren't really important here; emotion was. The argument was that they simply couldn't continue to have their student fees pay for (or profit from? or both at once?) Israel's actions. And there was no charge that was too vile for them to use to this end-- one speaker went as far as to suggest that Israel was inserting rats into Palestinian girls' genital tracts. Another claimed that the IDF specifically shot Palestinians in the eye so as to blind them but not kill them (must be a newly invented Zionist magic bullet that could be fired that precisely and then stop before entering the brain, which happens to be located right behind the eyes).  Other students invoked details of genocidal episodes that have occurred to other peoples, as if the treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank was comparable to mass slaughters of populations.  It was reminiscent of the recent use (by a professor of Islamic studies at the University of North Carolina) of photos of Buchenwald to illustrate a story about Deir Yassin.

Just as in 2010, any BDS speaker was met with choreographed high volume cheers. At least this time the room was too small to allow them to gather en masse at the front to intimidate anyone who dared to oppose them, as they had done in 2010.  And just as in 2010, the loudest cheers were for the speakers who promoted the most radical anti-Israel line.  It was ironic that while the BDS side tried to claim that their resolution wasn't part of BDS, they were ecstatic when one of their speakers invoked the trinity of BDS demands: that Israel end its occupation of "all Arab lands", that Israel give equality to its Palestinian citizens, and that it recognize the fictional "right of return" that would eliminate Jewish national rights in the Jewish homeland.  They loudly cheered a student who had brought the unrepentant racist Louis Farrakhan to campus to speak. They insisted that the goal of the resolution wasn't divestment from Israel at all, yet they whooped even more loudly when a speaker stated that South Africa's ANC had endorsed divestment from Israel.   They claimed they were not anti-Israel, yet that very morning many of them had rallied in Sproul Plaza chanting the anti-Zionist anthem "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free."

One tactic that the BDS side used (which they also used at UC Riverside in their ultimately failed attempt there to pass a BDS resolution) was to claim that this resolution was the "neutral" position because it would also divest from companies involved in human rights abuses of Israelis--though they searched far and wide and couldn't find any. They clearly weren't neutral enough to look into any companies doing business with Iran-- the patron of Hamas and Hezbollah, and the source of the Fajr-5 missiles that rained down on Israel last year.  Given that all of those missiles were deliberately aimeed at Israeli cities, each constituted human rights abuses of Israelis on a massive scale.  They clearly weren't neutral enough to look into companies involved in other human rights abuses such as those doing business with Mauritania-- a country in which Arabs continue to hold black Africans as slaves. They certainly weren't neutral enough to find any other country in the world upon which to focus their attention, except for the one Jewish state, which the BDS movement targets for elimination.

What was quite telling was that many of the pro-Israel speakers indicated empathy with Palestinian suffering and stating that they too would like to see the occupation come to an end. Yet none of the student speakers on the BDS side (at least during the first 4 hours of the process when I was in the room) indicated any recognition that people on both sides of the conflict had experienced pain and loss and suffering. None of them indicated any recognition of the two offers by Israel within the past 13 years of a Palestinian state-- which would have ended the occupation against which they railed.  None of them indicated that they were doing this to promote peace between a Jewish state of Israel and a future Arab state of Palestine; when one Jewish student turned and directly asked the crowd "How many of you who are in favor of this resolution support peace between a Jewish state of Israel and an Arab state of Palestine?" only a few hands went up.  I'm not sure that those few fully understood the question.

But what went on inside the room was polite and restrained compared to what was happening in cyberspace. The two Twitter accounts being used by the BDS side (@Berkeley SJP --Students for Justice in Palestine; and @ucbdivest) are worth noting. Now many of the comments under their hashtag #UCBDivest came from elsewhere, and so these tweeters can legitimately claim that they're not responsible for them.  But they certainly give a sense of the sentiment of BDS supporters. And @UCBdivest at least, while making clear his/her biases, at least did report some of what the pro-Israel side had to say. Though by the end, while not too tired to continue reporting all of the speaking points of the BDS side, did let his/her guard slip a bit:

But that's really nothing compared to Cal's Students for Justice in Palestine, the sponsors of the shameful "Israel Apartheid Week" every year.

