Like a Bad meal…. UCSB Pro-Divestment Group at it again

There is a saying, “(insert name here) is like a bad meal… They keep on coming back.

No one seems to personify this adage more than the UCSB (University of California, Santa Barbara) pro-divestment movement. Just one month after they were defeated in an all night session 10-11 with one abstention, and covered here, the Pro-Divestment people who seem convinced that Democracy only works when it works in their favor, as evidenced by this screed here ending with the line –

“The real talk won’t stop. It has been halted by your election system for long enough”

are back again and pushing for yet another vote on Divestment.

Here is the Resolution for Divestment.

Now notice a few things about it. Right away the Pro-Divestment side starts with a lie, saying:

“WHEREAS: this resolution does not take a stance on the Israeli-Palestinian issue; we are merely removing student fees from companies that profit off of violence; and,”

 This is interesting, particularly when the “UCSB Divest” movement has a Facebook page that features the phrase: “One day Palestine will be free” AND “From the River to the Sea”. That sounds very much that the UCSB Divest movement and their resolution absolutely DO take a stance on the Israel-Palestinian issue, a stance that advocates the elimination of Israel.

Then the go to say:

“WHEREAS: it is the University of California, Santa Barbara’s duty to maintain the values of intellectual curiosity, integrity, commitments, and empathy, which includes the promotion of human rights, equality, and dignity for all people; and,”

Well, they support everyone’s human rights except of course, for Jewish people and their legitimate rights of self-determination (see above with the Palestine, from River to Sea nonsense). Of course then, one would figure that because these “human rights advocates” are standing tall here they would call for University Divestment in all products from countries that oppress human rights. I mean, the U.S., Russian, Chinese, Iranian, Egyptian, Palestinian etc. governments all participate in some form of oppression. I guess these advocates are all for divesting from companies doing business with these countries. Right? What? They’re not? Only Israel? Gee, why is that?

But it gets even better. They claim not to take a stance YET:

“WHEREAS: the University of California, Santa Barbara is built on Chumash indigenous land, so has Israel been built on indigenous Palestinian land; and”

Ok.. Two things here.

1. IF UCSB really should be Chumash land… WHY are they attending school there? Isn’t their very presence aiding the Occupation and Oppression of the Chumash? This seems at a tad hypocritical to me. It seems to me that if this is the case, these students should be Divesting from UCSB and supporting the return of the land to it’s indigenous people.

2. They say they are not taking a stance on the Israeli-Palestinian issue but this statement says that Israel is not really a state for the Jewish people. That somehow the Jewish people there are “outsiders”. They are claiming Israel is illegitimate because it is built on “Palestinian land”. This alone proves that they are taking a stand on the issue.

So we see here a blatant disrespect for the truth as is evidenced by their lies regarding “not taking a stance”… Oh and by the way the stance that they claim to take – a One State Solution where Jews and Arabs live in a Democracy similar to the United States is only supported by 29.3% of the Palestinian population. BUT… why let facts like that get in the way. As we see by that Tweet from a UCSB Divest Senator, they don’t really care about Democracy – it’s their way or the highway.

But more than that we see what the UCSB Divest (and all Divestment groups) real goals are. They want to divest from companies that supply the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) so that Israel would be eventually unable to defend itself. They don’t like Apache Helicopters, and missiles that the IDF uses. They don’t like security camera systems that protect the settlements and the men, women and children that live there, as well as the borders of the nation.

They don’t want to just stop the Israelis from continuing the Occupation of the West Bank. No, they want to hamstring Israel and undo what they consider the real Occupation, the creation of the State of Israel.

Interestingly enough, why is it only THIS country that merits the attention of a Divestment movement. I mean, Saudi Arabia is one of the most restricted states and largest human rights violators in the world. Ditto, most every Arab nation. Iran, a nation that they say we should engage is a vicious theocracy that routinely violates human rights. YET… only Israel (a country that is amongst the least guilty in the world of Human Rights violations) comes up for Divestment. I wonder what it is that sets Israel apart and makes it so unique? I just can’t figure it out?

No wait… I can. It is a specter as old as when the Jews were slaves in Egypt. It is straight up “Jew hatred” better known as anti-Semitism. Just read the commentary on anti-Zionist and Neo-Nazi websites. It mirrors the language of the Divestment movement. There is nothing really concerning human rights, no other groups or violators of human rights are touched. In fact, other human rights violators are “lionized”. Only Israel. That’s it. The Divestment movement tolerates all kinds of hatred as long as it’s directed at Israel What else can one call it.

Please give your support to the Students of UCSB as they fight this scourge of hatred and bigotry.

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.

Go Gauchos.. .UCSB defeats anti-Semitic Divestment Movement!

Breaking....

I have always been proud to be a graduate of what I consider one of the finest schools in the United States: The University of California at Santa Barbara, but never have I been more proud than today when my school Senate turned back the anti-Semitic BDS / Divestment movement. According to the UCSB Divest facebook page which features the slogan "From the River to the Sea" and a Palestinian Flag, the ballot which needed a 2/3 majority fell well short with 10 votes FOR divestment, 11 votes AGAINST divestment and one abstention.

