ASUCD Passes Resolution in Support of Divestment From Israel; Katehi Issues Statement in Opposition

mrak-hall

On Thursday evening, the ASUCD Senate voted to pass Senate Resolution #9 by an 8-2-2 vote. The text calls for the UC Board of Regents to divest from “corporations that aid in the Israeli occupation of Palestine and illegal settlements in Palestinian territories, violating both international humanitarian law and international human rights.”

Back in May 2014, ASUCD voted down a similar resolution. ASUCD formally recommends the UC Regents to divest from American companies Caterpillar Inc., G4S PLC, Veolia Environment and Raytheon.

“Over 550 UC Davis students, staff and faculty members attended the senate meeting, which was called to order at 8:57 p.m. in the Sciences Lecture Hall 123,” according to an Cal Aggie report. “At approximately 9:10 p.m., after introduction speeches from both supporting and opposing sides of the bill, Aggies for Israel President Julia Reifkind called upon the anti-divestment crowd to participate in a walk-out of the meeting, causing most of those opposed to the bill — about a third of the attendees — to leave.”

UC Davis joins UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC San Diego and UC Riverside as UC schools to pass Israeli Divestment resolutions through their student governments.

Yesterday morning Chancellor Linda Katehi issued a statement. She wrote, “Last evening the ASUCD Senate passed a resolution urging the UC Board of Regents to divest from four corporations that, according to the resolution, ‘aid in the Israeli occupation of Palestine.’”

She stressed, “This, however, does not reflect the position of UC Davis or the University of California system. The investment policy for the University of California system, including UC Davis, is set by the UC Board of Regents. The Board and Office of the President issued a statement regarding student resolutions that urge the Board to divest from companies doing business with Israel. The statement reiterates the Board’s position that this type of call to action will not be entertained.”

Chancellor Katehi continues, “We recognize that this is a sensitive topic for many on our campus, one that is very personal and emotional. It is for this reason that we must exercise sensitivity, restraint and respect in relation to the issue. Prior to the debate last night, those in attendance were reminded of our Principles of Community. We affirmed the right to freedom of expression, but also affirmed our commitment to the highest standards of civility and decency toward all.”

She writes, “A renowned international university, UC Davis manages academic and research programs across the globe and is home to a community of faculty, researchers and students from everywhere in the world. We believe that our shared goals of teaching, learning and serving the needs of society, in a climate of justice marked by respect for each other, will help us build a strong community of learning and fulfill our mission of educating the leaders of tomorrow and producing and disseminating knowledge.”

In May of 2010 the UC Board of Regents, including then-Chair Russell Gould and Vice Chair Sherry Lansing along with President Mark Yudof, issued the following statement:

“Recently, there have been two bills put forward for a vote before student organizations within the University of California that call on the University to divest from companies doing business with Israel. Understandably, these bills have received considerable attention from the public and the media.

“The overarching question of the University of California divesting from any company is a complex one and any action considered must conform to State and federal laws, as well as to the University’s fiduciary responsibilities as a public entity to protect the security of its pension and endowment funds. In 2005, the Regents stated that a policy of divestment from a foreign government shall be adopted by the University only when the United States government declares that a foreign regime is committing acts of genocide. It was also noted at the time that divestment is a serious decision that should be rarely pursued.

“We share The Regents’ belief that divestment needs to be undertaken with caution. We firmly believe that if there is to be any discussion of divestment from a business or country, it must be robust and fair-minded. We must take great care that no one organization or country is held to a different standard than any other. In the current resolutions voted on by the UC student organizations, the State of Israel and companies doing business with Israel have been the sole focus. This isolation of Israel among all countries of the world greatly disturbs us and is of grave concern to members of the Jewish community.

“We fully support the Board of Regents in its policy to divest from a foreign government or companies doing business with a foreign government only when the United States government declares that a foreign regime is committing acts of genocide. The U.S. has not made any declaration regarding the State of Israel and, therefore, we will not bring a recommendation before the Board to divest from companies doing business with the State of Israel.”

—David M. Greenwald reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

70 Comments

      1. Miwok

        I posted the one below (I messed up) because of this statement in the link:

        The company is targeted for divestment because it provides bulldozers to the United States government that are then re-sold to the government of Israel and utilized by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).

        Like suing Toyota because ISIL uses them, this seemed to be the leap of logic, so I went to this site because it also celebrates the newest Caterpillar dealer in the West Bank. THEY seem to know it is the hands running things, not the brand of equipment used that is at fault. It if said “Komatsu” on the Dozer, would ASUCD be protesting them?

        In short, we need to thank ASUCD for cutting back job opportunities for the graduating classes coming up.

