BDS and Anti-Semitism Live
2-27-2015
It was only last July that I spoke to you about Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions resolution that was overwhelming passed by the National Council of the Presbyterian Church of USA at their national conclave in Detroit.
Or May of 2013 where I shared with you about the widening academic boycott of Israeli professors and universities. Followed by the American Studies Association who enacted a similar boycott in December 2013, the same month that Swarthmore Hillel voted itself an “Open Hillel” in defiance of the parent organization, welcoming speakers who would have anti-Zionist views.
Along the way Wesleyan University, Oberlin College, DePaul University, Evergreen State College, UC Irvine, UC Berkeley, UC Riverside, UC San Diego, UCLA, and UC Davis have all passed Israel divestment resolutions.
And the latest in this long line of university student initiated divestment actions is Stanford where the student government passed a measure that calls on Stanford to “divest from companies that violate international humanitarian law.”
The resolution was proposed by the Stanford Out of Occupied Palestine campus organization in the wake of last summer’s conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Student Senate Chair Ana Ordonez supported the measure.
We have a problem on our college campuses.
The Stanford resolution specifically calls on the university to divest from companies that violate international humanitarian law by: “Maintaining the illegal infrastructure of the Israeli occupation, in particular settlements and separation wall, which includes companies like Veolia, Transdev, and Elbit Systems; Facilitating Israel and Egypt’s collective punishment of Palestinian civilians, which includes companies like Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Eaton Corp; and Facilitating state repression against Palestinians by Israeli, Egyptian or Palestinian Authority security forces, which includes companies like Combined Tactical Systems and G4S.
As a “compromise” a revamped resolution disassociated the call for divestment from any official Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.
Small comfort. BDS is BDS, whether it is movement sanctioned or not.
Those of us who care about Israel are well warned to pay attention to these movements on university campuses across our country.
Many of us, myself included, are from generations that stand by Israel because we know what it is like to be in a world where there is no place of refuge for Jews to go.
We remember the arc of history, including the devastation, still affecting our daily being, of the destruction of one-third of our people in the Shoah.
I am not arguing that Israel is perfect. Far from it.
I am arguing, as I have time and again here and elsewhere, the world, the Middle East, and western democracies all need Israel.
What the BDS resolutions fail to recognize is, in large part, a by-product years of anti-Israel propaganda.
Another research finding:
More than half of today’s American Jewish college students have witnessed or experienced an anti-Semitic incident, according to a new study. Some 54 percent of the participants in the survey released Monday by the Louis D. Brandeis Center and Trinity College said they had experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism within the past academic year. The survey was conducted in the spring of 2014, prior to the outbreak of hostilities last summer in Gaza.
Students who affiliate with the Conservative and Reform movements were more likely to report such experiences than Orthodox students, with 69 percent of Conservative students, 62 percent of Reform students and 52 percent of Orthodox students responding that they had reported anti-Semitic encounters. Those who said they were always open about their Jewishness on campus were about as likely to have encountered anti-Semitism as those who said they were never open about their Jewishness, at 58 percent and 59 percent, respectively.
The findings were broadly consistent with a 2011 survey of college students in the United Kingdom, which found that 51 percent of students reported experiencing or witnessing an anti-Semitic incident.
Here’s another recent development:
At a UCLA Undergraduate Students Association Council (USAC) meeting on February 10, council members questioned UCLA Judicial Board candidate Rachel Beyda’s qualifications for the position and specifically her ability to represent students’ interests impartially in light of her Jewish identity and affiliation with the Jewish community. While council members ultimately unanimously approved her appointment, this line of questioning also highlights the existence of anti-Semitism and bias on college campuses.
The condemnation by the larger UCLA community was swift. In an editorial, the student paper the Daily Bruin wrote: “Religious affiliations and ethnic identity should not and do not disqualify someone from being an effective judge.” Her roommate described what happened at the meeting and called it “undeniable anti-Semitism.
“Several council members asserted that while Beyda was more than qualified for the role, they were uncomfortable appointing her to the position specifically because cases related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can come before the board, and they felt that Beyda would not be able to judge such cases fairly.
“And yet, in recent years, the only case related to the topic that went before the board had to do with the issue of council members’ Israel trips, which is unrelated to the conflict itself. Not to mention that it is not the purpose of the Judicial Board to rule on cases related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only on cases related to “cases of actions taken among the officers, commissioners and funding bodies to ensure compliance with the (USAC constitution) and bylaws.
“It is obvious that the objections to Beyda’s appointment are not only political, but also discriminatory. To hold an applicant to a standard higher than others simply because of his or her ethnic or religious identity instead of his or her ability to rule fairly in accordance with USAC regulations is illogical and immoral.”
Ten days following the meeting, four USAC members who participated in the discussion issued an open apology to the Jewish community in the Daily Bruin. In the statement, the students indicated: “Our intentions were never to attack, insult or delegitimize the identity of an individual or people. It is our responsibility as elected officials to maintain a position of fairness, exercise justness, and represent the Bruin community to the best of our abilities, and we are truly sorry for any words used during this meeting that suggested otherwise.”
Too little, too late.
The editorial is referring to a resolution to divest from companies doing business in the West Bank failed last spring at UCLA. At that time, a vicious campaign to discredit two of the student council members who voted against it ensued. Students for Justice in Palestine (“SJP”) initiated efforts to nullify the two students’ votes because of their participation on trips to Israel sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League and American Jewish Committee. In this situation, just being Jewish was enough to raise questions about a conflict of interest.
Eventually, the Judicial Board of the UCLA Undergraduate Students Association Council ruled that there was no conflict of interest. By the way, this is the same board that Rachel Beyda was appointed to serve on.
Still.
Forethought would have been nice.
This incident did not occur in a vacuum. Rather, it follows on the heels of the introduction of a number of anti-Israel divestment resolutions into student governments throughout the UC system (including at UCLA where such a resolution passed last November) and on campuses around the country.
Most recently, the statewide panel that represents student governments across the University of California voted this month to urge that UC end any investments in companies that aid in the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.
It is up to us to remain informed on what is happening at our colleges and universities, here in Vermont and across the country. Israel’s vulnerabilities persist in the absence of our voices affirming her right to exist.
It reminds me of a line from Pirke Avot, in the Mishna which says, “It is not our job to finish the task. Neither are you free to abstain from it.” We are alive, here and now, and we must continue to what we can to, whenever possible, present positive portrayals of Israel’s tremendous accomplishments.
No one ever said that starting a new country was easy.
No one ever said being surrounded on all sides by threats was easy.
Still, there is great value in having Israel in the world and we will do what we can to ensure her survival.