There's plenty more-- but you get the point. For those who aren't familiar with the term (and I wasn't until this) "zizi" might have several meanings.  Wiktionary lists it as "penis". But there's possibly a far more ominous meaning; according to the staff of the Anti-Defamation League, "zizi" is also used in extremist circles as shorthand for "Zio-Nazi". 

If you're responsible for maintaining a campus climate of respect for others, perhaps you'd want to consider the role that SJP and their resolution has played on campus this week.  Does their behavior uphold UC Berkeley's Principles of Community, which state that the university should "strive to uphold a just community in which discrimination and hate are not tolerated" , a phrase specifically included in this resolution? 

And this contribution from an SJP member at UC Riverside might be a sign for what's in store at other campuses that dance with BDS: 

Here's the tumblr post referenced in her tweet, just chock-full of trivialization of the deliberate, targeted murder of Jews: 

Ways to Get Rich During Divestment Livestreams

For this, you’ll need a jar (or piggy bank, whatever you’ll be keeping your cash in), a few friends, and your wallets.

• Put a quarter in the jar for every time someone refers to the barrier as a “security fence”.
• Put another quarter in for every time someone refers to suicide bombers in restaurants, cafes, or nightclubs in Tel Aviv.
• Put two quarters in every time someone makes a Holocaust reference.
• Put a dollar in every time someone says the bill makes them feel “marginalized”. Double this if they say this and “our campus has been divided” in the same two-minute time slot.

At the end of the night, after the vote has been handed down, use the earnings to treat yourselves for sitting through the hasbara.

Are Jewish students who have positive identification with Israel (the great majority) going to be automatically declared as "racist" by SJP and its supporters, especially if this biased and flawed resolution is upheld? For that matter, will committed Jewish and Zionist students even choose to attend Cal if the campus climate is marked by this type of organized hatred?  Whether this resolution is signed or vetoed by the ASUC president, the damage has been done.  The university administration immediately noted, in a statement by Chancellor Birgenau, "I sincerely hope we can avoid a recurrence of the rancor and divisiveness that arose in th wake of a previous ASUC vote in 2010." The DailyCal student newspaper recognized this when it wisely editorialized "Ultimately, the passage of the divestment bill leaves lingering tensions that the ASUC must work to resolve in some way. The impact of SB 160’s passage will be felt most immediately on campus, where many students already feel isolated and unwanted. Moving forward, the ASUC needs to make a proactive attempt to alleviate the ongoing friction among students that this divestment solicits. Until campus communities can find a way to come together, divestment will continue to drive us further and further apart."

In the end, Jewish students have choices.  There will be very few students for whom Cal is the only option. And while the BDS circus will move on to another town, not caring about the campus community it leaves in its wake, the university will be the one to suffer the consequences. 

Divestment isn't happening at UC Berkeley (as the Regents already made clear), but division is-- and so are delegimitization, demonization and double standards regarding Israel. And Natan Sharansky knows what those add up to.

A Tale of Two Societies

With all the talk surrounding “Divestment”, “Apartheid” and other such flashpoint concepts regarding the Israel / Palestine conflict, perhaps it is time that some real data that reflects the situation is introduced into the conversation.

Proponents of “Divestment” and BDS (Boycott, Sanctions AND Divestment) tell one tale to the people of the West, and in particular students at Universities throughout Europe, Canada, and the United States. They spin a tale of a peaceful people striving for a Western Secular Democracy, and portray that as being the normative political philosophy of the Palestinian Polity. They portray an image of peaceful rural inhabitants that simply want to live next door to their Jewish neighbors in peace and harmony. In their portrayal the Israelis are seen as evil minority of interlopers that want nothing but to oppress these proponents of democracy and justice and establish a state based on Racial Superiority and Apartheid like the now defunct South African regime that ruled with brutality under a racist banner of White Nationalist power.

Towards this end they use language to try to conflate Israel with South Africa so that young people reading about the situation (particularly in the U.S. and Canada) will buy into the myth regarding the similarities between Israel and South Africa and automatically question the alliance of the U.S. and Canada to Israel.