    1. Miwok

      A visitor to the West Bank today is much more likely to see Caterpillar equipment being used to build homes and essential infrastructure for Palestinians than to witness demolitions. There is no evidence of a systematic campaign to deprive Palestinians of places to live. If there is a secret Israeli plan to do so, it is a spectacular failure.
      While the idea of divestment of Caterpillar stock is a focal point of BDS advocates, Palestinian construction contractors have no apparent issue purchasing and using Caterpillar equipment, and we know of no effort on the part of the Palestinian Authority, Palestinian construction companies, or Palestinian construction workers to boycott Caterpillar products. Why then, should the PCUSA divest their Caterpillar stock?

      http://www.pfmep.org/addressing-the-issues/110-facts-on-caterpillar-tractor

      1. dlmandel

        Just today, Ha’aretz published this report on the demolition of homes that housed more than 1,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank in 2014. The policy is accelerating, if anything. And that’s not mentioning the 100,000 or so Gazans who remain homeless from the shelling and bombing last summer. I don’t know if it happened this time, but in the 2008-09 Gaza invasion, Israel used militarized Cat bulldozers to destroy buildings there.

        Aside from that, it’s really quite irrelevant that Palestinians deal with corporations that need to be boycotted. In most cases, they have little choice, as Israel controls the import and export of all goods.  The point is that Palestinian civil society has called on us to boycott and divest, a very clear message that people of conscience need to observe.

  1. Tia Will

    “We fully support the Board of Regents in its policy to divest from a foreign government or companies doing business with a foreign government only when the United States government declares that a foreign regime is committing acts of genocide. The U.S. has not made any declaration regarding the State of Israel and, therefore, we will not bring a recommendation before the Board to divest from companies doing business with the State of Israel.”

    Given that this is the position of the Board of Regents, rejection of a call to divest at this time is clearly appropriate. However, that does not mean that I believe that Ms. Katehi “got it right”.

    She stated in part “in a climate of justice marked by respect for each other”.

    These are nice words, however, I am quite sure that students on campus whose families are both peaceful and negatively affected by what they view as the illegal occupation and settlement by Israel of what they consider Palestinian lands feel that there interests  are being considered in this “climate of justice” or that “respect” is being shown for their situation.

    No where did I see any statement about the desirability of “lobbing missiles into Israel” so I must assume that this comment was just tossed in to be provocative.

  2. Barack Palin

    No where did I see any statement about the desirability of “lobbing missiles into Israel” so I must assume that this comment was just tossed in to be provocative.

    No where did you see a statement from the ASUCD condemning the killing and terrorism being perpetuated by the Palestinians lobbing rockets into Israel either.

  3. Tia Will

    No where did you see a statement from the ASUCD condemning the killing and terrorism being perpetuated by the Palestinians lobbing rockets into Israel either.

    Nor would I have expected to since that was not the topic of the resolution. I am quite sure that if someone wanted to mount a similar resolution favoring divestment from firms doing business in the Gaza strip, they are free to do so, and would probably meet with the same result.

    I just think it is ridiculous to expect that advocates of a given position would, in their resolution, be expected to provide arguments favorable to the other side. This would be akin to expecting that the Westboro Baptist Church would in addition to their anti homosexual diatribes  also hold up signs saying “but it’s ok if you really want to” decorated with rainbows.

     

    1. Barack Palin

      Or one could say it would be akin to the ASUCD asking for divestment from the United States because we invaded Afghanistan  but overlooking the fact that a terrorist attack was launched on the U.S. by forces that are based in Afghanistan.

    2. hpierce

      “This would be akin to expecting that the Westboro Baptist Church would in addition to their anti homosexual diatribes  also hold up signs saying “but it’s ok if you really want to” decorated with rainbows.”

      Interesting analogy:  Sentence structure equates Westboro Baptist Church, who believe that homosexuality is  immoral/unjust with those who have offered “diatribes” and want economic sanctions against the Government of Israel for actions they assert are immoral/unjust.   Spot on comparison.

      Now had the resolution for the Regents to support a call for the UN to investigate the violations of international law/human rights, as asserted, instead of economic sanctions…

  4. Frankly

    Ugly Anti-Semitism on the rise again throughout the world.  And here in the US you would think that we would never see it again especially with anything connected with our state institutions of higher learning.

    This is just another sign of terrorists corruptively exploiting the mechanisms of Western democracy to advance their sorry Medieval theocratic worldview.  And they are aided and abetted by Western liberals afflicted with a save-the-victim obsession void of rational considerations about the negative long-term consequences.

    We have seen this before and it did not end well.

    I guess the lesson here is that hate is sanctioned as long as the hated are qualified by the Western liberal playbook.

          1. David Greenwald

            Even if liberal Jews did disagree on Israeli policies with Obama and the Democrats, which is probably more split than you think, it would be hard to reconcile their views on every other issue. So you’re basically expecting American Liberal Jews to be single voters. And frankly speaking as one of them, I’m a strong proponent of a two state solution and a strong opponent of current Israeli policies.

