A bad week for Church Divest

Its an even numbered year, and that can only mean, one, well, two things. The San Francisco Giants will win the World Series and the Mainline Protestant Churches will vote on divestment from Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East

The United Methodist Church has convened a two week conference in Portland, and from the posts on social media, there is much prayer and soul searching going on. 864 delegates are considering nearly a thousand resolutions on a wide variety of issues.

As in past years, the conference is filled with anti-Israel activists, pushing divestment from companies that do business in Israel.  This year, it appears, the organization is pushing back 

From a Press release from the Institute on Religion & Democracy 

May 17, 2016

“Activists who seek to enroll the church in demonizing Israel serve neither peace nor justice for anybody”

-UM Action Director John Lomperis

United Methodists have voted to encourage church boards and agencies to end their affiliation with an organization that promotes boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel. Delegates from across the 12.1 million-member denomination adopted a proposal asking to conclude agency affiliation with the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation on a vote of 478 to 319 (60 percent to 40 percent) during their quadrennial General Conference meeting in Portland, Oregon.

The United Methodist Church previously rejected divestment in 2008 and 2012 while the Presbyterian Church and the United Church of Christ have both adopted divestment policies .

And this week, the United Church of Christ is learning that their choices have consequences.

"The Church by the Sea hereby unequivocally repudiates and rejects the Resolutions call to boycott and divest". Additionally the Church “has also withdrawn all of its investment funds (almost $3M) from the United Church of Christ. Its a brave and principled stand to go against their denomination- a stand I hope is repeated by other churches in the coming months.

To read more about BDS in the pews

United Methodist Church Rejects Four Anti-Israel Boycott Resolutions

United Methodists Vote to Encourage Disaffiliation from Anti-Israel Coalition

Will United Methodists Lead The Way In Rejecting Anti-Israel Divestment?

The Vampire's Kiss: Berkeley Style.

Via Emunah:

From the Jerusalem Post, written by our friends at Divest This.

Legend (or at least Bram Stoker) posits that a vampire can only enter someone's home if he or she is invited across the threshold.

There could be no metaphor more apt for the divest-from-Israel campaigns that have proliferated among schools, unions, cities and churches in the US and Europe over the last four years.

Either small, unrepresentative groups of activists invite BDS into their organization, or outside activists join only in order to infiltrate it. The key to the strategy, as he and others have pointed out, is the “halo effect,” which allows puny groups of extremists to “punch above their political weight.” The strident clamors of a fringe group, which would otherwise go unnoticed, acquire gravitas and urgency when issued under the auspices of a respected organization. By the time the majority of the membership wakes up and sees the carnage, it is too late. The organization is left wounded and debilitated, and the vampire moves on to its next victim.

We recently witnessed this phenomenon in Berkeley.  Over the course of a year, anti-Israel activists have lobbied, virtually unchallenged,  a Commission  mandated with administering federal block grants to alleviate poverty to adopt a divestment resolution targeting Israel. 

Originally appearing on the Human Welfare Commission’s agenda on September 17, 2014, the divestment resolution introduced by Cheryl Davila has reared its ugly head on nearly every Commission agenda since then.  The divestment resolution appears on the Human Welfare Commission agenda on November 11, 2014. January 28, 2015. February 9, 2015. February 28, 2015. April 15, 2015. May 20, 2015. June 17, 2015. September 16, 2015. October 21, 2015.

Its rather a remarkable achievement  for a group that still insists its voice has been "silenced'

In spite of the wording which co-opts the language of the civil rights movement, this divestment resolution and the whole tactic of BDS is not about peace with Israel. Its about peace- without Israel.   Cheryl Davila is no innocent. She knows the truth. She stood with her BDS colleagues at the Oct 14 “Day of action”  at UC Berkeley while SJP chanted  “From the river to the sea”  and “We support the Intifada”. And again, on October 15, she stood with them in front of the Israeli consulate on Montgomery Street when they chanted “We don’t want one state. We want 48"  She attended the Atlanta Conference of the US Campaign when an award was given to Rasmea Odeh- a convicted terrorist responsible for the death of 2 young Israelis.

Cheryl’s willingness to neglect the Human Welfare Commission’s core responsibility in pushing this resolution ultimately led to her dismissal from the commission.   

During the public comment period before the Commission's October 21 vote, 54 spoke against the resolution, and 36 spoke in favor. The resolution failed to pass. 

But like Bram Stoker’s vampire, (or Monty Python’s parrot) BDS in Berkeley may not be quite dead, yet. Commission Chair Praveen Sood  is pushing his own BDS-lite resolution. And local anti-Israel activists are attempting to groom Cheryl Davila to seek an elected office.

This time Berkeley is mobilized to fight back.  Tired of having community institutions hijacked, a local attorney has written to the city, urging them not to continue squandering public funds and community resources. 

