On March 18, continuing a long tradition of pioneering human rights campaigns, the Senate of the Associated Students of the University of California, Berkeley (ASUC) passed "A Bill In Support of UC Divestment from War Crimes." The historic bill resolves to divest ASUC's assets from two American companies, General Electric and United Technologies, that are "materially and militarily supporting the Israeli government's occupation of the Palestinian territories" -- and to advocate that the UC, with about $135 million invested in companies that profit from Israel's illegal actions in the Occupied Territories, follow suit.
Although the bill passed by a vote of 16-4 after a packed and intense debate, the President of the Senate vetoed the bill six days later. The Senate is expected to reconsider the bill soon; groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace are asking supporters of the bill to send letters to the Senators, who can overturn the veto with only 14 votes.
Here is the letter I just sent:
Dear members of the ASUC Senate, I am writing to urge you to reaffirm Senate Bill 118A, despite the recent presidential veto.
It comes as no surprise that you are under intense pressure to reverse your historic and democratic decision to divest from two companies that profit from Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory. When a school with a deserved reputation for academic excellence and moral leadership takes such a bold position, it threatens to inspire others to take their own stands.
Indeed, Berkeley -- the campus and the wider community -- has provided this kind of leadership on many key issues in the past: not only apartheid in South Africa but also sweatshops in Indonesia, dictatorship in Burma, political killings in Nigeria, and the list goes on. Time and again, when the call for international solidarity has come from people denied a political voice, Berkeley has been among the first to answer. And in virtually every case, what began as a small action in a progressive community quickly spread across the country and around the world.
Your recent divestment bill opposing Israeli war crimes stands to have this same kind of global impact, helping to build a grassroots, non-violent movement to end Israel's violations of international law. And this is precisely what your opponents -- by spreading deliberate lies about your actions -- are desperately trying to prevent. They are even going so far as to claim that, in the future, there should be no divestment campaigns that target a specific country, a move that would rob activists of one of the most effective tools in the non-violent arsenal. Please don't give into this pressure; too much is on the line.
As the world has just witnessed with the Netanyahu government's refusal to stop its illegal settlement expansion, political pressure is simply not enough to wrench Israel off its current disastrous path. And when our governments fail to apply sanctions for defiant illegality, other forms of pressure must come into play, including targeting those corporations that are profiting directly from human rights abuses.
Whenever we take a political action, we open ourselves up to accusations of hypocrisy and double standards, since the truth is that we can never do enough in the face of pervasive global injustice. Yet to argue that taking a clear stand against Israeli war crimes is somehow to "discriminate unfairly" against Israelis and Jews (as the veto seems to claim) is to grossly pervert the language of human rights. Far from "singling out Israel," with Senate Bill 118A, you are acting within Berkeley's commendable and inspiring tradition.
I understand that there is some debate about whether or not your divestment bill was adopted "in haste." Not having been there, I cannot comment on your process, though I am deeply impressed by the careful research that went into the decision. I also know that in 2005 an extraordinarily broad range of Palestinian civil society groups called on activists around the world to adopt precisely these kinds of peaceful pressure tactics. In the years since that call, we have all watched as Israeli abuses have escalated dramatically: the attack on Lebanon in the summer of 2006, a massive expansion of illegal settlements and walls, an ongoing siege on Gaza that violates all prohibitions on collective punishment, and, worst of all, the 2008/9 attack on Gaza that left approximately 1,400 dead.
I would humbly suggest that when it comes to acting to end Israeli war crimes, the international response has not suffered from too much haste but from far too little. This is a moment of great urgency, and the world is watching.
Be brave.
Yours sincerely,
Naomi Klein
Leon T. Hadar: No Tea Parties for "Bibi"
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's arrival in Washington shortly after President Barack Obama's victory on health care reform had both symbolic significance and practical implications for the Likud leader.
I can't believe that posters here do not see the parallel motives
Those who have not seen the evidence of Israeli crimes should read Illan Pappe's 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine' for a full account.
The only thing those in power seemingly grasp is money. If you hit them in their pocketbooks, you might stand a chance at making a difference.
the solution, if one exists at all, is not divestment from the israel or castigation of the P.A. because of policies we don't like, it's investment in the promotion of policies we prefer among both israelis and palestinians. a starting point to actually achieving something meaningful would be everyone accepting the maxim that this problem is a lot more complicated than we think it is.
Is it their treatment of women? I certainly thought the women in Israel had more going for them than the Arabs.and Iran done to gain so much support f
Is it religion? The ruling governments?
I had much rather live in Israel than any of the Arab countries or Iran but then again I did not attend Berkley
The proposition is concerned with investments in companies that do business with Israel and not anywhere else.
Perhaps you have knowledge of the levels of investment that Berkly has in companies that do business with those regimes that you dislike? In which case, perhaps you might want to draw the attention of that campus to those investments.
One thing at a time.
Why is not plea to stop investment that do business with Arab countries and any country whose purpose is to wipe Israel from the map.
At one time we fought for individual rights, women's rights, minorities etc. But now Berkley is condeming the country that gives more rights to their people and backs the countries where women and anyone outside of their race and religion is considered an enemy
How nice of Berkley and Naomi
"False"
"Equivalence"
But I do not think the average Fox viewer cares one way or the other about Berkley. Though there was some interest when students were complaining about the rising cost of tuition. Have not heard much about the spike in tuition lately. Maybe it is considered treason for democrats to complain when they control the presidency, the house, and the senate
.
Only wish that more people had a conscience. When Good is presented as evil and Evil is presented as good, you truly know that there is a need for truth.
Tx.
Way to go, Naomi. You rock.
http://www.jewishjournal.com/nation/page3/uc_berkeley_student_president_vetoes_divest-from-israel_resolution_20100325/
This is part of the neocon strategy called "starve the beast." Essentially the supposedly fiscally responsible right-wingers leave gigantic deficits (which Republican administration has not, Federally?), then attack otherwise too-popular-to-touch programs because "Hey! We can't afford that!" Why else would Bush 43 have run as our savior from terrorism, then began his second administration by trying to privatize Social Security?
One additional bit of business: The meme widely publicized is that California has been over-spending ("like a drunken sailor"). The truth: Per-capita spending has increased insignificantly once you adjust for inflation. See http://www.laprogressive.com/political-issues/california-political-issues/mcclintocks-neocon-morality-tortures-the-truth/.
Taxes are what's changed. Local governments lost 57% of their revenues in the wake of Proposition 13, and the state stepped in to backfill for this lost revenue. (Now the neocons complain of too much state interference in local politics).