Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Open Letter to Berkeley Students on their Historic Israeli Divestment Bill
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
- Posted in
203 Comments so far
Show AllAs a graduate of UC, I fully agree with you. I loathe the "regents" and especially Yudof for many many reasons. They will hear from me yet again.
Sioux Rose
PROF: I always appreciate and look forward to your posts. Your description of Berkeley's "ruling elite" certainly explains the morally bankrupt position it took in having hired Yoo, of all cheap, cowardly, sychopantic sell-outs and insults to the very meaning of the word LAW!
Sioux Rose
Uh-Oh! We agree!
Although, only in California would this description "arch-conservative administration of the University of California" be accepted.
Yoo was a tenured professor at U. Berkeley before he wrote those historic opinions while in the Department of Justice. As such he was entitled to resume his position at Berkeley when his temporary leave of absence concluded. Therefore he could only be removed for cause, such as moral terpitude. Why this appears to have never been discussed at Berkeley is the question that needs to be asked.
"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."
Netanyahu's coalition includes Avigdor Lieberman as Foreign Minister - a man who is himself living in an illegal colonial settlement on stolen land. Netanyahu won't stop settlement building because he'd be out of a job in nought seconds flat if he made any concession to current US demands.
But Israel is also faced with the prospect of the "Quartet" (the US, the UN, the European Union and Russia) imposing a settlement that involves Israel retreating to its 1967 borders and the recognition of a Palestinian state in two years' time, if Israel and the palestinian authorities cannot reach a deal before then.
Israel could make diplomatic efforts to avert this, in particular to weaken the US Government's resolve. That would mean making nice with Mr Obama, who doesn't seem to be in any mood right now to make nice with them (though as he's a renowned poker player, who knows what he's really up to?). Israel's recent actions have had all the diplomatic finesse of a drunken bull in a china shop, so I don't expect any great success for them any time soon.
Of course the Netanyahu government might collapse under all this new pressure they are experiencing. The result might be interesting - a new, more left-leaning governemtn led by Tzipi Livni. But, oh dear! As she was one of the chief architect's of Israel's murderous assault on Gaza, she could hardly step off a plane anywhere outside Ben Gurion airport without risking arrest. She had to cancel a planned visit to Britain recently for this very reason. The British government said it would change its laws to make sure such an embarrassment to all parties could not occur. But then some oafs in Mossad used cloned British passports to perpetrate the murder of a Hamas official in Dubai, mightily pissing off the British government to the point where they expelled Mossad's head guy in London, signed up to the Quartet plan and kicked the idea of indemnifying Israeli ministers from prosecution for war crimes way into the rough grass.
Heck of a job, Bibi!
And heck of a great post, secretarybird!
Thank you.
As an Israeli i don't always agree with MS. Klein though i appreciate her a lot, but in this case she's probably right - the U.S. government has taken an extreme potion with respect to Israel policy through out the years, and if they want to change something in the middle east they should start at home.
As an Israeli soldier I don't agree Israel is committing war crimes especially not when compared to what the Arabs are doing to us and to themselves, but even with such position the settlements and occupation are simply unacceptable.
Noami - when are you coming to visit the middle east ?:-)
Of course, I would not expect anything different. However, since the USA subsidizes the Apartheid, ethnic cleansing and war crimes (as well as committing its own crimes) the world must focus on the US Empire in order to alter the status quo.
Oh I realize you don't agree but Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu are hard to discredit, they have first-hand experience.
evyatar
Thank you for your post and your perspective. However, "war crimes" is not a rhetorical phrase in Ms. Klein's article, but refers to specific violations of international law and treaty. They are not determined "when compared to" ANYTHING. These are simply statements of, perhaps uncomfortable, facts.
Are there "Palestinian" crimes? Sure. But they are not war crimes, as these, according to international law, are performed by states, or state actors, and the Palestinians have no state. Maybe someone with more international law knowledge could enlarge on this for us.
This isn't just quibbling with nuance or semantics, as, according to international law, occupying powers have no rights, only responsibilities. This underscores the fact that the only legitimate action is to end the occupation (and this means the US support for the occupation.) Unless, of course, we don't believe in international law, and therefore international institutions, and therefore we're back to the Bronze Age where power and force are the only arbiters of dispute. Some might say we're there already.