Again from Divest this!

Divest-from-Israel campaigns are kind of like Count Dracula: no matter how many times a stake is driven through their heart, they keep trying to get up (albeit always a bit more decrepit and overwrought than the time before).

Berkeley Human Welfare Commission rejects BDS bill

On Wednesday, October 21, the Berkeley Human Welfare Commission rejected a resolution advocating divestment from companies that did business in  Israel.   Hundreds gathered in the South Berkeley Senior Center  to participate in  the public comment period.   Legendary UC Berkeley professor Ron Hassner , Rabbi Menachem Creditor,  Rabbi James Brandt,  community leaders and  grass root community members joined together to ask  the Commission to reject this hateful and divisive resolution.

The resolution was defeated, with 5 voting against it,  2 for it, and 1 abstaining.

An open letter to the commission, signed by  Rabbi James Brandt of the Jewish Federation, Rabbi Yonatan Cohen of Beth Israel, Rabbi Menachem Creditor of Netivot Shalom and Rabbi Yoel Kahn of Beth El  in the Berkeley, as well as many others expressed dissatisfaction with both the content of the resolution and the process involved in bringing it to the Commission.

From the letter:

We were deeply troubled, however to learn about the resolution before the Human Welfare and Community Action Commission recommending that the Berkeley City Council list Israel under the Oppressive States Business Policy” Not only is this resolution completely unbalanced in its representation of the heartbreaking and complex conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, it is also a major distraction from the vitally important work of the HWCAC. It is disturbing that so much time and resources are being spent by the HWCAC on a divisive international issue unrelated to its mission, at a time when we all need to work together to improve our beloved city….

Additionally, we were shocked to learn that the HWCAC has been discussing this issue for a year without consulting anyone outside the small circle of supporters of divestment. This represents a grave breach of process and diligence that should have been undertaken when considering such a sensitive  and controversial issue…”

From StandWithUs:

"BDS activists attempted to hijack the commission to further their narrow, political, extremist agenda but the commissioners refused to succumb to this pressure and defeated the resolution," said Johanna Wilder, StandWithUs Northern California Associate Director, who spoke at the Commission meeting. 

The HWCAC discussed this issue despite the Berkeley City Attorney's clear stance that divestment is outside the scope of the commission, which is charged with tackling local poverty issues. Fortunately, numerous commissioners recognized this and rejected divestment so that the HWCAC could go back to fulfilling its crucial mission. 

Divestment supporters engaged in racist slander against Israel accusing it of committing a "Holocaust" against Palestinians. In addition to this trivialization of genocide they employed more typical propaganda, smearing Israelis as colonizers and erasing the indigenous rights of the Jewish people in their homeland. 

For more information on Berkeley's defeat of the divestment resolution see

Berkeley commission rejects Israel divestment resolution

The City of Berkeley debates Divestment.

Berkeley. A California city with its own foreign policy agenda.

The foreign policy branch of Berkeley’s municipal government has traditionally been the Peace and Justice Commission- however, the  Berkeley  Human Welfare and Community Action Commission has placed a divestment from Israel proposal on its agenda, and it will be heard tonight.  Professional anti-Israel activist Dalit Baum has been leading the lobbying effort to pressure the Commission.

Its an odd and wholly inappropriate choice.  The Commission’s mandate is to  advise  the  City Council  “concerning social welfare needs.  Creates citizen awareness and encourages improved standards.  Assists in the administration of the Community Action Program.”  

Anti-Israel activists have hijacked a commission meant to find solutions for struggling local families, and are using it to force through a one-sided, divisive  resolution on a foreign conflict thousands of miles away.

The meeting is scheduled for tonight at 7:00 pm. Speakers are needed.

South Berkeley Senior Center
2939 Ellis Street
3rd Wednesday every month

The text of the controversial proposal can be found here (Scroll all the way to page 68)

Emails and phone calls are also needed:

Contact the members of the Human Welfare and Community Action Commission here

  

The Roster of Berkeley City Council representatives can be found  here

Our municipal tax dollars at work. Thanks, Berkeley.

UPDATE:

Emunah attended the hearing and reported that Jewish voice for Peace packed the room, and heckled and harassed the few anti-divestment speakers.

JVP instructions to those attending Berkeley divestment hearing

The resolution is currently being reworked and reworded, and will be re-examined in 30 days.

To Jewish Voice for Peace's Gabi Kirk, this counts as a "lose".  After all, 30 days will give the mainstream Jewish Community time to weigh in and express their displeasure. And JVP knows that when all voices are heard they cannot prevail.   They can't win on a level playing field.

United Church of Christ: Searching for relevancy in all the wrong places

At the time of its formation, the United Church of Christ  (UCC) had over 2 million members in nearly 7,000 churches. Today, the United Church of Christ has just under 1 million members in 5,100 congregations. From 2000 to 2010 alone, the UCC encountered a net loss of 696 congregations and 318,897 members.

Earlier this month the General Synod of the United Church of Christ (UCC) voted  to divest from companies conducting business in “Israel-occupied Palestinian territories” and boycott products made in those territories.

Members of extremist groups Jewish Voice for Peace, Al Awda, and other members of the
 U. S. Campaign - a consortium of anti-Israel groups- maintained a steady presence at the Cleveland synod in an effort to pressure the church group to divest.

After the vote,  Jewish Voice for Peace’s Campus coordinator Ben Lorber let the mask slip just a bit, issuing a triumphant declaration, “UCC has divested from Israel”.

Abbas Hamideh, chairman of Al-Awda, a group that touts the mythical  Palestinian “right to return” shown here with Anna Baltzer of the US Campaign (aka Anna Piller, aka Anna Nardie) was among those lobbying for the divestment resolution.

How  “beyond the pale” is Abbas Hamideh?

He was recently suspended from Facebook for posts exalting Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah

“Hezbollah is an openly and proudly anti-Semitic movement. Indeed, the movement goes out of its way to stress that its animosity toward Jews does not derive from its opposition to Zionism,” Dr. Jonathan Spyer.a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center in Herzliya has told the J Post

Nasrallah has been widely condemned for his statement:

“If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice I do not say the Israeli.”\

Why has the United Church of Christ, in their search for relevancy, found common cause with anti-Semites and the enablers of anti-Semites?

From Mark Tooley, President of the  Institute on Religion and Democracy
June 30, 2015

“This divestment action will contribute nothing to peace or reconciliation. To the extent it is heeded at all, it will encourage radical enemies of peace to believe that Israel’s Christian friends will turn against Israel. They will be greatly mistaken.”

“The UCC joins the also fast declining Presbyterian Church (USA) in endorsing anti-Israel divestment. Perhaps dying denominations make opposition to the Jewish state their lodestar. More spiritually vibrant Christian churches will have very different opinions on Israel.”

UC Santa Barbara: The repugnant anti-Semitism at the heart of the Campus Divest Movement

This week students at the University of California Santa Barbara defeated a BDS resolution  for the 3rd year in a row. The debate featured the divisive and shocking rhetoric we've come to associate with the BDS movement.   In a effort to further marginalize Jewish voices on campus, the debate was scheduled for Yom Hashoah.

Margaux Gundzik, a student at UCSB has written to the school run newspaper "The Bottom line", highlighting the rotten core at the very heart of the BDS movement.

She writes:

After eight hours of public forum, 12 senators voted to pass the resolution, 12 voted not to pass it, and one abstained. It was only due to the chair’s tie-breaking vote that the resolution did not pass. Despite the end result, I do not consider last night’s meeting a victory. I am disturbed that half of my student representatives felt it right to pass a resolution that countless Jewish students vocalized as being offensive, threatening, and blatantly anti-Semitic.          

Margaux calls out BDS for what it is- a movement that denies the Jewish people the right to self determination

Because of its linkage to BDS as well as its denial of the Jewish race’s right to self-determination, I—as a Jewish student—was threatened by the resolution, as were many members of the Jewish community. We attended last night’s senate meeting and spoke at public forum, begging our senators not to pass this resolution that perpetuated hate towards our specific minority group. Similarly, many students in favor of the resolution attended the meeting to oppose my community and press for the passing of this resolution.

Margaux documents the a repugnant rhetoric at the hearing that clearly crossed the line into anti-Semitism

Furthermore, I am disgusted by the normalization of anti-Semitic language so casually thrown around at the meeting. In those eight hours, I was told that Jews control the government, that all Jews are rich, that Zionism is racism, that the marginalization of Jewish students is justified because it prevents the marginalization of other minority groups, that Israel sterilizes its Ethiopian women (this is obviously not true), and that Palestinians in America who speak out against Israel are sought out by the IDF and denied entrance into Israel (also a ridiculous conspiracy theory). I heard a senator—someone who is supposed to be my representative—say that people were only voting against this resolution because they were afraid of losing “Jew support.” I heard my peers laugh at the mention of terrorists hurling stones at the heads of Israeli civilians intending to kill them. I saw students smile and cheer enthusiastically as a woman stood up and said the words, “I am ashamed to be a Jew.” The rhetoric I heard from students opposing Israel at this meeting could easily be equated to arguments that I have only seen in quotes at museums or mentioned in textbooks for their use in the justification of historical persecution of the Jewish race.

Read  Margaux Gundzik's letter in its entirety here.

