Extortion Allegations Swirl around Divestment Debate at Berkeley

The divestment imbroglio at UC Berkeley just got uglier, amidst extortion allegations. According to the UC Berkeley newspaper, the Daily Cal,  ASUC Senator Jorge Pacheco sent a letter to ASUC President Connor Landgraf, stating a suit against prior actions of Landgraf would be dismissed if he agreed not to veto the controversial divestment resolution. Pacheco's actions were condemned by Senator Mihir Deo, who stated,  "The fact that he used something important to all students to leverage a political opinion of his was very disappointing and unacceptable."


From the Daily Cal

Hours before ASUC President Connor Landgraf publicly announced that he would not veto SB 160, the controversial divestment bill, he received a letter that gave him pause. It guaranteed a settlement on charges against him if he agreed not to veto the bill, which passed 11-9 in the ASUC Senate. Landgraf said he received the letter, written by Cooperative Movement Senator Jorge Pacheco, around 4 p.m. Tuesday. In the letter, Pacheco stated that he would settle the suit against Landgrafs executive order to put the health and wellness referendum on the spring 2013 ballot if Landgraf opted not to veto SB 160. A settlement was ultimately reached on the suit against Landgrafs executive order around 5:30 p.m. that day.

Landgraf said that he had already made the decision not to veto SB 160 at the time Pacheco slipped the handwritten letter into his office. Landgraf communicated in a text message to Pacheco that he was disappointed and shocked by the letter and immediately sent it to ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran to make it clear that Landgrafs decision regarding SB 160 was not influenced by Pachecos offer. By not vetoing, I will settle, the letter reads. You should make this decision on your own conscience, but this is something I will do if you stand behind your senators and demonstrate everything that would appease any and all of my concerns….Tran said that his office is still looking into the legality of such a letter and that it may violate a bylaw. He was not aware of a precedent for this sort of situation.  

Prophetic words from our friends at Divest This:

What most of us, until recently, could not even imagine, ruthless players like divestment’s champions wake up every morning and do. Subverting the language of human rights for short-term political gain, forcing colleges and religious organizations to take a stand or risk possibly permanent schisms, dragging the bitterness of the Middle East into a struggling, multiethnic college, city, union or church, these are all acts with potentially long-term damaging effects. Yet the ruthless do not care about the consequences of their actions. To them, the leaders and members of UC Berkeley are mere props to be manipulated so that leaders of the divestment movement can feel part of some great, global, revolutionary struggle....

While divestment proponents might be able to convince themselves that the ends justify the means as part of some fantasized higher, noble calling, in truth their means have become their ends. For what defines such movements outside of their willingness to say anything, do anything, hurt anyone, sew conflict, corrupt democracy, abuse the language of human rights and free speech, i.e., to behave in a manner that defines ruthlessness?

Berkeley Student President will Not Veto Divestment Bill

Expect massive self congratulatory slaps on the back from the BDS holes on their Pyrrhic victory, while they ignore the rather telling language by ASUC President Connor Landgraf, explaining why he has chosen not to veto a deeply flawed and divisive divestment bill.

*  I firmly reject its one sided narrative, and the bill’s complete and utter failure to create any   constructive    discussion or dialogue on a complex and multifaceted issue
* This bill has served to do nothing more than divide our campus, foster anger, and encourage divisiveness.
 *  The threats of violence that have been hurled at students by members of our own campus community clearly demonstrate the complete failure of this bill as a legislative tool to promote any resolution to this nuanced conflict.

Expect calls of "BDS is unstoppable" and  "BDS is on a roll". Expect talks about "momentum" and the "world waking up". We've heard it all before.


From the UC Berkeley student newspaper, the Daily Cal

ASUC President Connor Landgraf has announced that he will not veto SB 160, the controversial bill passed last week that divests ASUC funds from companies affiliated with the Israeli military and encourages the UC system to do the same.

In a statement released Tuesday night, Landgraf emphasized that his decision should not be taken as an endorsement of the bill.

“I firmly reject its one sided narrative, and the bill’s complete and utter failure to create any constructive discussion or dialogue on a complex and multifaceted issue,” he said in the statement. “This bill has served to do nothing more than divide our campus, foster anger, and encourage divisiveness.”

SB 160, authored by Student Action Senator George Kadifa, seeks the divestment of more than $14 million in ASUC and UC assets from companies including Caterpillar and Hewlett Packard. The bill claims that these companies are implicit in Israel’s alleged abuse of human rights in Gaza, including the illegal demolition of Palestinian homes.

However, Landgraf said he decided not to veto the bill because he believed such an act would only lengthen the conflict and make the campus’s healing process more difficult. It is for this reason only, Landgraf said, that he decided not to veto SB 160.

Last week’s ASUC meeting lasted more than 10 hours and was attended by more than 500 students, faculty and other concerned members of the community. Three senators cried as they explained their vote, which took place just before 5:30 a.m. Thursday morning.

