Ongoing Discussion
Braden Buckel | Nov 27, 2012 | Comments 4
Mary Fouad | New University
The ASUCI Legislative Council held a public discussion on Tuesday, Nov. 20 regarding Resolution R48-15, which has caused controversy between groups on campus over the Israel-Palestine issue. The council passed the resolution unanimously on Tuesday Nov. 13, but there was opposition to this decision by Jewish groups on campus and the campus administration.
In order to allow both supporters and opponents of resolution R48-15 to voice their concerns, the Council dedicated the majority of their meeting time to public debate.
The first person to speak was fourth-year student Patrick Chen, a supporter of the resolution who voiced his support of the decision by the Council the week before.
“I just wanted to say that it was important that that legislation was passed and that you [Legislative Council] are making a good call for divestment of funds from companies that we know are providing funding and that UCI has invested in specific companies that are providing weapons or hardware used to enforce really terrible living conditions on people in Gaza,” Chen said.
Others did not agree, including third-year student Daniel Narvy, who felt that the Council had acted poorly with their divestment decision and argued that the legislation itself was flawed.
“It’s wrong that you guys [Legislative Council] are going to hide under concern for human rights violations by passing factually inaccurate legislation aimed at slandering a pluralistic democracy,” Narvy said. “I ask right now where is the call for legislation against Darfur, the slaughtering in Syria, the murdering of Christians throughout the entire Arab world? Where are these? Why focus on Israel?”
He went on to say that Israel is not to blame for the violence so it should not be targeted by the university.
“The legislation brings up Gaza and I think it’s important, I think it’s an issue that affects most of us on this campus. And it’s a very tragic situation but I think faults can be blamed, and the fault is on Hamas, the terrorist organization.”
Others such as third-year student Naomi Wartfeild held similar positions in their support of Israel and believe that divestment is the wrong action. She argued that since the divestment resolution conflicts with the policies of the federal government, it should not continue.
“As a Jewish student, I’m not here to talk to you about my personal connection to the land but I’m here to talk about the policy of divestment in the UC System,” Wartfield said. “Divestment is not the policy of the UC system, nor is it the policy of the US government. In fact, under federal law, it would be illegal for the UC system to divest from companies doing business with Israel.”
Others still held to their support of the resolution, such as fourth-year Mustafa Sabha, who believes that it is immoral to support the occupation of Palestine in any way even though he could benefit from it personally.
“For me, I made a personal choice not to look for jobs that have anything to do with defense or have anything to do with investment in Israel,” Sabha said. “And that’s a personal choice for me because I’m a student with morals. I understand that anybody who tries to work for these companies is also helping in the cause of demolishing homes, helping the cause in making the daily lives of a Palestinian harder than it already is and I like to think that UCI has morals too.”
Others in the audience supported Sabha’s views and argued that divestment from companies that support Israel was just because of human rights violations committed by Israel. This included fourth-year Abdul Youssef who supports the resolution because he believes Israel should not get special treatment and that there should be consequences for companies that invest in Israel.
“I hope no one here supports committing human right violations. And just because Israel is involved doesn’t mean that we should just ignore it. Israel is not better than any country. Just because these companies happen to be helping Israel commit human rights violations rather than any other country doesn’t give legitimacy to opposing the legislation,” Youssef said.
Others such as fourth-year student Deenal Pinoui argued that the resolution that was passed does not attack Israel directly and that it is not an attack on Israel’s sovereignty.
“The legislation does not call for the end of Israel, nor the end of relations with Israel unilaterally. It calls for not partaking in human rights violations, not partaking in the illegal occupation of the Palestinian people. We are talking about not affiliating our campus, ourselves with over 147 resolutions that have been violated by the state of Israel,” Pinoui said.
The bulk of the audience was divided over the legislation because of how they sided on the issue of Israel and Palestine. However, there were also calls for the Council to remain neutral on the subject of the Israeli-Palestinian issue because some students do not hold an opinion, while others feared a polarized campus. The Legislative Council did not make a final decision on R48-15 and will come to a decision at a later time.
Filed Under: Featured Big • News
Awesome. Support an end to apartheid!
In the interest of full disclosure, the Muslim Brotherhood affiliatated MSU thugs behind this smear campaign are a notorious propaganda mouthpiece for Hamas terrorists.
Recall also, in a 6 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law that makes it a crime for Americans to provide “material support” of any kind (be it in the form of cash, weaponry, training, personnel, services, or “expert advice or assistance”) to a foreign terrorist organization, even if that support is for (ostensibly) peaceful purposes.
Hamas would be one such example. It conducts terrorist attacks against Israel with one part of its organization while spitting propaganda lies with another. Overseas propaganda campaigns allow Hamas to not have to spend propaganda funds for its terrorist activities.
Upcoming Congressional hearings will undoubtedly focus the spotlight on Muslim Brotherhood affiliated MSU terrorism enablers. For those interested in a fuller disclosure of the MSU-Irvine, read their dossier @ http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Israel/Anti-Semitism+at+UC+Irvine.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_2
So, thanks once again to SJP Hamas propagandists for making it easier for Obama’s NSA to track your activities and Holder’s Justice Department to prosecute your material support propaganda campaign.
And good luck finding a job with “terrorism enabler” emblazened on all of your Legislative Council member resumes.
I was a student who was at the last two public Legislative Council meetings after the Council passed the resolution, and I can definitely say that while there were a good number of students who expressed their support for the divestment resolution, a good number also expressed their concerns and, quite frankly, open contempt for it.
I believe the issue here, personally as a student who really has no personal connections to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, is that this legislation was passed without the proper amount of discourse it should have had while it was in its drafting stages. We cannot say that this resolution had a “majority” of students supporting it when the actual majority of students had no idea this was being drafted – hence the surprised response from many members of the Jewish student community and the continued apathy of other students in regards to this issue.
The student government, particularly the student representatives, they have an incredibly difficult task reconciling the wants and needs of the majority while making sure all members of the student body are represented, notified, and taken care of as well. In the case of this divestment resolution, we saw very little public discourse – hardly anyone outside of those putting together the resolution knew about it until it was put to vote. Especially in this case, which affects individuals of student communities that have very strong campus presences, it is troubling to see that many had not known about this resolution.
Calling for divestment and championing human rights may sound all good, but the issue for the UCI student body, and democratic discourse in general, was the lack of this discourse, and the end result is a resolution that divides students; absolutely does not foster an inclusive campus community; and isolates the students from the administration further by calling on them to do something that is against their own policy.
“The bulk of the audience was divided”? Really? Could we get specific numbers? In light of the recent hostilities in the region, a majority of students expressed strong support for divesting from companies that support the Israeli military.