Now, just this facebook page alone should show the very racist notion of BDS and the worldwide "Divest Movement". The Divestment movement claims that they simply want Israel out of the Occupied West Bank. When talking to their deluded friends in the West they never talk about end goals. Rather they simply lie and say that their whole goal is ending the "Occupation". Of course, what we in the West consider "Occupation" and what they consider "Occupation" are two very different things. For them, "Occupied Territory" is all of the original Palestine Mandate from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River. For us, Occupied territory is most of the territory gained in the 1967 War (a war that the Arab forces wanted in the first place, but that is for another article).

But, let's get to the proof that this movement really is an anti-Semitic movement meant to dissolve Israel and deny the Jewish people their legitimate rights to self determination in their ancestral homeland. After all, it is not like this movement is going away anytime soon.

First of all, why is the concept of divestment as portrayed by the Divest UCSB movement racist? Well look at the imagery... It is a Palestinian Flag and Palestinian "artwork" with the slogan "From the River to the sea". There is nothing there to acknowledge the Jewish presence in the Jewish peoples ancestral homeland. No blue and white (the colors of the Israeli flag), no Magen David, nothing... Just Palestinian imagery. In effect, they support the Palestinian peoples legitimate - and I think it is legitimate right, to a homeland, YET they refuse to recognize the legitimate rights of the Jewish people to a homeland. By claiming "from the river to the sea" they demand all of the territory for Palestinians.

But why else is the BDS movement an anti-Semitic movement? Well first of all it only boycotts Jews in Israel. The movement supports doing business with Arab Israelis and increasing ties to all Palestinians, citizens or not in Israel. So really, in effect it is a boycott of Jews. Period. No one else. What else can that be called if not anti-Semitic?

But another reason this is anti-Semitic is that while this movement focuses on the actions that the Israeli Government takes, it refuses to look the nature of the Palestinian Polity. The BDS movement claims to support a One State Democratic, United States of America in Palestine concept. One that they are trying to achieve through their actions now. The only problem (aside from the denial of the legitimate right to Jewish self-determination) here (sarcasm) is that the Palestinian polity has absolutely ZERO interest in living in that kind of State.

This solution has absolutely no support from the vast majority of Palestinians YET strangely enough the Divest UCSB and BSD movement in general doesn't seem to care about that. The majority of Palestinians do support a One State solution however, they don't particularly want a State where Jews are residents of that One State.

Why do I say that? Well in poll after poll the Palestinian polity still mostly supports a Two State solution. However, along with that support they also support "Palestinian Right of Return" to Israel. This "Right of Return" would then create a Palestinian majority inside Israel and thus would eliminate through demographics the Jewish nature of Israel, essentially creating a de facto One State Solution.

So while the BDS movement claims this, they only hold one side (the Israelis) accountable for their goals, they refuse to hold the other side accountable for anything. They seem to be ok with Hamas' genocidal charter and holocaust denial. Sure they weakly claim not to be, but, then again none of them ever actually outright condemn it or even discuss it. And in discussing this, don't they know that Hamas WON the last Palestinian election? Do they care that Ambassador Areikat of the Palestinian Authority stated that were there to be a Two State Solution that Jews would NOT be welcome to live in the Palestinian State until relations smoothed out (and how long that would be would be dependent on the Palestinian government)?

Where are the demands for accountability from the Palestinian polity there? They don't exist. All they are doing is looking at the Israeli polity and Israel in general. They care nothing about what the Palestinian Polity wants or would enact. In my mind, this makes them anti-Semitic. They only care that the Palestinians get to exercise self determination BUT they would deny that same legitimate right to the Jewish people.

The Divestment movement also uses the language of delegitimization when it comes to the existence of Israel. By using the false comparisons of Israel to the former Republic of South Africa and claiming that Israel is an "apartheid" state, as discussed in this piece at The Times of Israel. As that Op-Ed clearly explains that this comparison is merely a rhetorical trick in an attempt to "delegitimize" the State. Aside from the many false comparisons that the Divestment movement makes there is one other glaring miss. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela was very strong in his affirmation that Whites and Blacks could and should live together, AND in this he had the support of the majority of the Black population. That is not the case in the present Palestinian polity. There may be the occasional calls for democracy  but there is no one leader that has mass public support that talks in these terms at all. AND... the divestment movement doesn't demand that they have this while enacting their policies.

SO... Kol Ha'Kvod to the the Student Senate at UCSB for turning back this anti-Semitic proposal from the anti-Semitic Divestment movement.

I will say this.. One proposal that was of interest (at least to me) was a counter proposal that RATHER than people Divest from companies doing business with Israel, the University also invest in business that would build up the Palestinian economy. Now that is a proposal that I could get behind. A positive solution that not only supports the Jewish people's legitimate right to self-determination but also helps the Palestinian people in their quest for self determination and economic solvency.

I don't know what happened to this proposal but I could very much see supporting that.

Nonetheless, I am now a very proud alum of UCSB, a school that fought against hatred and supports the legitimate rights of the Jewish people to a State in their ancestral homeland. I can hold my head high as a former Gaucho and say that the place I got my degree from just said "NO" to hatred and bigotry.