Chancellor Robert Birgeneau released a statement last Thursday affirming his opposition to SB 160, saying that he believed 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.”

In an interview with The Daily Californian, Landgraf characterized the week leading up to his announcement as  one of the worst weeks of his life.

“I want people to know that this was not me siding with either side and this is not me siding with the bill,” he said. “I couldn’t disagree more with this bill and the way it was done. I think this bill has utterly failed in that it hasn’t resulted in any constructive dialogue and that it’s very clear that this is not a model for how to produce change."

Read his full statement below:

Dear Campus Community,

Last Wednesday, April 17, 2013, the ASUC Senate passed senate bill 160, "A Bill in Support of Human Rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip." Over 500 students gathered to engage in debate for over 10 hours until the bill finally passed by a slim margin of 11-9. The 11 senators represented their own perspectives and do not speak for the entire student body's opinions. The divisiveness of the bill and the rift it created in our campus community was evident that night and has only further manifested itself throughout campus over the past week. Several students- including myself- have been verbally abused and many have even received threats of violence, all due to the polarizing nature of this bill. 

Some have called for me to take direct action and veto the senate's decision, but after much discussion and pondering, I have ultimately decided not to veto this bill. However, this decision should not be construed in any manner as an endorsement of this bill. I firmly reject its one-sided narrative, and the bill's complete and utter failure to create any constructive discussion or dialogue on a complex and multifaceted issue. This bill has served to do nothing more than divide our campus, foster anger, and encourage divisiveness. The threats of violence that have been hurled at students by members of our own campus community clearly demonstrate the complete failure of this bill as a legislative tool to promote any resolution to this nuanced conflict.

 I want to make it clear that SB 160 is not linked to the international Boycott Divestment 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. In no way do I endorse the movement's call for cultural and academic boycotts that hamper freedom of speech and the exchange of ideas. In addition I was disheartened that senators voted down amendments to promote a two state solution, as well as an amendment recognizing the right to self determination of the Jewish people.

 However, as ASUC President, I recognize the legislative authority of the senate. I realize that a veto of this bill would only serve to further prolong this campus conflict and further tear at the seams of this campus. It would magnify the pain this bill has already produced. A veto would not serve to create constructive dialogue, and would only once again serve to end discussion for a little longer. It is for this reason, and only this reason that I have decided not to veto SB 160.

 I hope that we can use this as a learning experience and catalyst to move forward in a positive manner. Senators should consider SB 158, which pushes for a positive and constructive resolution on this issue. I urge students to use more effective and constructive vehicles of dialogue that promote substantive discussion and compromise, which can foster and maintain the campus community that UC Berkeley prides itself on

Sincerely,
Connor Landgraf

Word to the wise:   Oberlin University in Ohio is next in the BDS'ers' cross-hairs..  Read the words of  Connor Landgraf and ask yourselves. "Do you really want to subject yourselves and your school  to this?"

UC Berkeley's Divestment vote

There has been a great deal of written on last weeks UC Berkeley 11-9  divestment vote, including some excellent commentary from the student newspaper, the Daily Cal:

After divestment

Jason Willick writes about the “ASUC Senate’s deeply misguided vote to divest UC funds from companies affiliated with the Israeli military”, saying 

"I was appalled by the degree of radicalism — and venom — on display at the senate’s marathon meeting last Wednesday, during which divestment advocates took control of the night. Frenzied speakers charged Israel with unspeakable atrocities as their supporters roared. Residents of Israel were smeared as European colonialists. The Holocaust was brushed aside. Some speakers defended terrorism against civilians as legitimate resistance, and the pro-divestment audience appeared to endorse the odious chant — “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” — that implicitly negates the Jewish State’s right to exist. Perhaps this shouldn’t have surprised me, seeing as the Cal Students for Justice in Palestine website calls for “struggle against the apartheid regime that has consolidated itself” not only in the West Bank or Gaza, but in “1967 Israel.”

 Chancellor Birgeneau issues response to ASUC vote on divestment 

"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."

The divestment dilemma

Students have every right to voice concerns about how the university spends their tuition dollars. But the framing of SB 160, which passed with 11 senators supporting it and nine against it, neglected to fully incorporate important perspectives, thereby alienating many Jewish students on campus and effectively worsening campus climate. The bill’s authors should have engaged in more dialogue with leaders of different communities about how to best represent all students on this subject.

While the bill was noble in its efforts to condemn human rights violations, some of its rhetoric and the resulting marginalization of many Jewish students will ultimately produce more harm than good.

*****************

How can you help?

Email President Connor Landgraf TODAY calling on him to veto the bill.  president (at )asuc.org .  Let President Landgraf know that the passage of Bill SB160 is alienating and damaging to the climate on campus.