The Campus divestment movement - the effort by anti-Israel activists to steamroll toothless BDS resolution through their school government. has long been characterized by a willingness to abandon truth  and to sacrifice campus climate to achieve their political goal. The UCSB Gauchos United for Israel have done a remarkable job of speaking truth to power under very challenging circumstances.       

UCLA Divestment. Its not about the "occupation"

Fresh from its failure last year, UCLA divest begins again.

Just so you are sure what they mean when they say they are against the "Occupation", check out their logo.

Yes, all of Israel, from the "River to the Sea" is considered occupied by the divestment extremists.

Even "wedge group" Jewish Voice for Peace is in on the action, making it abundantly clear that they do not support a Jewish state of Israel within any borders.

NGO Monitor: Antisemitism exposed within Presbyterian Church activist group behind divestment vote

Press Release from NGOMonitor, an independent research institution, was founded in 2002 in the wake of the World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa. At this conference, 1,500 NGOs formulated the "Durban Strategy" which aims to isolate Israel through measures such as boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaigns, lawfare, delegitimization and demonization.
Jerusalem - NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem based research institute, has released evidence that anti-Jewish prejudice was prominent among the internal church advocates for boycott and divestment (BDS) efforts.

The Israel-Palestine Mission Network (IPMN), a church affiliated activist group centrally responsible for lobbying the church to divest from companies that do business with Israel and publisher of the highly controversial booklet, Zionism Unsettled: A Congregational Study, also promoted antisemitism on its Facebook page.

"The IPMN's Facebook page is in fact a hate site operating under the protective wings of the Presbyterian Church," said Yitzhak Santis, NGO Monitor's Chief Programs Officer. "None of the antisemitic postings were repudiated by the IPMN leadership or other members of this Facebook group. Several Presbyterian Church senior staff members are also members of this group, and they remained silent."

IPMN members have contributed numerous postings in a "closed but not secret" Facebook group expressing overtly antisemitic sentiments, including crude anti-Jewish caricatures and links to antisemitic websites. One statement (Nov 2, 2013), "Israel's Zionist establishment wants constant war. No longer a surprise, but a most serious evil;" links to Press TV (the state-owned English-language TV station of the Islamic Republic of Iran). Other postings promoted racialist theories of Jewish origins, such as, "It seems like the Ashkenazis (sic) have an inferiority complex because they descend from Kaszars (sic) and lack any genetic tie to Palestine... the Ashkenazis are looking more fraudulent than ever in claiming a Jewish Homeland for the Jewish (White Race) only."

"The moral credibility of the Presbyterians is on the line," continued Santis. "The church must repudiate and fully distance itself from IPMN and its bigotry. IPMN has been walking the church down a dark path, and Presbyterians should ask themselves if this is the direction they wish to go," Santis said.

The IPMN closed down its open Facebook page in January 2012 after strong criticism over extremist material appearing on its site. IPMN then reopened their Facebook group as a "closed but not secret" page in July 2012. IPMN's Facebook group page now has 272 members.

Read the full report to view the antisemitic posts from IPMN's Facebook page

Key Points From the NGO Monitor report on the antisemitism of the IPMN

1. The Israel Palestine Mission Network (IPMN) of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (PCUSA) is a main advocate within the church on behalf of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign (BDS), whose goal is to delegitimize the State of Israel leading to that country’s dissolution. The Presbyterian Peace Fellowship is also an advocate for BDS.

2. This report produces clear evidence of a strong undercurrent of overt anti-Jewish bigotry within the IPMN as expressed on the group’s Facebook page.

3. Numerous postings uploaded to this site by IPMN members over a period of two years demonstrate an ongoing pattern of expressions of antisemitism, including:

a. a “Zionist controlled America [has a] desperate lust” for war with Iran

b. “Jewish interests” are “corrupting” the US government, and the media is “owned” and “operated” by these same “Jewish interests.”

c. the “Christian Holy Land” is “occupied” by the “zionist (sic) instigator”

d. Racial theories of Jewish origins claiming Ashkenazi Jews are not racially “Semitic,” are actually “Khazars,” and therefore should not be in the Middle East.

e. Israeli Jews should be ethnically cleansed: “Helen Thomas was right, ‘Go back to Russia, Germany…’ Just leave.”

f. “IRAN! Thank God for them! The only Zionist-free land left on earth.”

How JVP colluded with the U.S. Presbyterian Church

Several months ago, JVP ran a rather silly little campaign to “beat” AIPAC in the number of likes on its Facebook page.  Using email blasts, social media and targeted ads on Facebook, they were able to increase their numbers. Glancing at their Facebook page, it appears they’ve achieved this milestone in their usual manner- through deceit and manipulation.   Does anyone really believe  “Joos for Palestine”  or "Net Workdood" represent actual people? 