        1. Barack Palin

          In 2006 87% of Jews voted for Democrats, in 2014 that dropped down to 66% for a loss of 21%.  Obama’s anti-Israel policies are having an effect.  Maybe they are getting smarter?

          1. David Greenwald

            Or maybe a different population voted in 2014 as 2012.

            Seventy percent of American Jews voted for Barack Obama. The result is in line with the 74 percent support he received in 2008, and the 70 percent average support Democratic presidential candidates have received since exit polling began in 1972.

            Source

      1. Barack Palin

        In 2006 87% of Jews voted Democrat, in 2008 74% of Jews voted for Obama, in 2012 that fell to 69%, in the 2014 elections it slipped further as only 66% of Jews voted for Democrats.  An obvious pattern is starting to form here and it can only be attributed to Obama’s anti-Israel policies.

    1. Don Shor

      This is just another sign of terrorists corruptively exploiting the mechanisms of Western democracy to advance their sorry Medieval theocratic worldview. And they are aided and abetted by Western liberals afflicted with a save-the-victim obsession void of rational considerations about the negative long-term consequences.

      Never much room for nuance in your thinking, is there?

      1. Frankly

        If I thought that by demanding that Israel pull back from its settlement development into the West Bank would do a damn thing to help the Palestinians and would not simply result in more territory for terrorists to lob rockets into Israel, I could get behind pressure to force them to pull back.

        But anybody that knows the history of Palestinian behavior, assuming they are honest and not directly or indirectly aiding and abetting terrorists, would have to agree that anything less than the complete destruction of Israel would never satisfy them… and even after this they would turn their attention on other targets of the West as being responsible for their misery.

        Palestinian misery is self-induced.  And Western liberals only serve to prevent the needed introspection by supporting a dysfunctional and irrational “blame the Jews” campaign.

        1. Don Shor

          Israel’s settlement policy is (choose one):
          illegal (all American administrations except Reagan; most international bodies including the parties to the Geneva Convention);
          an obstacle to peace (Ronald Reagan, contradicting his own State Department).
          In any event, it is not unreasonable to pressure the Israeli government to stop their settlement policy and return to peace negotiations. I have no illusions about the competency of the leadership of Hamas or the PA, but expanding the settlements is certainly not enhancing the prospects for peace.
          I don’t think disinvestment would accomplish anything. But Israel is a client state of the US, benefitting from our military defense supplies and lots of money from us. So we have a stake in their behavior.

        2. Frankly

          Israel’s settlement policy is (choose one):
          illegal

          A useless nuance with respect to national security and to combat terrorism.  You think terrorist give a damn about the legality of an action?  Is shooting rockets and killing innocent Israelis ON PURPOSE a legal act?  Or do you forgive the Palestinians for this because they are “victims”. The people of Palestine elected a terrorist organization to lead them.  There are not any innocent Palestinians as a result.

          an obstacle to peace

          Classic flawed thinking of the Western left.  The settlements are only a convenient proxy. Israel has pulled out of Palestinian territory as was the first demand that their occupancy of Gaza and the West Bank was the obstacle to peace… and now the Palestinians and Western liberals just moved the goal posts again.

          And so it goes and goes until we get to the REAL objective… to delegitimize the state of Israel and wipe it off the map.

          And then the goal posts would only be moved again… probably to wipe all Jews off the map.

          Anti-Semitism is a social, political and psychological sickness.  The cure is to label those afflicted with it as haters and insure they are the ones marginalized and not the peope of Israel.

          1. Don Shor

            an obstacle to peace

            Classic flawed thinking of the Western left.

            Every American President disagrees with you.

        3. Frankly

          First, the building of new homes in existing settlements beyond the main West Bank security fence has slowed significantly.   Second, Jews occupied these disputed West Bank lands before 1948.   Third, these lands (approximately 1000 acres) had been identified in negotiations as land Israel would keep swapping for different lands it would give up… including the land in Gaza that it did give up.

          Palestinians and their Islamist cohorts are just pissed that they cannot claim Jerusalem.  And the corrupt leaders of the broken cultures of Muslim tribes have just enflamed populist anger at Israel to deflect from their own failures and thievery.

          American Presidents often just say what is politically convenient while working with their friends to defeat their mutual enemies.  It is the selection of friends and enemies that holds the real honest truth.

          1. Don Shor

            American Presidents often just say what is politically convenient

            You will literally say anything, regardless of factual basis, to support your ideological framework. The Israeli settlement policy contravenes US foreign policy as explicitly stated, repeatedly, by American presidents.

            It is the selection of friends and enemies that holds the real honest truth.

            This is a particularly preposterous statement in the context of US foreign policy in the Middle East.