1st I am not an international law expert.
2nd I don't think it matters so much, i am after justice and human rights and not laws which may be irrelevant to the situation (for instance, i believe the Tibet is not considered an occupied territory, and still the Chinese are doing terrible acts there - much worse than Israel has ever done or will do)
3rd i believe that the west bank and gaza are not considered occupied territories since they belonged to Jordan and Egypt which gave them up during the peace agreements with Israel in 1978 and 1994.
Nevertheless i hate occupation not because its violates any law (maybe it doesn;t) - because its injustice. as simple as that - i am simple man and i believe in justice.
Naomi - sorry for misspelling your name - Tel Aviv is waiting.
the west bank, gaza and east jerusalem have been declared occupied territories by unanimous vote of the international court of justice in 2004...
Tibet is not considered an occupied territory, and still the Chinese are doing terrible acts there -
what are the chinese doing there?
China does nothing in Tibet, really nothing, no human rights violation, not flooding the country with Chinese from the main land (settlements?), no exiling million of Tibet people from their homes, really nothing. Ask the dalai lama.
Its because they are terrified by Tibet's terrorists that bombs the cities of china, firing missiles on civilians, taking airplanes and buses down, oh sorry that what the Palestinians are doing, my mistake :-)
I believe in piece and i want occupation to end, and comments like made in the replies to my comment don't help.
Regarding the resolution about recognizing the occupation by international institutes - link please.
Are they teaching this shit in Israeli schools? Is your educational system as bad at ours in the US? I've been to both Tibet and "Palestine" and have made a study of both places, both historically and currently and I'm not sure how one who knows both situations could possibly argue "the Chinese are doing terrible acts there - much worse than Israel has ever done or will do." This is propaganda and polemical and a fair amount of bullshit. Though this does not exonerate the Chinese from their own crimes, which are substantial.
West Bank and Gaza not "occupied"...? If that's the case (hint: its not!) then what the Israelis are doing is almost worse!
And international law only matters so far as one believes that decisions should be made collectively, and in particular by those affected. If there are to be international actions, which there will be, then there might as well be international institutions in which people come together to decide collectively what is reasonable to do and what is not (i.e. international law.) Though these institutions are highly flawed and based on power politics, they're all we've got, so its better than the alternative.
We need to work to reform them to where they better represent the will of all people... And we obviously also need reform in our media and educational institutions.
It is beyond irony that a bastion of liberal thought should be infiltrated by such cold-blooded, war-profiteering racists. Sometimes words simply fail us in the face of such hideous shamelessness.
Thank God that students are still standing for truth and doing the right thing.
Just think if everyone divested their investments from companies that supported war criminals. That would mean anyone who supported General Dynamics, Boeing, Northrup-Gruman and a whole host of others here in the US, would get no support and would wither on the vine.
Man, America could be a great place if we just followed these brave students.
Naomi Klein doesn’t care about human right or war crime or crimes against humanity. All she cares about is to demonize Israel at any cost, no matter what. And I can prove that.
- China can occupy Tibet, killing 1,000,000 Tibetans (Tibet is a land mass 500 times bigger than the West Bank, and a casualty rate higher by a factor of 20 when compared to the Israeli Palestinian conflict since 1948).
- Sudan can massacre 2.4 million Christians and Amenities since 1990.
- Russia can butcher 50,000 Chechnyans .
- The US can Invade Iraq and Afghanistan. (Hundreds of thousands of causulties.)
- Morocco could illegally occupy Spanish Sahara.
- Turkey can occupy northern Cyprus, and commit ethnic cleansing against the Greek. They can also butcher Kusrds.
- Saudi Arabia killed thousands of freedom fighters in Yemen.
- Myanmar is committing wholesale butchery against minorities.
- Iran is holding territories owned by Kirdush, Arab, Azar and Pashtoun minorities. Not to mention oppressing its own Iranian citizens.
- Last year, Sari Lanka killed more than 20,000 Tamil civilians.
Will Naomi Klein suggest to boycott China, US, Sudan, Russia, UK, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Iran or Sari-Lanka? (And those are only a few examples of country that did much worth than Israel)
No.