There was a reason for the campaign.  This group, which represents an outside fringe of American Jewry used its social media stats to gain credibility for its extremist views, and to bolster its claim that it speaks for the American Jewish Community.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

When the Rabbinical Council of the Jewish Voice for Peace  penned  an open letter supporting Presbyterian  divestment. it had been signed by only 8 rabbis, 4 rabbinical students, and a cantor. Contrast that with the 1700 rabbis and cantors who signed  the letter opposing divestment.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, former president of the Union for Reform Judaism has written in Haaretz regarding the Presbyterians divestment vote, and the collusion of JVP

How a radical anti-Israel Jewish group colluded with the U.S. Presbyterian Church

The Presbyterian leadership is not naïve. It has been working with the Jewish community for decades on a range of issues and has been engaged in dialogue with Jews on divestment concerns since 2004. It knows how the Jewish community is organized. It knows who has a grassroots presence and who does not. And any suggestion that there is significant Jewish support for divestment or that Jewish Voice for Peace represents any more than a tiny sliver of Jewish opinion is simply preposterous.

My view is that the church desperately wanted Jewish backing as cover for their pro-divestment position and Jewish Voice for Peace became the instrument for providing that backing—or, perhaps, a means for church leaders to delude themselves into thinking that Jewish backing really exists.

Either way, none of this would have worked without the collusion of Jewish Voice for Peace, which has a tradition of cloaking extremist principles in ambiguous language.

Consider the disparity between the church's resolution and the views of Jewish Voice for Peace. The church wanted to pass a "selective divestment" resolution without seeming too extreme. The Jewish community, to say the least, was not convinced; it concluded that the church's action suggested anti-Israel attitudes. Nonetheless, the final resolution passed by the general assembly called for selective divestment in specific companies while also reaffirming Israel's right to exist, endorsing a two-state solution, and refraining from aligning with the global BDS movement.

Jewish Voice for Peace, wanting to play the hero and stay in the good graces of the church leadership, had nothing to say about these three points; an uninformed observer might think that it supports the church in the final wording of the resolution. But it doesn't. As anyone who has read its mission statement and literature knows, it supports BDS, does not endorse a two-state solution, and while it does not call for Israel's destruction, does not affirm her right to exist either.

 Rabbi Yoffie continues:

In short, those young people in black T-shirts represent a radical anti-Israel position that goes far beyond the "selective divestment" that the church professes to call for.

He is right, of course. For all of JVP's  attempt at a socially acceptable veneer , they've admitted that they support "full" BDS ("occupation" is just a red herring)

 Rabbi Yoffie concludes with a suggestion to Presbyterian leadership

Get your information about the Jewish community and the Jewish tradition from a source other than Jewish Voice for Peace. And if you want, as I do, to see a reconciliation between the church and the Jews, put an end to an alliance that is leading you astray and generating resentment in the Jewish world.

Tomorrow, JVP has planned its first Congressional briefing. Lets hope Congress is smarter than the Presbyterian leadership.

San Diego State University divestment resolution to be debated

A tiny group of extremist students at San Diego State University are hoping their school will become the first school in the CSU system to divest from Israel.  In spite of their public rhetoric about equality, justice and equal rights, the movement at SDSU is about branding Israel as an apartheid state,  and as such, a unique evil in the world.

All nations are flawed, after all, but to the BDS'ers, only Israel, unique in all the world is so inherently evil that it must be done away with.

Its not only about "companies that support the occupation" either.   The hastag used by this SDSU student is #Boycott Israel

The Aztecs for Israel are fighting back. Signs such as this are appearing all over campus. Good for them, fighting the message of BDS hate with love.

Wishing the Aztecs for Israel the best of luck as they continue to fight back against the bigoted BDS movement  currently dividing their campus

UC Riverside defeats Divestment resolution

Breaking news.

The University of California at Riverside Student government  voted last night to defeat a BDS resolution aimed at companies doing business in Israel. This is the second year in a row that BDS has lost at UC Riverside.

After the vote,  pro divestment students left the room claiming they had been "silenced". On the contrary- they had spoken, made their arguments and had their say. Their arguments had been found deficient by their elected student council.

The UC Regents issued a firm statement opposing divestment in 2005, so any student council vote on the issue is purely symbolic.   The commitment to oppose divestment from Israel was reiterated in 2010 

The overarching question of the University of California divesting from any company is a complex one and any action considered must conform to State and federal laws, as well as to the University’s fiduciary responsibilities as a public entity to protect the security of its pension and endowment funds. In 2005, the Regents stated that a policy of divestment from a foreign government shall be adopted by the University only when the United States government declares that a foreign regime is committing acts of genocide. It was also noted at the time that divestment is a serious decision that should be rarely pursued.