The BDS Circus is Back in Berkeley

On Wednesday evening,  hundreds of people packed into the Anna Head Alumae Hall at UC Berkeley to listen to the ASUC Senate debate divestment. After 10 hours of emotional testimony by dozens of students and faculty members, the senators voted 11-9  for the divestment bill, SB 160.

Originally published at Bluetruth, written by DrMike:

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.

Help Defeat Divestment at UC Berkeley

On Wednesday, the UC Berkeley student government will be considering the latest divestment resolution promoted by Students for Justice in Palestine.  Student governments at UC Santa Barbara and UC Riverside have rejected similar moves. We need to ensure that the same happens at Berkeley.

Please take a moment to sign the petition of community members: http://www.change.org/petitions/senators-of-the-associated-students-university-of-california-asuc-vote-no-to-divest-from-israel-3

Cal alumni should sign this petition: http://berkeleyhillel.org/alumni/alumni-letter/

Please circulate this to all of your local pro-Israel contacts.

The Divestment Slate at Cal Berkeley: Framing the Issues

What a difference a year makes.
For 2013, UC Berkeley perpetual grad student and anti-Israel activist Tom Pessah  presented the SJP endorsed divestment slate.  He's done this before.


Do you support the nonviolent divestment movement for Palestinian human rights?
 So do the following candidates for ASUC (Cal student government) office, all of whom are strong allies of Students for Justice in Palestine.
 Your vote WILL bring to ASUC the people who will advocate for justice in Palestine, so VOTE at http://election.asuc.org/ from TODAY, Tuesday April 9, at 9:00 AM until 11:59 PM on Thursday (April 11).
 The ASUC uses ranked-choice voting, so candidates should be be ordered in terms of preference (#1, #2, #3) to ensure your vote counts!
 PRESIDENT
 1. DeeJay Pepito, CalSERVE
 http://www.calserve.org/deejay/
 SENATE
 1. Talïah Mirmalek, #119, Independent and SJP member
 https://www.facebook.com/Taliah4Senate
 2. Naweed Mohabbat, #116, Independent
 https://www.facebook.com/Naweed4Senate
 3. Briana Mullen, #123, CalSERVE, or
 Solomon Nwoche, #137, Independent Campaign for Common Sense
 EXTERNAL AFFAIRS VICE PRESIDENT
 1. Spencer Pritchard, CalSERVE
 EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
 1. Nolan Pack, CalSERVE
 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS VICE PRESIDENT
 1. Valerie Jameson, CalSERVE


Tom's announcement from the 2012 election follows:

Do you support UC divestment from companies that enable Israel's illegal and racist occupation?
So do the following candidates for ASUC office, all of whom are strong allies of Students for Justice in Palestine.

VOTE at http://election.asuc.org/ from Tuesday April 10 9:00 AM until 11:59 PM on Thurs. April 12
The ASUC uses ranked-choice voting, so candidates should be be ordered in terms of preference (#1, #2, #3) to ensure your vote counts.


PRESIDENT
1. Andy Albright, CalSERVE
http://www.calserve.org/andrew-albright-for-asuc-president/

SENATE
1. Sadia Saifuddin, #138 Independent
https://www.facebook.com/SadiaSaifuddin138ForASUCSenate

2. George Kadifa, #186 SJP member, Student Action
3. Isaac Kreisman #205, Students for a Democratic University (SDU)
4. Deejay Pepito #184, CalSERVE


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS VICE PRESIDENT
We are fortunate to have three candidates running for this position who support SJP's goals (a sign of the successful work we've done on campus): Isabel Sausjord (SDU), Sydney Fang (CalSERVE), and Shahryar Abassi (Student Action).
Isabel, however, is a current and active member of SJP.

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
Candidates from both CalSERVE   Anthony Galace and SDU  James Chang are allies.

ACADEMIC VICE PRESIDENT
Candidates from both SDU Frank Luna  and CalSERVE Naomi Wilson  are allies.

Notice the difference in the language. In 2012 , Tom wrote  "Do you support UC divestment from companies that enable Israel's illegal and racist occupation?"  This year he couches the same movement in quite different terms ,  in the language of human rights, asking instead  "Do you support the nonviolent divestment movement for Palestinian human rights?"

The BDS movement hasn't changed. Why has the  marketing-  the selling of the movement- changed?  Dispel any notion that this is a grass roots, student lead movement- its actually highly orchestrated and well funded. There are BDS boot camps. BDS conferences. And there are professional BDS activists and trainers. The Divest Now handbook for Student Divestment campaigns specifically admonishes students "to be deliberate in the language they use to frame divestment...", and warns them not to confuse people with actual history or current politics.

Tom's betting on the proposition that its easier to sell the uninitiated on "human rights" rather than on frothing at the mouth Israel hate. He might be right. We'll see soon enough.  The ASUC- the student Senate at UC Berkeley  will be examining divesting from Israel this week