LETTER TO THE EDITOR
David Lumb and Mohamed Abdelgany | May 18, 2010 | Comments 8
The Muslim Student Union at UC Irvine joins Chancellor Michael Drake in condemning terrorism and in reaffirming our university’s “commitment to dialogue and democratic rule, not violence.” The MSU condemns the killing of innocent civilians, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or any other label. As stated numerous times throughout the week, we will not tolerate the promotion of hatred against any particular group on the basis of their race, color, ethnicity or religion. As human beings, people of faith, and students of conscience, we will be the first to speak out against any form of injustice.
Our week’s events brought professors, academics and human rights activists to shed light on the apartheid state of Israel and its occupation of Palestine. This does not necessarily mean that we endorse everything that our speakers say. Our speakers have differing views when it comes to discussing the apartheid state of Israel, but nonetheless, we remain committed to educating our broader campus community. Our week’s goals, which were constantly reiterated before every event, were meant to educate students and start dialoguing in a way that is conducive towards taking peaceful, non-violent means towards a solution to the conflict.
While we don’t agree with blanket support of the actions and stances of groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and others, we do believe that it is important to distinguish that the expressed support for such groups, made by one of our speakers, comes in the context of leading resistance against a state that continues to function based on genocidal and apartheid-like politics. It comes in the context of trying to end the inhumane siege on Gaze, and in the struggle of striving to secure freedom, peace and justice in the midst of an illegal occupation. Let us be clear, terrorism and the killing of innocent civilians is never justified whether it is practiced by Palestinian militant groups or the Israeli government. However, one cannot blame the victim for being victimized by the aggressor while turning a blind eye to the aggressor’s actions that are the root cause of the conflict, which, unfortunately, has too often been the case in discourse about the Israeli-Palestinian issue. This type of discourse only serves to undermine the atrocities that occur in Palestine and Israel and to deflect the attention away from Israel’s violation of international, moral, and humanitarian laws.
It is for this reason, the death of innocent people on all sides, that the MSU seeks to translate its words into action. The violence on both sides is a result of the occupation and with an end to the Israeli occupation will come an end to the killing of people on both sides. As mentioned throughout our week, we would like to announce the launch of a peaceful and\ nonviolent initiative known as the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction Campaign on campus. The BDS movement aims to ensure that our money at UC Irvine does not fund war crimes and terrorism practiced against innocent civilians. The campaign, which is supported by many in Israel and around the world, aims to divest university funds from companies that profit from the occupation and oppression imposed on the Palestinian people.
In the past few days, we have been overwhelmed by the support of the UCI community for our campaign; hundreds of students have already signed a petition in support of BDS. The University of California was an essential part of the movement to divest from, and successfully end, the apartheid in South Africa and it is now the time for the University of California to take the lead again and stand up for justice and equality by demanding an end to the illegal apartheid taking place in Palestine, not only by words, but also by action. We ask the Chancellor and all people of social conscious to stand with us now and peacefully demand an end to the occupation.
Signed,
Mohamed Abdelgany
President of the Muslim Student Union
mohamadabdelgany@gmail.com
Popularity: unranked [?]
Filed Under: Opinion
There is a major difference between South African apartheid and the Israeli occupation of lands in Palestine. In the case of the South African boycott there was one clear objective: the abolition of legal apartheid against blacks. This objective was obtainable by a single party in the conflict (the ruling government of South Africa), which was a target of the boycott. Unfortunately the Israeli-Palestinian conflict consists of many issues, none of which appear to be cornerstone: occupation of Palestinian lands, the status of Palestinian Israeli citizens, Palestinian attacks into Israel, the right of return of Palestinians into Israeli land, settlement in Palestinian lands, and the location of borders between Israeli and Palestine. Resolution of these problems cannot be accomplished by a single party, as was the case of apartheid in South Africa. For this reason, simple economic isolation of Israel would not solve anything.
I also have some criticisms of the article advising against a divestment strategy:
It is considered legal and justified to target members of a country’s military during an armed conflict. They are an integral part of the countries defense against outside forces, and their deaths are unavoidable to obtain a military resolution. In the same sense, citizens of a country are the foundation of its economy. To say that they cannot be targeted when trying to reach an economic solution is ridiculous. Who else can be targeted? If you hold by this logic, then for consistency’s sake you must be against all economic sanctions – unless of course you are arguing that the collateral effects would be disproportionate to the intended consequences.