We share The Regents’ belief that divestment needs to be undertaken with caution. We firmly believe that if there is to be any discussion of divestment from a business or country, it must be robust and fair-minded. We must take great care that no one organization or country is held to a different standard than any other. In the current resolutions voted on by the UC student organizations, the State of Israel and companies doing business with Israel have been the sole focus. This isolation of Israel among all countries of the world greatly disturbs us and is of grave concern to members of the Jewish community.

We fully support the Board of Regents in its policy to divest from a foreign government or companies doing business with a foreign government only when the United States government declares that a foreign regime is committing acts of genocide. The U.S. has not made any declaration regarding the State of Israel and, therefore, we will not bring a recommendation before the Board to divest from companies doing business with the State of Israel.

Congratulations to the Highlanders for Israel and other student groups for their tremendous efforts to defeat this  proposed bill.

Another BDS Hoax from JVP and Friends: TIAA-CREF confirms Sodastream holdings

Last month, the We Divest Campaign,  which includes Adalah-NY, the American Friends Service Committee, Grassroots International, Jewish Voice for Peace, the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, and the US Palestinian Community Network claimed that Financial giant TIAA-CREF had divested from Sodastream, an Israeli company that manufacturers home carbonation devices.

Their press release read:

Pension fund giant TIAA-CREF has removed the increasingly controversial Israeli company SodaStream (NASD: SODA) from its portfolio. As of March 2013, financial data posted on TIAA-CREF’s website valued shares in SodaStream at $9,444,292. According to financial data available today, it is zero.

“No matter the reason TIAA-CREF dropped SodaStream, we view this as a conscientious decision.” said Sydney Levy of the We Divest Campaign (wedivest.org). “While SodaStream may be a profitable investment, it is socially bankrupt, operating out of an illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank.”

Alissa Wise, from JVP's Rabbinic council also sent out an email, declaring victory over the forces of evil and sound financial planning..

It is an exciting time for the We Divest Campaign!

Today, we released the news that according to TIAA-CREF's available financial data, they have dropped their investments in SodaStream--the Israeli company which manufactures its home seltzer machines in an illegal Israeli settlement in the West Bank. Read more about TIAA-CREF dropping SodaStream!

Tomorrow, is the CREF shareholder meeting and the We Divest National Day of Action! We Divest activists will be taking to the streets in over a dozen cities nationwide. Locate a demonstration near you and join us!

If you can't join us in the streets, you can always be part of making our demand that TIAA-CREF divest from the Israeli occupation right from your couch! Log-on to Twitter and/or Facebook and help spread the word!

Onward,
Alissa, We Divest National Coordinator

 Like so many other claims regarding the success of the BDS movement, this turned out to be false.

From The Algemeiner

TIAA-CREF, Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association – College Retirement Equities Fund, which manages $520 billion on behalf of millions of teachers and other union members, confirmed on Thursday that, as of July 15, 2013, it held a significant stake in SodaStream International Ltd., denying claims from the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement that the fund manager had sold its shares in the Israeli company as a political protest.

A TIAA-CREF spokesman said that information provided in its second quarter filing of June 30, 2013, was accurate and that SodaStream shares were held during that period. The fund is prohibited by regulators to cite positions held within the past 30 days, but the spokesman was also able to confirm to The Algemeiner that SodaStream shares were still in its portfolio as of July 15, 2013, the last date it could disclose.

The spokesman said that while there was an element of truth in the BDS claim,  it was also, ultimately, inaccurate.  One TIAA-CREF fund, its Mid-Cap Growth fund, had sold its SodaStream shares as of its first quarter filing on Mar 31, 2013. But, within the second quarter, Soda Stream shares were bought by another TIAA-CREF portfolio, the  Growth & Income Fund, which continued to hold the shares, as of July 15.

Meanwhile, an institutional fund, called the General Account, which invests for the TIAA-CREF Traditional Annuity product and only reports its holdings once a year, was ignored by the BDS campaign: that TIAA-CREF portfolio has held its SodaStream shares continuously, including during the second quarter.

 True to form, no disclaimer, rebuttal or addendum has appeared on any of the sites formerly claiming this a "huge" BDS success. No email has been sent out apologizing for the misleading information.

Truth does not matter to those that hate Israel. It never has. It never will.

ASUC Judicial Council : UC Berkeley divestment is unconstitutional

From the Daily Cal:

The ASUC Judicial Council has ruled parts of controversial divestment bill SB 160 unconstitutional, removing clauses that require the ASUC to divest from companies affiliated with the Israeli military.

In an opinion released Sunday, the council ruled that the ASUC Senate lacked the authority to divest ASUC funds, saying that investment decisions must be made by the ASUC Investment Committee.

“The ASUC Senate has no constitutional power to craft specific investment policies,” the opinion states. “According to the By-Laws, the only body in the ASUC with the authority and expertise to write investment policy is the Investment Committee. Thus, when the ASUC specified companies by name and issued strict directives such as ‘will divest’ in SB 160, it overstepped its legislative bounds.”