Does she even care? (When a country other than Israel commit war crimes)
No.
Will she lift a finger to help the hundreds of millions victims of war crime committed by all the countries other than Israel?
No. (Well, she may say something, but would never propose a boycott.)
--------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Klein will ALWAYS single out ONLY ISRAEL for special treatment. Period!
--------------------------------------------------------
Since I assume that she is no ignorant or retarded - There is only one logical conclusion:
Naomi Klein doesn’t really care about war crimes or human right. She is only driven by hatred of Israel, and her only goal is to demonize Israel, no matter what.
I have learned that truth last year during the Toronto film festival, when she called to boycott Israeli films (even left wing films that support the Palestinians). She explained to the press that Israel name should never be invoked under any circumstances, unless it’s about criticizing Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians.
That’s the truth about Naomi Klein.
Voila! Right on Cue. The apologists come out of the woodwork.
Boycott Divest and Sanctions. Time is not on the side of Israel or the Empire.
Then she should boycott China, US, Sudan, Russia, UK, Turkey, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Iran and Sari-Lanka as well as Israel.
Otherwise - it's double standard, if not worse.
We, the progressive community, should push for the principle of universality, instead of discrimination and double standards.
We should be motivated by truth and justice, and not by hatred based on ethicality, (as Naomi Klein does.)
We should boycott countries for what they do, without discrimination, and NOT for what they are, (as Naomi Klein does.)
"Then she should boycott China, US, Sudan, Russia, UK, Turkey, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Iran and Sari-Lanka as well as Israel."
For once we agree, at least on that point. The USA, as the financier and supporter of these regimes ought to be #1 on the list.
Yes, All true... Great comments all over CD socialist. And Naomi Klein, being Jewish, I doubt is pushing for hatred based on ethnicity, at least towards Jewish people, though I can't say what her take on those from Myanmar or the Sudan is...
Cheers Leo!
socialist: ""Then she should boycott China, US, Sudan, Russia, UK, Turkey, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Iran and Sari-Lanka as well as Israel."
For once we agree, at least on that point. The USA, as the financier and supporter of these regimes ought to be #1 on the list."
---
Thank you, socialist. You're a better person than Naomi Klein. I may not agree with everything you say, but at least you don't have double standards.
Letto,
If Israel wants to be treated on the same playing field that which the international community treats Saudi Arabia and the other countries you regurgitated out of your talking points memo, then Israel should cease to paint itself as "the only democracy in the Middle East". Even without the land grab currently under way in the occupied West Bank, Israel is not a democracy even within its 1948 borders, within the so-called green line.
So, enough with the shtuyot, bubaleh, OK?
"We, the progressive community"
Sorry, pal, but you do not speak for the progessive community. You use the fact that other nations behave as Israel does to excuse Israel's wrongdoing.
No, the fact that other nations behave as Israel (or a 1000 times worse) does to excuse Israel's wrongdoing, nevertheless, all should be punished in a similar manner. Not just Israel.
Klein propose to boycott ONLY Israel.
That's why I said she has double standards. - Big time.
Hey, genius, they are all being punished. No other country on earth has the privileges that Israel receives from Uncle Sam. NONE. Get that through your thick hasbara head.
No country receives veto protection at the UN security Council by the world's only superpower.
No country receives the same civilian and military, both disclosed and CLASSIFIED that Israel receives - Incidentally Israel receives more than $14 BILLION per year from the US in various military incentives, hardware, US intellectual property, GRANTS to US based Israeli companies and institutions, as well as a favored diplomatic status.
Like I said, ENOUGH with your lies.
MONDOWEISS.NET
Not to the same extent and not by Naomi Klein.
The UN is a biased organization. It's member don't care about the general good. They push their own small politics agenda. That is why there are so many anti-Israeli resolutions, and not as many resolutions against any other country. (Even though some country are 1000 times worse than Israel)
80% of the UN Human Right council country specific resolution are against Israel. and 20% are against the rest of the world combined.
The UN general Assembly is a little better, but not by much.
Is this serious? Anybody...
