The campaign to daemonize and delegitimize Israel on US campii is in full swing.
One of the latest universities subject to raw politicization and the pro-Palestinian smear campaign is UCSD (university of California at San Diego).
I am in receipt of a statement from Utsav Gupta, president of the ASUCSD.
QUOTE:
Last year, when a resolution was proposed concerning the conflict in Gaza, two student groups came to several ASUCSD Council meetings, passionately defending and advocating for their world point-of-view, their perspective on an issue that even our best international leaders have yet to successfully resolve. Some of these students believed they were compelled to come to this meeting to defend a country they hold dear. Others came to the meeting advocating for peace and human rights, hoping to lead the Association towards what they argued was progress.
END QUOTE.
[source: http://proisraelbaybloggers.blogspot.com/2010/04/uc-san-diego-asuc-presidents-statement.html ]
Please note the possible suggestion that one side had divided loyalties and the other had higher ideals. In the phrasing above, being concerned for Israel can be taken to mean that one is NOT in favour of peace and human rights.
Nothing could be further from the truth. It is precisely because one is in favour of peace and human rights that one must support Israel - the alternative is support for the dictatorships and tyrannies that litter the Middle-East, from Khartoum to Riyadh and Damascus.
Nevertheless and evenso, Utsav Gupta argues against divestment.
He also writes:
"Passage of this legislation will create a divide that violates the goals and purposes of our Association. To this end, I will be voting against the passage of this resolution. I urge my colleagues to do the same."
The other side, however, is not handicapped by any similar sense of ethics.
From an e-mail circulated by Leena Barakat (One Democratic State Group):
"We call on you, as members of ASUCSD, to join us in declaring a stance of peace and neutrality by upholding the Resolution to Divest from U.S. Corporations Profiting from Occupation. This resolution is part and parcel of the historic movement for peace and human rights advocacy, particularly in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank, besieged Gaza, and annexed East Jerusalem."
Leena Barakat specifically targets only one country - Israel. Just one. No other.
None of the loathsome inhuman regimes that oppose Israel is mentioned, nor any of the failed states in Africa, Asia, and South America.
Just.
One.
Country.
No other country is so villified and excoriated, no other country is held to such high standards, no other country need answer to university students in San Diego.
Either you are FOR peace and human rights - in which case you support Israel - or you oppose peace and human rights - and find yourself on the same side as all the ghastly gangster regimes that for the past generation have sought common cause in supporting each other.
Such countries as Afghanistan, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rhodesia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uruguay, and Venezuela. None of these have been subject to boycott and divestment calls, none of these have good or even bearable human rights records, all of which are governed by gangsters and profiteers.
And all of which are held in high esteem internationally, paragons among the united nations.
As are two I did not mention: Iran and North Korea. Paragons.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
THE PRICE OF EGGS
Despite the pervasive gloom in Democratic circles, and the giddy intoxicated optimism in the Republican, neo-Nazi, Fascist, and Authoritaria...
12 comments:
This resolution is about peace and neutrality? And on what planet does Leena Barakat live on?
Stand With us, the grass roots pro Israel, pro palestinian pro peace group has an information sheet here, along with emails of who to contact:
http://www.standwithus.com/app/iNews/view_n.asp?ID=1400
And do please note that another blogger has worries about this issue: http://infectiousasian.blogspot.com/2010/04/worries-about-uc-san-diego-divestment.html
Clickably: San Diego.
Divestmnet loses at UC San Diego
Divestment loses at UC Berkeley.
Its a good night for the forces of truth and justice
I was at the Berkeley divestment hearing. Two speakers lists had been created- one pro and one con. The anti-Israel forces signed up on both lists, so instead of alternating one pro and one con, they spoke one after another. This situation wasn't rectified until well into the proceedings.
No ethical constraints from the haters. None at all.
That's precisely what fora such as KPFA do.
They’ll have two speakers. One is rabidly pro-Palestinian, another is an anti-Zionist Jew. Then they claim that the debate is balanced – one pro-Pally, one hyper-intellectual Jew. Lost in the shuffle is the fact that the Pally-partisan has toned down his rhetoric for the middle-class audience, and the Jewish panelist is someone along the lines of Finkelstein. Or, perhaps, even someone as defective and dysfunctional as Rob Kanter or Kate Bender/Jessica Raphael.
It’s a VERY Berkeleyite tactic. The bourgeoisie in that burg are blinkeredly incapable of seeing through the gambit. Likely the thugs of SJP thought it would work in a student senate setting too. Given that it took “until well into the proceedings” for it to be rectified, they were right. I wonder how many senators were in on the trick.
J-Street learned the approach from the morally impaired folks of JVP, Brit Tzedek, and BAWIB. It typifies their entire agenda.
Or, perhaps, even someone as defective and dysfunctional as Rob Kanter or Kate Bender/Jessica Raphael.
Sorry, I need to clarify that Kate Bender and Jessica Raphael are NOT two different people.
Kate Bender goes by the names Kate Bender Raphael, Kate Jessica Raphael, Kate Raphael Bender, and Catherine of Arragon.
Rob Kanter, who also goes by several names, is also not TWO people.
He is, despite the suspicion of schizophrenia, not even one full person.
Sorry, OJB, that's just the way it is.
At the Senate hearing the thundering hoards announced that 45count 'em 45! groups had signed onto the divestment bill. But there are over 700 distinct student groups at Cal- so doesn't that mean that 655 groups opposed it? Or at the very least, that 655 groups could care less?
They also proudly announced that 100 count 'em, 100 faculty members had signed on. But doesn't that mean thousands didn't?
I just don't get their logic
Its fascinating that the supposed "anti-zionists" feel the compulsion to prevaricate, cheat,lie,distort history,try to intimidate others, etc etc. Its as if even they don't beleive that their position stands on its own!
R
Belgium?
Yes, Belgium. Belgium.
I was wondering when someone would notice.
But yes, Belgium.
Statement from Mark G. Yudof
President
University of California
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.
Post a Comment