The ASUC decision, and all the UC Student Senate decisions are merely symbolic acts. The UC Regents, the governing body of the University of California  rejected  the option of divestment from Israel in 2005.   From a May 2010 statement  by the University of California Regents’ Chair and Vice Chair along with the UC President:

“The overarching question of the University of California divesting from any company is a complex one and any action considered must conform to State and federal laws, as well as to the University’s fiduciary responsibilities as a public entity to protect the security of its pension and endowment funds.  In 2005, the Regents stated that a policy of divestment from a foreign government shall be adopted by the University only when the United States government declares that  a foreign regime is committing acts of genocide. It was also noted at the time that divestment is a serious decision that should be rarely pursued....”

UPDATE:

Former ASUC Senator George Kadifa, the sponsor of the divestment bill declares "victory" in the face of his bill being declared unconstitutional. After all, when they "lose" they  "win". Note please, his ready admission that  none of the companies listed for divestment were actually held by the ASUC.  Do you need any more proof that the parasitical SLP, the MSA and their handlers are willing to put their school and their classmates through a divisive time-consuming and agonizing process simply to further their narrow political agenda? 



"Hello Everyone,

I want to provide a final update on SB 160. On May 26th at 2:12 pm Judicial Council released their final verdict on SB 160. The final verdict is attached to this note containing a final copy of the bill. Out of a 2,932-word bill J Council removed exactly 31 words. All essential clauses calling upon the UC Regents and Berkeley campus to divest were left completely intact. The only words removed were non-essential language added at the 11th hour calling upon the ASUC to divest their funds. (The ASUC has no investments in companies profiting from the occupation and likely never will, as the Boston Trust already follows stringent  ethical investment guidelines).

SB160 passed through the legislative body, withstood a veto threat by the executive body, and the amended version of the bill has been approved as constitutional by the judicial body. There are no more hurdles the opposition can put this bill through; this bill is an official statement on behalf of the ASUC a body that represents the 35,000 students at the University of California at Berkeley.

This bill was made possible by the tireless work of hundreds of individuals and parties involved.

To the many SJP members who pushed this issue forward: Ley, Isabel, Norah, Andrea, Nathan, Husam, Taliah, Tom, Maggie, Emiliano, Joe, Jessica, and Taqwa to name but a few. Your work and dedication paid off.

To the MEMSA community at large when we all work together there is nothing we can’t do.

To the Calserve communities and in particular to their party chairs Anais LaVoie and Salih Muhammed. You were unwavering and steadfast allies. This would have been impossible with out you.

To the Senators who found the courage to stand for human rights even for a very silenced people; Nolan Pack, Jorj Pacheco,Megan Majd, Sadia Saifuddin, Emily Chen, Nils Gilbertson, Klein Lieu, Sidronio Jacobo, Daley Vertiz, and DeeJay Pepito you were all amazing

To EAVP Shahryar Abassi for his incredible oratory skills and for EVP Justin Sayarath for maintaining his objectivity. Thank you.

To President Connor Landgraf the Dwight Eisenhower of the story thank you for keeping your promise even though it may have been a difficult one to keep

A special thank you to the time and energy of those that defended SB 160 in court. Nolan Pack, Jorj Pacheco, Liz Jackson you were all fantastic

A shout out to Judicial Council for putting up with Noah Ickowitz for a month and half I’m sure that must have been a challenging experience.

To a certain egocentric, ragingly narcissistic, self interested, self aggrandizing, self victimizing and enormously self-important AIPAC bought Senator(You know who you are and so does everyone else) – Thank you for your contributions to the debate you made this a more lively and exciting experience for all of us,

To AIPAC and its minions- (including of course the previous after mentioned senator) it takes true political skill and brilliance to defend your completely indefensible and morally bankrupt position. You did so spectacularly. What your arguments lacked in honesty they made up for in creativity. Hopefully that political skill could be better used someplace else.

To J Street for their well-intentioned schizophrenia. You were our most formidable opponents, now hurry up and change sides already you would make better allies.

To the many folks that helped out in many ways but couldn’t be mentioned in the space allotted. To all those who helped but whose names must be kept secret, thank you as well, you know who you are and you were indispensable.

And last but certainly not least for the courage and heroism of the many Palestinian students at Berkeley you were an inspiration to us all.

SB 160 has passed, Berkeley students have spoken and have demanded that their university and the UC Regents divest from the occupation of Palestine. This is just the beginning.

Next stop the Regents.

Roll on You Bears!!!!"

Israel divestment vote at UC Berkeley the latest sign of hostile campus environment

In this article from the Jewish News Service, UC Berkeley alumnus Matt White documents the hostile climate on campus for Jewish students and supporters of Israel that culminated in 11-9 divestment vote.