So let’s look at some comparisons between both Israeli and Palestinian society NOT from pundits point of view, or some removed academic view, but from a view of the people actually involved – the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Writing in +972 Magazine (an online journal that reflects a very questioning view of Zionism and Israeli society written btw by Israelis), Mairav Zonszein writes under the bold headline:

Poll: 23% of Jewish Israelis support apartheid, 13% support status quo

“But what is even more telling and interesting about the poll is that while 61 percent support a two-state solution (39 percent oppose), a substantial 23 percent said they support a bi-national state “without giving Palestinians full civil rights” (up substantially from last year’s 13 percent). In other words, this can be understood to mean that 23 percent of Jewish Israelis want to live under an Israeli apartheid regime where Palestinians are institutionally disenfranchised – though the poll does not mention the word apartheid anywhere.

The poll also mentions that 13 percent think the situation should remain as it is (“de facto Israeli control of Palestinians without annexation of Judea and Samaria”), which means maintaining the status quo. The situation we live in right now is de facto a bi-national state (or ‘one state’), in which every person between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean lives under varying degrees of Israeli rule, so I think it is fair to add this 13 percent to the 23 percent - which essentially means that a whopping 36 percent of Jewish Israelis support Israeli control of the West Bank without Palestinian civil rights – what I think can safely be called apartheid.”

Here we have a perfect example of the exaggerations of the Divestment community. First of all… the glaring headline talks about supporting “Apartheid” but even with annexation of the West Bank – this still COULD NOT be called “Apartheid” as unlike South Africa where the White Population was 12% of the nation, Jews would still be a majority (58%) of the Population. See this article: When the “A” word is simply not appropriate for further discussion of this myth.

Still, regardless of this, the fact of the matter is that only 23% of Israelis want this kind of State in the first place. An overwhelming 61% support some form of a Two State solution where the legitimate rights of both the Jewish and Palestinian populations to self governance are respected. Interestingly enough Zonszein simply brushes this majority answer off as unimportant and casts Israeli society along the lines of a nation fully represented by the 23%. 

Now in contrast let’s look at what the Palestinians support as told to pollsters… by Palestinians. This is not reflective opinion of the genocidal maniacs in charge of Hamas who regularly state that they play to “liberate” all of the land of Palestine “from the river to the sea” and who in their charter talk with glee about the genocide of all Jews, while denying the Holocaust and quoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. No… this is simply Palestinian Public Opinion.

Remember, we are told by proponents of BDS and Divestment that all the Palestinians really want is a secular Democratic nation where Jews and Palestinians live equally in peace. HOWEVER, as we will see, that is simply not quite accurate (to say the least). According to the latest poll of Palestinian Public Opinion (Dated March 28-30, 2013) in PSR Poll 47, we see some of the following. 

Interestingly enough only 29.3% of the Palestinian Population actually favors a “One State Solution” that has total equality for both Palestinians and Jews.  A far cry from what the activists portray as the political climate in the Palestine Polity.  Further, Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas movement which supports the complete extermination of the Jewish People, denies that the Holocaust even happened and who regularly quote the infamous anti-Semitic tract the Protocols of the Elders of Zion gets 41% of the popular vote against Fatah President Mahmoud Abbas were elections to be held today. 

And what the activists also forget to mention that rather than being a peaceful, secular people… 94.3% of the population actually considers itself “very or somewhat” religious. BUT let’s go even further into the numbers and I will let this response speak for itself:

A full 40% of the population supports armed intifada AND attacks on Israeli Civilians. 40%. While that is not a majority opinion it certainly is a great many people.

Return to the armed intifada and confrontations
	1) certainly support	9.0%
	2) support	31.4%

And:

Concerning armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel, I….
	1) certainly support	8.1%
	2) support	31.9%

A full 40% of the population supports armed intifada AND attacks on Israeli Civilians. 40%. While that is not a majority opinion it certainly is a great many people.

And further into this discussion, here is how the Palestinians react to their “brutal repression” at the hands of the Israelis. 

In answer to the question about living conditions in the West Bank a majority (55%) of Palestinians say conditions are “so-so” (neutral) to good. That is quite a different picture than these activists like to portray where if you listened to their propaganda, the Palestinian population is being slowly subject to enslavement and genocide by the Israelis. Amazing how that works, isn’t it? 

But will activists who support BDS or Campus Divestment talk about these numbers. Of course not. Will they use realistic figures to discuss anything about the Palestinian polity? Of course not. And this exposes their true agenda. They want Western College students to believe something about Palestinian Society that is simply not true. They don’t want people to see what the Palestinians are really saying or what kind of society that the Palestinian Polity proposes to create. That is simply an inconvenient truth for them to mention. 