            The Obama Administration
            “With respect to settlements, the President was very clear when Prime Minister Netanyahu was here. He wants to see a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions. We think it is in the best interests of the effort that we are engaged in that settlement expansion cease. That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly, not only to the Israelis but to the Palestinians and others. And we intend to press that point.”
            Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton in a joint press conference with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Ali Aboul Gheit – May 28, 2009

            “…Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward. That’s a difficult issue. I recognize that, but it’s an important one and it has to be addressed.”
            President Barack Obama in a press conference with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel – May 18, 2009

            The George W. Bush Administration
            “[T]hey should not be expanding the settlements. There should not be expansion of the settlements and outposts should be removed.”
            Sean McCormack, Spokesman, Daily Press Briefing – September 7, 2006

            “Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudice final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Therefore, Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion.”
            President George W. Bush speaking with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas – May 26, 2005

            “I would say that we continue — our policy continues to be that Israel should freeze settlement construction.”
            Daily Press Briefing by Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman – December 31, 2003

            “Settlement activity must stop. And it has not stopped to our satisfaction.”
            Secretary Colin Powell – September 21, 2003

            “Our position on settlements, I think, has been very consistent, very clear. The secretary expressed it not too long ago. He said settlement activity has severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope, preempts and prejudges the outcome of negotiations, and in doing so, cripples chances for real peace and prosperity. The U.S. has long opposed settlement activity and, consistent with the report of the Mitchell Committee, settlement activity must stop.”
            Richard Boucher, U.S. Department of State – Daily Press Briefing – November 25, 2002

            “Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, consistent with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338.”
            President George W. Bush’s Rose Garden Address – April 4, 2002

            “The GOI should freeze all settlement activity, including the “natural growth” of existing settlements. The kind of security cooperation desired by the GOI cannot for long co-exist with settlement activity described very recently by the European Union as causing “great concern” and by the United States as “provocative.”
            The Mitchell Report – April 30, 2001

            The Clinton Administration
            “The Israeli people also must understand that . . . the settlement enterprise and building bypass roads in the heart of what they already know will one day be part of a Palestinian state is inconsistent with the Oslo commitment that both sides negotiate a compromise.”
            President Bill Clinton’s farewell address to the Middle East – January 7, 2001

            “We write you because we are concerned that unilateral actions, such as expansion of settlements, would be strongly counterproductive to the goal of a negotiated solution and, if carried forward, could halt progress made by the peace process over the last two decades. Such a tragic result would threaten the security of Israel, the Palestinians, friendly Arab states, and undermine U.S. interests in the Middle East.”
            Excerpt from a letter written to H.E. Benjamin Netanyahu on December 14, 1996. The letter was signed by: James A. Baker III (Former Se. of State), Zbigniew Brzezinski (Former National Security Adviser), Frank C. Carlucci (Former National Security Adviser), Lawrence S. Eagleburger (Former Sec. of State), Richard Fairbanks (Former Mid East Peace Negotiator), Brent Scowcroft (Former National Security Adviser), Robert S. Straus (Former Middle East Peace Negotiator), Cyrus R. Vance (Former Sec. of State).

            The George H.W. Bush Administration
            “Every time I have gone to Israel in connection with the peace process on each of my trips I have been met with the announcement of new settlement activity. This does violate United States policy. … I don’t think there is any greater obstacle to peace than settlement activity that continues not only unabated but at an advanced pace.”
            U.S. Secretary of State James Baker III – May 22, 1991

            “Secretary Baker was speaking for this administration, and I strongly support what he said. . .It would make a big contribution to peace if these settlements would stop. That’s what the secretary was trying to say. . .and I’m one hundred percent for him.”
            President George H.W. Bush’s response to press questions about Baker’s criticism of Israel’s settlement policy

            The Reagan Administration
            In Reagan’s view, Israeli settlement was not illegal, but merely “ill-advised” and “unnecessarily provocative.”

            The Carter Administration
            “Our position on the settlements is very clear. We do not think they are legal.”
            President Jimmy Carter

            The Ford Administration
            “Substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the convention …

            The Johnson Administration
            “By setting up civilian or quasi-civilian outposts in the occupied areas the GOI adds serious complications to the eventual task of drawing up a peace settlement. Further, the transfer of civilians to occupied areas, whether or not in settlements which are under military control, is contrary to Article 49 of the Geneva Convention…”

        4. wdf1

          Frankly:   And so it goes and goes until we get to the REAL objective… to delegitimize the state of Israel and wipe it off the map.

          And how do you logically derive that inference?  Based on Obama’s Kenyan-born Muslim faith?

        5. South of Davis

          Don wrote:

          > The Israeli settlement policy contravenes US foreign policy as

          > explicitly stated, repeatedly, by American presidents.

          I agree that Don’s quotes are accurate and every president in the last 50 years has “said” they were against the settlements.