April’s Israel divestment vote at the University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley) is just the latest unfortunate expression of how hateful an environment the anti-Israel movement can create for Jewish students and supporters of Israel on campus. I witnessed this firsthand during my four years as an undergraduate at UC Berkeley from 2007-2011.

In 2010, when the last similar initiative was proposed before the ASUC (UC Berkeley’s student government body), urging the University of California Regents to divest funding from companies doing business with Israel, it was only the culmination to years of hostility against pro-Israel students.

As founding members of Tikvah Students for Israel, the Zionist voice on campus, my colleagues and I were targets for hate. We were spat on. Our signs were blocked and ripped at protests. We were called “Nazis,” “kikes,” “baby killers,” “Christ killers,” and “dirty Jews.” Swastikas were scrawled across dormitory walls and signboards. Jewish students were physically assaulted at a pro-Israel concert. A pro-Israel student senator was voted out of office based on false charges. A filled shopping cart was rammed into a young woman because she was holding up a sign that read, “Israel wants peace.” Israel was libelously compared to Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. The Israeli flag was trampled and used as an ashtray. During lectures, some professors screened films that justified Palestinian suicide bombings against Israeli civilians.

Given this history, I thought I knew what to expect when an Israel divestment measure was again introduced to UC Berkeley’s student government. But divestment is never short of nasty surprises.

The acclaimed author and civil rights activist Alice Walker was one of the first speakers during the hearing on last month’s Israel divestment measure. Though her work in the civil rights movement is laudable, her refusal to allow her seminal book The Color Purple to be translated into Hebrew, thereby deliberately withholding from only one group the very literature that can spur change, was a shameless act of bigotry. Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb of Jewish Voice for Peace called on the UC Berkeley student senate to disregard the Jewish voices in the crowd that did not support Israel divestment, because she claimed that a majority of Jews had supported slavery, too.

Most other commentators at the hearing were UC Berkeley students. Sadly, their discourse was no less extreme. That same day, hours earlier, anti-Israel protesters and Israel divestment supporters had gathered on the campus’s Sproul Plaza and chanted, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will all be free,” a slogan that calls for erasing Israel from the map and ending self-determination for the Jewish people.

When the president and vice president of Tikvah Students for Israel mentioned the incident and the anti-Israel chant in their speeches before the student senate, many in the audience cheered for the chant. When an alumna mentioned her harrowing experiences of being told by anti-Israel students that her family in Israel deserved to be murdered by terrorists, there were laughs and snaps of approval. Among the most vociferous pro-divestment speakers was the student who brought Louis Farrakhan, who preached anti-Semitic and homophobic vitriol, to UC Berkeley a year before.

But by far the most ludicrous and horrifying moment was when an Israel divestment advocate insinuated that Israeli soldiers sexually violate Palestinian women with rats. Seriously? This was a whole new level of libel that should have shocked even the Israel divestment activists in the room, but it didn’t seem to.

The Israel divestment bill itself was filled with baseless accusations against Israel. It called for the University of California Regents to remove funding from Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard and Cement Roadstone Holdings—the latter two because they provide Israel with security technology. Israel’s security fence and checkpoints were condemned as illegitimate, malicious impositions. No context whatsoever was included as to why Israel needs to take such precautions. The massive physical and psychological damage caused by the Second Intifada was largely ignored or dismissed. An amendment was proposed to recognize the daily hardships caused by the security fence and checkpoints, but also the massive decrease in terrorism that occurred after these measures were put in place. This amendment was voted down.

Also denied were amendments that supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and called for recognizing Israel as the homeland and state of the Jewish people. When it came to Jews, indigenous rights to Israel dating back thousands of years were not on UC Berkeley’s agenda, unlike the support and sympathy accorded to all other liberation movements.

Many in the Jewish and pro-Israel communities felt marginalized by the false accusations that hid Israel’s narrative and reasoning and declared one side of the story to be wholly correct, just, and endorsed by the UC Berkeley student government in the name of an entire student body. The rejection of these more fair-minded amendments further reinforced such feelings.

He concludes:

Those who advocated for divestment at UC Berkeley ought not to be called “pro-Palestinian.” They excuse or justify Palestinian extremists’ self-destructive terrorism against Israeli civilians, and are silent about the appalling crimes committed by the Hamas and Fatah leadership against their own people. They selectively ignore more than a half-century of the degradation of Palestinians, often enshrined in law, by countries across the Middle East.


Instead, guilty of omission, they function solely to ensure that Israel wrongly becomes an anathema to their fellow students. This is accomplished through such initiatives as the one that hit the UC Berkeley senate floor last month, an initiative whose supporters wore their true feelings on their sleeves during that heartbreaking night.

Read Matt Whites' article in its entirety at the Jewish News Service

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?"

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.