Also, the fear of a “circling of the wagons” seems out of proportion. There would probably be an initial backlash against an economic boycott. Any punitive action taken against a country has drawbacks. However, after a few months of recession nationalistic insult may give way to more immediate concerns: employment and quality of life. If you want to cause a change in the will of a population then a boycott makes sense.
Also (this is not a criticism, but a question), if a boycott were to take place, has anyone thought of a way to reward Israel for positive steps taken, short of dropping the boycott? Any solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will most likely take decades, even if Israel were incredibly cooperative with the process. It would make sense to have a graded response to Israeli diplomacy.
Look at the pictures, it was a friendly display with people having a good time around it. Yet the professors in their op-ed piece claim it created a hostile and unsafe atmosphere for jewish students. Their op-ed was based on a total falsehood. Are they nothing more than being a bunch of mainly jewish professors trying to cover up for Israel using the standard hasbara propaganda ?
I’m confused…
Gaza shares a border with Egypt. Does that mean Egypt is participating in the supposed “starvation” of the Gazans?
Why would a Muslim nation sit back and close its respectives eyes (and borders) while its brothers starve?
Could someone help edify me on this?
Joe Wolf
How convenient of you to omit the fact that Israeli leaders pulled out of Gaza to “put the peace process on formaldehyde” and put the Palestinians o a “diet” a.k.a starve the Palestinians.
Also, how convenient of you to omit the numerous attacks and incursions into Gaza in addition to the blockade of a civilian population. Is it your position that Israel has a carte blanche to do anything and everyhting including starving civilians ? Why don’t u be more honest.
XM
A photo essay on the week’s events:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fenominal/sets/72157623942730503/
Dear Mr. Abdelgany,
You wrote that “the violence on both sides is a result of the occupation and with an end to the Israeli occupation will come an end to the killing of people on both sides.” This is untrue. Look at what happened when Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel
If Israel pulls out of the West Bank, there will be a huge increase in violence, and the safety of both Palestinian and Israeli civilians will be in grave jeopardy.
As for the BDS movement, the President Yudof released a statement saying that the University of California will never support this movement unless the US government declares that a given state is guilty of the accusations that you lay out: http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/58069/u.c.-president-regents-decry-divest-from-israel-efforts/
Regards,
Joe Wolf
Peace Now Ameirca presents a strong case against divestment:
http://peacenow.org/entries/bds_criticism_of_israel
American Peace Now believes that boycott and divestment campaigns against Israel are misguided and counterproductive.
Misguided, because they target the average, innocent Israeli citizen — who may well support peace and a two-state solution — rather than the Israeli government policies that are ostensibly the target of the campaigns.
Counterproductive, because they provoke a “circle the wagons” response. Such a response is understandable, since much of the pressure for such campaigns comes from historically virulently anti-Israel sources that are often not interested in Israeli security concerns or Palestinian behavior. This in turn creates very real and understandable perception that the campaigns are not truly (or only) about Israeli policies but rather reflect a deep-seated hatred for and rejection of Israel.
As a result, such campaigns have the opposite of the intended result: they cause many Israelis and supporters of Israel — people whose voices are vitally needed to oppose the policies that such campaigns target — to feel compelled to defend Israel, regardless of the policies in question.
The argument in the third paragraph is a laughable attempt at back peddling from comments made by a speaker the MSU has invited to speak on the campus multiple times. It is like saying the KKK isn’t so bad. I cannot condemn the KKK because they do some good work.
Why is it so difficult to condemn Hamas? They are recognized as a terrorist organization by the US State Department. The Hamas Charter openly call for the destruction of Israel and states that Israel should be replaced by an Islamic waqf.
Hamas has shown little interest in a two state solution where a Palestinian state would be created that would peacefully coexist with the Jewish State of Israel. The three main political parties in Israel have accepted the two state solution as a means to resolve the conflict.
The oppressed Hamas has not. I do not accept the argument that that being oppressed justifies or explains away a groups’ actions or intentions.
As much as I disagree with settlements and think they are a clearly an obstacle to peace, I am 100% against this proposal.
When the MSU invites people like Malik Ali to speak on the campus who openly supports Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, which are all recognized by the US State Department as foreign terrorist organizations that publicly call for the destruction of Israel, the MSU has little creditability as a group that is sincerely looking for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.