          Yet we have continued to give Israel BILLIONS and BILLIONS in aid (basically to pay for the settlements and the military weapons that kills anyone that messes with the settlements).

          It sounds like Frankly is correct in saying “American Presidents often just say what is politically convenient” since if even one of them didn’t like what Israel was doing they could veto the next bill with aid in it.

           

        6. South of Davis

          Don wrote:

          > We also give Egypt and Pakistan billions and billions in foreign and

          > military aid, but that doesn’t mean we approve of their policies.

          If you give someone money year after year you either “approve” of what they are doing or just “don’t care” what they do.

          US Presidents want cash from Jewish Americans and Defense contractors so they continue to say what is “politically convenient” and then continue to give money to Israel (who pass a lot of it on to US Defense contractors) since it is not “politically convenient” to admit that they “don’t care”…

          If a parent in Davis gives their kids money knowing they are using it to buy drugs year after year they either “approve” of what they are doing or just “don’t care” what they do.

          Parents in Davis that don’t want the neighbors to call CPS will say what is “politically convenient” and then continue to give money to their kids who use it to buy drugs since it is not “politically convenient” to admit that they “don’t care”…

          1. Don Shor

            If you give someone money year after year you either “approve” of what they are doing or just “don’t care” what they do.

            Or we have strategic reasons for continuing the aid, even if we dislike or even deplore the actions of the government in other areas.

    2. Tia Will

      Frankly

      What boggles my mind is that you would bring out the tired trope of “victim saving” as a position of the political left in the same post in which you site Anti – Semitism. It would seem to me that the Anti-Semitism that was manifested in Europe immediately prior to and during WWII is a perfect example of when the victims ( namely the European Jews as well as many others deemed enemies by the Nazis ) did indeed need saving. You yourself have posted many times about the valor and righteousness of those who fought and died to save these victims of aggression, and rightfully so. However, you cannot seem to bring yourself to understand that there are today people whose lives are being materially harmed by the aggressive actions of Israel. So it would seem to me that you feel that certain groups of people, who when being victimized, are worthy of “saving”, but other groups who are being oppressed that are only worthy of being ignored.

      As a pacifist and true believer in the rights of all individuals to live safe and unencumbered lives, I do not support any act of aggression whether it is deemed terrorist, or whether it is sanctioned by a government. To me it makes no difference whether the aggressive action is moving in with tanks and fighter planes, or whether it is lobbing homemade missiles.It makes no difference to me whether the aggressor is a Jew or a Palestinian. If the act is to physically force others to comply with one’s own  goals, to the detriment of the other, that act is morally repugnant to me.

      1. Frankly

        Everything Israel does militarily is in self defense.  If Islamic terrorists would stop seeking to damage and destroy Israel, there would be no aggression.   Remember it was Arabs starting the wars against Israel that led to the territory acquisition by Israel.  And mainly for security reasons some of it has been retained.   But most of it was returned… and the Palestinians still spend their efforts on warfare and terrorism and not on education and economic development.

        The settlements are just a proxy for the resurging hatred of Jews.  Disgusting.

        1. Barack Palin

          You beat me to it Frankly, just about everything Israel has done was precipitated by the Palestinian’s or other terrorist actions.  Does Israel not have the right to defend themselves and put in measures to keep themselves safe?

        2. Tia Will

          The settlements are just a proxy for the resurging hatred of Jews.  Disgusting.”

          I doubt that those Palestinians who are peaceful and whose lives have been disrupted by the presence of the settlements and the restrictions of their movements as they go about the business of trying to rebuild lives and support their families would agree that the issue of the settlements is just a “proxy” any more than those confined to European ghettos would have agreed that their removal from their homes and physical confinement was “just a proxy”.

          Disgusting indeed. Regardless of who is doing the oppressing.

           

          BP

          Do not all people’s have the right to defend themselves and put in measures to keep themselves safe ? Why does this right belong to only one side of this ongoing conflict ?

        3. Don Shor

          The settlements are just a proxy for the resurging hatred of Jews. Disgusting.

          So if I oppose their settlement policy, I hate Jews, Frankly? That is ridiculous.

        4. Dave Hart

          Support for the state of Israel means nothing to normal, everyday Americans unless they have relatives living there or are part of the national security state. It may have meant something in the decade immediately after WWII if one chose not to look too closely at how Israel was created and sustained its power.

          “To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”

          – Thomas Paine, The American Crisis No. V (1776)

      2. hpierce

        ” … people whose lives are being materially harmed by the aggressive actions of Israel.”  Have to assume that you mean economic or perhaps political “material harm”.  Would hate the thought that you were of the opinion that the “material harm” caused to others by Israel comes even close to the imprisonment, often torture, and death experienced by European, innocent, Jews, gays, gypsies, etc. by Nazi Germany.