No, it's the delusional ravings of a lunatic who thinks that any crime by Israel is justified by the crimes of others.
I never said that Israel is perfect or that crimes are justified. I said that all nations should be judged by the same criteria.
Obviously, some people think that there should be one set of rules for the Jewish state, and another set of rules for all other countries.
Letto -- Not "perfect". Where have I heard that before?
As the article relates to the letter Naomi Klein sent the ASUC Senate, perhaps we could stay on topic if you would give your opinion of her letter? Should she have sent it or not? Or should she have written to every other nation on your list concurrently?
As you believe "all nations should be judged by the same criteria", do you think Israel should be included in the set of nations judged harshly for violence against a population and violations of international law, therefore subject to sanctions and protests; or should Israel, being less than perfect, be treated as a wayward child, not subject to actions that would be appropriate to, say, Turkey?
Or are all sanctions inappropriate. Should all nations be able to go their own ways with impunity?
Excellent comment Arry!
In the article, Naomi Klein is proposing to boycott Israel, and ONLY Israel, because Israel committed, in her opinion, war crimes. (While all other coutries who commited similar or worse, much worse war crimes should not be boycott.)
As for your 2nd question, the answer is yes. All nations should be judged by the same criteria, even Israel - and this judgment should be done equally, and proportionally.
My point is that this article represent double standard when calling to punish ONLY the Jewish state, while ignoring ALL other, much larger crimes.
If you're going to write an article for publication, you focus on one issue at a time. ONE, not every aspect of the potential topic. If you're going to write about other issues, or how they all relate to one another, you're going to need to use more words than the papers are willing to print and so you'll write a book. Had you read N. Klein's book, you might notice that she does criticize more states and corporations than 'ONLY the Jewish state'.
Mind you, why do you switch from calling Israel a multi ethnic democracy to focusing on criticism of that state because it's a 'Jewish' state?
Saturnalia, Thanks for the excellent posts, but let me try to answer your admittedly rhetorical question: persecution complex!
Thanks Leo M, I've enjoyed yours as well.
N. Klein does criticize other nations. Nevertheless, she only propose taking actions beyond criticism, (a boycott) ONLY against one nation. - Israel.
Hence the double standards.
Letto -- You didn't answer any of my questions...not one. You already stated that you believe all nations should be judged by the same criteria, so it wasn't necessary to repeat it. We already know it. We want to progress from there into specifics where the rubber meets the road; a place, it is quite clear, you would like to avoid.
"...some people think that there should be one set of rules for the Jewish state, and another set of rules for all other countries."
Do I hear that same old Jewish whine: we have always been persecuted and we are still being persecuted. Poor little persecuted Jews - the whole world is against us - the world is anti-semitic, etc. etc.
Give me a break!
You should read Naomi's book "The Shock Doctrine" where she exposes crimes against humanity, racism, imperialism, lawlessness, genocide, etc. etc. pointing the finger at many countries, nationalities and ethnic groups.
Yes, by the way, she is Canadian.
"Letto" denies being a paid Hasbarist propaganda agent, however his right-wing imperialist views and pathetic justifications would lead one to believe otherwise.
I'm not right wing, Socialist?
I believe in universal health care, free education, and protecting the environment.
The environment in gaza is looking a little haggard... They're not doing too good on their health care either...Oh wait! Israel isn't allowing in medical supplies!
A brilliant riposte, and it would be hysterically funny, except it is true and thus not at all funny.
Israel allows medical supply into Gaza.
Israel is also investing in renuable energy.
Source?
Spelling??
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
/jsource/Peace/aidgaza.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Israel
http://www.betterplace.com/
WIKI is NOT a credible source! Never will be.
jewishvirtuallibrary.org isn't that much of a credible source either. They do have something of a bias in how they view the world. How many times has CD published articles detailing how medical aid and construction materials are prohibited from being imported to the OCCUPIED territory of Gaza in the last year...
The question I raised about your spelling was a snark, when you spelled 'renewable' as ' renuable`.
If you don't trust any of my links why don't you do your own research?
Also, Gaza is not occupied. Gaza is under a partial siege.
And by the way, thank you for correcting my spelling mistakes. I wonder, though, why you correct only mine.