I urge that people actually get this information out to their respective constituencies. Don’t lie about what the Palestinian Polity believes. Don’t exaggerate their support for Hamas. Don’t degrade the Palestinians for what they believe. Just present the information in it’s true form. Make sure that when student senate organizations vote for BDS and Divestment that they really know what people in Israel and Palestine actually support. And when activists lie in their presentation of this support, confront them publicly. 

THIS is how in the end, we will be able to end the bigoted attacks by the BDS, Campus Divestment movement. Make them answer the hard questions, and make them do it publicly.  

Boycott U.C. Berkeley

Yep... you heard me (so to speak). I want to start a Boycott U.C. Berkeley movement. No more sending our kids to Berkeley, no more community support for the University. No more academic exchanges. Nothing, Nada, ZERO to do with U.C. Berkeley.

Why? Well last night the Berkeley ASUC (Associated Students of the University of California at Berkeley) took the symbolic move of asking the school to Divest from companies involved with Israel, in conjunction with the bigoted BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) Movement. In effect, the Students voted to accept a Boycott of only Israeli Jews.

SO... if this is the case, well then heck... we should boycott U.C. Berkeley. What does that mean? It means cut off our economic involvement with the school. Period. It means Jews shouldn't take jobs there, Jewish parents should not send their children there, Jewish students should look for alternative schools to go to.

Now, is this realistic... Not at the present time, but nonetheless this is what we SHOULD be doing. I mean the University has made it clear that they have no support for Jewish Students or the Jewish members of the community that have patronized and supported the University for years. This is telling us that as Jews, we are only welcome to give them our money or our expertise, but in turn simply don't won't support us as a community and instead suggest that we as Jews have no legitimate right to self-determination or a national homeland. To put it more bluntly, they suggest that Israel should simply not exist.

I realize that this would mean a lot of pain on our part - but, so what. It would have meant pain to disengage from Germany in 1933, yet, I think we can see in retrospect that we as a community probably should have done that. Am I comparing a symbolic vote by the ASUC of Berkeley to Nazi Germany? No... .They are obviously not at that point, but, they have taken big step in voting to legitimize bigotry, and the time for action is now rather than waiting for something worse later.

For me from this day forward, I can guarantee that unless this was reversed my sons will NOT attend U.C. Berkeley, (and one of them wants too though he is only 10 years old). I can guarantee that no Cal branded consumables will be in our house. I can guarantee that I will not be buying anything identified with Cal from here on in. I will not be conciously supporting businesses that advertise with Cal anymore. I will not be attending ANY Cal athletic events for the forseeable future.

As a local business owner, I will actively promote a boycott of Cal summer camps

Here is a note I am sending to my club:

Dear ******* Parents,

I do not want to bring politics to our club as this is not the place, but as a business owner I think this is important and my conscience calls for this. Last Night the ASUC at Cal Berkeley passed a measure supporting the boycott of Jewish businesses or any Jewish academics from Israel. I find this to be a bigoted measure by the ASUC.

Therefore, I am stating that until this policy is reversed, ******** Volleyball Club will not support ANYTHING that has to do with Cal including attending Cal sporting events or attending volleyball camps. If the ASUC feels that they can boycott a group of people based on ethnicity, then I hope that you will all join me in standing up to this hatred and letting the University know that your money will go to places that do not support this kind of bigotry.

I want to urge you all to find other camps to go to. I urge that you do not attend any more Cal sporting events. There are plenty of high quality volleyball camps and events in our area that we do not need to give a single dime to U.C. Berkeley.

FURTHER, please let businesses that work with U.C.B that you cannot support them IF they continue to do business with this bigoted institution

Only by taking a stand against hatred can we support a better world for all of our kids regardless of ethnicity. The Administration of ******* Volleyball Club will be taking this stand and we hope that you as members of the club will join us.

Thank You

I hope everyone here will take this to heart. U.C. Berkeley is (or was) a world class institution. Now it is a school that actively supports Bigotry.

I imagine that this will hurt most with Cal Alumni, and I can understand that. But because of this vote, every time you support the Golden Bears with money, you are supporting an institution that has endorsed bigotry, plain and simple. This is sad and this painful, however, isn't it more painful to see this once great school reduced to an institution that supports the destruction of Israel and the denial of Israel as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish people.

Sometimes it is necessary to take a stand against hate. Now is that time.