  5. Tia Will

    hpierce

    It is the act of oppression that I was speaking to, not the degree of success that one achieves in oppressing others. Of course the magnitude is different. For me, the moral principle is the same.

  6. Anon

    We must take great care that no one organization or country is held to a different standard than any other. In the current resolutions voted on by the UC student organizations, the State of Israel and companies doing business with Israel have been the sole focus. This isolation of Israel among all countries of the world greatly disturbs us and is of grave concern to members of the Jewish community.

    This is the crux of the issue, and why UC administrators are correct in making the decision they did, and why ASUCD is ethically wrong in their position.

    As a pacifist and true believer in the rights of all individuals to live safe and unencumbered lives, I do not support any act of aggression whether it is deemed terrorist, or whether it is sanctioned by a government. To me it makes no difference whether the aggressive action is moving in with tanks and fighter planes, or whether it is lobbing homemade missiles.”

    As a pacifist, you stand behind many, many soldiers who died/will die for your right to be a pacifist.  Just an observation.  However, I am curious to know what you thought we should have done, if anything, after 9/11?  Should we have allowed nearly 3,000 murdered lives to go unaddressed?  Terrorists can smell weakness in foreign policy like some dogs can smell cadavers underground. No easy answers, for sure.

    1. Tia Will

      Anon

      As a pacifist, you stand behind many, many soldiers who died/will die for your right to be a pacifist. ” 

      Agree completely. When have I ever  criticized anyone for acting defensively ?

      I am happy to answer with what I think we should have done after 9/11.

      I think that we should have gone directly after those who perpetrated that particular crime and not stopped until they were neutralized. If the individuals surrendered, then they should have been tried for their crimes. If they chose to fight to the death, that would be their choice as they had proven themselves to be dangerous thereby justifying their killing as “defense”.

      What we did in Viet Nam, what we did in Iraq, I find indefensible.

      You will not find me having made any negative comment about those who fight or defend our nation when we are under attack. You will also never find me making a positive comment about our actions when we are the aggressors no matter what pretty language we choose to use to justify our aggression.

  7. South of Davis

    I don’t get why UC needs to vote on this.

    I also don’t get why so many on the left want to support people who kill gays and stone women who leave their abusive husbands.

    If the students do not want to support the companies that help Israel will they get rid of their iPhones since some soldiers use them to call for backup?

    1. David Greenwald

      UC doesn’t need to vote on it, they set their policy five years ago.

      On your second point… I think the left is split on the issue for one thing. The far left is opposing Israeli and probably by extension American aggression. The mainstream left is probably against divestment but wants left conflict and more movement towards a two state solution. There is also a more pro-Israeli left that goes the other way. I don’t think the far left is support those people as much as opposing bloodshed and Israeli/ American policies.

      On your third point, I’m not sure why you wrote that, it’s not very helpful.

  8. Sam

    Dear Students,

    Thanks for spending time and energy discussing/passing nonbinding resolutions that will go nowhere and not paying attention to the lifelong debt you are racking up in student loans.

      1. Sam

        UC spends $2,869,570,184 to employ 12,153 people plus the cost of benefits and pensions. The cost is about $12,000 for each student paid in tuition and taxes.

        No, they do not seem to be able to do both. Their time and energy would be better spent modifying the process of receiving a degree so that you do not come out of school in insurmountable debt.

  9. Tia Will

    Dear Students ,

    Thank you for taking the time to give consideration to the important issues of our day be they political, social, economic, or environmental.

    Whether or not I agree with your resolution is irrelevant. One of the most important things that you can be doing during this formative period of your adult lives is to learn about, consider, and come to conclusions about the important issues of our times.

    Acting now on your beliefs is not a lifetime commitment to the principles you currently believe in. As you mature, you will doubtless change your opinion on many issues, sometimes even those about which you are passionate now. However, a far bigger problem is to become so self centered and complacent that you no longer care about issues that may seem far away or injustices that do not directly involve you.

    So thank you to all who voted for the resolution. Thank you to all who voted against it. Thank you for your time, your energy, and most of all for your caring.

     

    1. South of Davis

      Tia wrote:

      > Thank you for your time, your energy, and most of all for your caring.

      With another 150 countries to divest from the “caring” kids should be busy for a while…

      http://www.amnesty.org/en/human-rights/human-rights-by-country

      As Sam says if they keep busy with this they might not notice that the fee increases are paying for a UC Chancellor that makes more than the President of the United States “and” the Governor of California COMBINED and the HUGE number of UC employees that make even more (including dozens that make over a MILLION a year):

      http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/university-of-california/

      We really need to keep the kids busy so they just keep pulling out more student “aid” (that they can never get rid of even in BK) to “aid” all the retired UC professors.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395685/ucs-pension-fiasco-lawrence-j-mcquillan

       

  10. Tia Will

    With another 150 countries to divest from the “caring” kids should be busy for a while…”

    Agreed. And hopefully we will never run out of students who care about more in life than just how much money the can make so that they can buy more of the goodies produced by people working at wages so low that they can barely survive.

    1. South of Davis

      Tia wrote:

      > And hopefully we will never run out of students who care about more in

      > life than just how much money the can make so that they can buy more

      > of the goodies produced by people working at wages so low that they

      > can barely survive.

      I don’t know all the kids in the ASUCD Senate but I would be surprised to find out that even ONE of them does not have a smartphone built by a low wage worker or have any foreign made clothing made by an even lower wage worker…

      http://www.businessinsider.com/china-labor-watch-apple-iphone-workers-2013-7

      http://www.ibtimes.com/despite-low-pay-poor-work-conditions-garment-factories-empowering-millions-bangladeshi-women-1563419

      Unlike Tia I’m hoping that our college kids will try and actually do something and work to make things better here in town not try and feel good about themselves wasting time (I’m pretty sure that Netanyahu was not up all night trying to make changes knowing that some UC Davis kids do not support him)

       

  11. Rich RifkinWDE 73

    This sort of mindless prejudice on the part of ASUCD is what gives more violent anti-Semites the courage to spray swastikas on Jewish fraternities. One naturally follows the other, though the former will pretend their hatred for Israel has nothing to do with the more strident hatred of Jews as seen in the attack on Jews on and off campus at UCD.

  12. Dave Hart

    I’m quite proud of the ASUCD in taking this brave stand.  It is way past time that the state of Israel should begin to be accountable for their behavior.  It was not an easy vote, I’m sure.  It is certainly quite easy to be “in favor” of Israel as it is the position adopted by all branches of our government with the approval of all mainstream media corporations.  Israel’s state propaganda machine is dedicated to equating the state of Israel with restitution for the Nazi-conducted holocaust.  But the history of Israel and Zionism in Palestine pre-dates WWII and the state of Israel was created as a strategic client state to further the interests of the dominant post-WWII western European powers and the United States for the benefit of their business and strategic interests.

    I’ve often thought that if actual reparations were in order to European Jews, they should have been given Bavaria.  The whole thing.  Move the Bavarians out of their homes and let New Bavaria take over the farmlands, factories and infrastructure of Bavaria.  It would have been much more productive and politically appropriate.  I still would prefer that to the unstable and hellish mess that 1948 Israel has unleashed on the world.

    It is my greatest fear that the continuing political turmoil in the greater area of Palestine, Arabia, Iraq, etc., may well be the flashpoint for the use of nuclear weapons wielded from as far away as a de-stabilized Pakistan or black-marketed weapons from any number of the *.stans in the area. If a nuclear exchange occurs, none of us will be able to imagine how it was worth the unequivocal support of Israel after all these years.

  13. hpierce

    OK, so much for the philosophical stuff (and yeah, I got into that too)…

    IF UC divests itself of everything having to do with Israel, either that means those investments were solely because they benefitted Israel, OR they were better investments than would otherwise be available,  If the former, if the ‘divested’ monies could be earning more than currently, fine.  In fact, if that is the case, the divestment should occur even if there was no BS resolution.  If the divested monies create less income to UC, then either the students would have to cough up more in tuition, and/or we would need to fund more from the State.  If the latter happens, we will see an increase in taxes, or other general fund expenditures would have to be reduced.

    Wonder if the students would have voted for the measure if it happened to be tied to a 2-5% tuition increase?

  14. Anon

    Tia Will: “I am happy to answer with what I think we should have done after 9/11.
    I think that we should have gone directly after those who perpetrated that particular crime and not stopped until they were neutralized.”
    We did exactly that!
    The problem IMO is I think you refuse to see the bigger picture, instead looking at the world through a very idealistic and unrealistic lens.  Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks, but he was being aggressively supported by the Afghan gov’t and the Iraqi gov’t (as well as the Pakastani gov’t).  Unfortunately the terrorists have intertwined themselves with middle eastern gov’ts like Syria, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, Iran.  Do I think we should attack all of these go’vts?  No.  But the two we did attack were inextricably intertwined with Osama Bin Laden’s terror network, which was directly responsible for 9/11.  Unfortunately terrorism is a shadow enemy that interlaces itself with the civilian population and gov’t sympathetic to its cause so that it can have a “safe” place to provide terrorists with training.
    .

    1. Don Shor

      Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks, but he was being aggressively supported by the Afghan gov’t and the Iraqi gov’t (as well as the Pakastani gov’t).

      There was no connection between Osama bin Laden and the government of Iraq. That was a false allegation repeated by the Bush administration. There was no basis for our war against Iraq. Vice President Cheney lied in public repeatedly on this issue, and sought to undermine the CIA when it contradicted him.
      “We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period.” — George Tenet.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

      1. Anon

        From http://www.cfr.org/terrorist-leaders/profile-osama-bin-laden/p9951:

        The relationship between bin Laden’s al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq is a murky one, and has been the subject of much debate. Saddam’s regime, in fact, was precisely the kind of secular Arab government bin Laden abhorred. In making the case for the war against Iraq, the Bush administration argued there were ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, warning the dictator might supply the terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States—also known as the 9/11 Commission—however, concluded there was no U.S. intelligence supporting a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Peter Bergen, author of The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al-Qaeda’s Leader, has noted tenuous links between Iraq and al-Qaeda and “may have played footsie in Sudan,” but is quick to add “nothing came of it.” Today, al-Qaeda does have a presence in Iraq. In February 2003, bin Laden stated in an audio tape that “Muslims in general and the Iraqis in particular must brace themselves for jihad against this unjust [U.S.] campaign and acquire ammunition and weapons.” In another tape in December 2004, bin Laden referred to the Jordanian-born terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, and in a tape aired in January 2006, he claimed “Iraq has become a point of attraction and recruitment of qualified resources.” In this same tape, he threatened future attacks against the United States and offered a so-called truce based on a U.S. withdrawal.

        From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

        President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week’s finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

        “The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,” Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers’ meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. “There’s numerous contacts between the two,” Bush said.
        From wikiquote:

        In Sudan, Bin Laden decided to acquire and, when possible, use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) weapons against Islam’s enemies. Bin Laden’s first moves in this direction were made in cooperation with NIF [Sudan’s National Islamic Front], Iraq’s intelligence service and Iraqi CBRN scientists and technicians. He made contact with Baghdad with its intelligence officers in Sudan and by a [Hassan] Turabi-brokered June-1994 visit by Iraq’s then-intelligence chief Faruq al-Hijazi; according to Milan’s Corriere della Sera, Saddam, in 1994, made Hijazi responsible for “nurturing Iraq’s ties to [Islamic] fundamentalist warriors. Turabi had plans to formulate a “common strategy” with bin Laden and Iraq for subverting pro-U.S. Arab regimes, but the meeting was a get-acquainted session where Hijazi and bin Laden developed a good rapport that would “flourish” in the late 1990s.

        Through Our Enemies Eyes (p. 124)

        Regarding Iraq, bin Laden, as noted, was in contact with Baghdad’s intelligence service since at least 1994. He reportedly cooperated with it in the area of chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear [CBRN] weapons and may have trained some fighters in Iraq at camps run by Saddam’s anti-Iran force, the Mujahedin al-Khalq.

        Through Our Enemies’ Eyes (p. 184)

        We know for certain that bin Laden was seeking CBRN [chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear] weapons . . . and that Iraq and Sudan have been cooperating with bin Laden on CBRN weapon acquisition and development.

        Through Our Enemies Eyes (p. 192)”

        1. Don Shor

          Bottom line, Anon, from your own quote above:

          there was no U.S. intelligence supporting a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Peter Bergen, author of The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al-Qaeda’s Leader, has noted tenuous links between Iraq and al-Qaeda and “may have played footsie in Sudan,” but is quick to add “nothing came of it.”

          So for that, we went to war.
          There was no link between Iraq and Osama that has anything to do with 9/11, which was the context of your original comment. And which was the supposed link that took us to war with Iraq.
          The war on Iraq was based on a lie.
          Just a reminder, this is what you said:

          he was being aggressively supported by the Afghan gov’t and the Iraqi gov’t

          No, he wasn’t.

  15. Anon

    Don Shor: “There was no link between Iraq and Osama that has anything to do with 9/11

    Note: “Bin Laden’s first moves in this direction were made in cooperation with NIF [Sudan’s National Islamic Front], Iraq’s intelligence service and Iraqi CBRN scientists and technicians. He made contact with Baghdad with its intelligence officers in Sudan and by a [Hassan] Turabi-brokered June-1994 visit by Iraq’s then-intelligence chief Faruq al-Hijazi; according to Milan’s Corriere della Sera, Saddam, in 1994, made Hijazi responsible for “nurturing Iraq’s ties to [Islamic] fundamentalist warriors

    We will have to agree to disagree.

  16. Jerry Waszczuk

    Very  good source of information 


    State-to-State Cooperation:
        California and Israel

    Exports to Israel (2013)

    $2,322,819,331

          Percentage Change (2012-2013)

    -12.53%

          Total Exports to Israel (1996-Present)

    17th

    Israel’s Trade Partner Rank (2013)

    $24,385,508,786

    Military Contracts with Israel (2012)

    $82,384,380.96

    Jewish Population (2014)

    1,232,190

          Jewish Percentage of Population

    3.2%

    Jewish Virtual Library

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for