Concern Over Berkeley Vote for Divestment
By Josh Nathan-Kazis March 24, 2010
UPDATE: U.C. Berkeley’s student body president has vetoed the divestment bill. Read an updated version of this story here.
In a rare campus victory for proponents of divestment efforts targeting Israel, the student senate at the University of California, Berkeley approved a resolution calling on the school to divest from corporations deemed to support the Israeli military, the West Bank separation barrier and settlement building.
The resolution, which passed by a vote of 16-4 in the early morning hours of March 18, specifically called for divestment from General Electric and United Technologies, “because of their military support of the occupation of the Palestinian territories.” It also created a committee to suggest additional companies as targets of future divestment.
While the Berkeley campus has a lingering reputation
as an activist hotbed, a legacy from the 1960s, and has seen some high-profile pro-Palestinian protests over the past decade, the lopsided student senate vote makes clear that the divestment resolution’s proponents succeeded in reaching beyond campus radicals to more politically mainstream students. Two Jewish senators from the student government (the Associated Students of the University of California, Berkeley) who opposed the resolution said that its supporters sold it as a measure not against Israel, but against the funding of war crimes in general.
“The language of the bill changed the argument from one’s stance on Israel to one’s stance on war crimes,” said Noah Stern, a Jewish member of the student senate who voted against the bill.
The Berkeley resolution comes at a time of growing consternation within the pro-Israel community over the global movement calling for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel, or BDS. The BDS movement has attempted to paint Israel as a human rights violator akin to apartheid South Africa. An earlier draft of the bill used the word “apartheid” to describe Israeli actions, but that language was stripped from the version that the senate ultimately adopted.
The Berkeley vote has been condemned by pro-Israel groups, which see it as an unwelcome development.
“It’s something to be concerned about,” said Rabbi Steve Gutow, president and CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. “You don’t let footholds get started.”
The University of California is not bound by the resolution, but it does apply to the student government’s own funds. One of the bill’s sponsors said he did not know whether the student government actually has investments in either of the cited companies.
The ASUC’s president, Will Smelko, has the power to veto the resolution until March 24. Smelko did not respond to requests for comment.
Supporters of the bill stressed that it was not a call for divestment from all companies that do business with Israel.
“I supported the bill because I wanted the U.C. to divest from war crimes,” said Jonathan Gaurano, a member of the student senate and one of the bill’s sponsors. “It’s not like we were planning, oh, you know, let’s just attack Israel. Nothing of that nature.”
Senators who voted for the bill cited what they called a tradition within the student government of supporting divestment from countries accused of human rights violations. One student senator compared the bill to the ASUC’s decision to divest from South Africa in the 1980s.
“If you look at the bill on its own, it does focus on Israel and Palestine, but I view it as standing together with all the bills we’ve passed formerly on these issues,” said Emily Carlton, a student senator and a bill sponsor. “I saw it not as Israel versus Palestine, but a few specific acts that the Israeli government committed that are internationally recognized war crimes.”
The bill, titled “A Bill In Support of UC Divestment From War Crimes,” cites Israel’s blockade of Gaza, the construction of settlements in the West Bank and a specific alleged incident during Israel’s 2009 invasion of Gaza. It creates a committee to find additional companies from which to divest because of their actions in the Israeli-Palestinian sphere to identify, as per the bill’s final paragraph, with identifying “companies aiding war crimes throughout the world, such as those taking place in Morocco, the Congo, and other places.”
“They threw in two random countries… without any citations or factual support,” said Stern, who is currently running for ASUC president. “That in my mind clarified the fact that this was about Israel, this wasn’t about war crimes.”
“I think they were just trying to write an anti-Israel bill when they were trying to make it seem about war crimes,” said Sandra Cohen, another Jewish senator who opposed the bill. “It wasn’t about war crimes.”
A third Jewish senator voted for the bill.
The bill was revised and gained supporters over the course of the six-hour debate. An early version, published in the minutes of the previous week’s senate meeting, included language, some of which was ultimately removed, that was broadly critical of Israel’s actions in the West Bank and treatment of Palestinians living inside Israel. While the early version of the bill made extensive reference to the Goldstone Report, the final version did not mention the controversial United Nations-sponsored report on the Gaza military campaign. Instead, it cited publications by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights and others.
In the end, members of Student Action, the more politically moderate of the two parties that dominate the ASUC, split over the bill.
“I think that some of the senators really believe that it was anti-war crime. And so who wouldn’t be against war crimes?” Cohen said.
So many students and other observers attended the marathon debate that ended in the passage of the bill that the venue of the meeting had to be changed to accommodate the crowd. Some 80 individuals reportedly spoke during the meeting, which finally concluded with a vote at 4 a.m.
“Many of the students, when it was over, they had a real sense of defeat and a real sadness,” said Adam Naftalin-Kelman, executive director of the Berkeley Hillel. “Some of them were devastated. Some of them left the room crying, even though they were prepared that it potentially would pass.”
Naftalin-Kelman, who says that Berkeley Hillel found out about the bill only days before the vote, said that he was planning to meet with the president of the U.C. system and with Berkeley’s chancellor.
The university press office at Berkeley did not respond to a request for comment.
“The BDS campaign has never been successful in having a school or university divest from Israel, or cease doing business in Israel, and we as a committee will continue to insure that that never happens,” said Stephen Kuperberg, executive director of the Israel on Campus Coalition, a national Hillel-sponsored alliance of pro-Israel groups. Still, Kuperberg allowed that the Berkeley resolution was “cause for concern.”
Berkeley is not the first campus where the student government has adopted an Israel-related divestment resolution, but it is the highest profile campus to do so. In February, the student government at the University of Michigan’s campus in Dearborn — a major Arab-American population center — passed a non-biding resolution calling on the University of Michigan to divest from companies involved in Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.
The Berkeley vote came two weeks after the student government at the University of California, Irvine passed a resolution voicing its opposition to academic sanctions against students who disrupted Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren’s speech on that campus in February. Jewish students angered by the vote later addressed the senate, each in turn concluding their speeches with the phrase, “When will this student government stand up for me?”
Contact Josh Nathan-Kazis at [email protected]
A message from our Publisher & CEO Rachel Fishman Feddersen
I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s award-winning, nonprofit journalism during this critical time.
We’ve set a goal to raise $260,000 by December 31. That’s an ambitious goal, but one that will give us the resources we need to invest in the high quality news, opinion, analysis and cultural coverage that isn’t available anywhere else.
If you feel inspired to make an impact, now is the time to give something back. Join us as a member at your most generous level.
— Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO
