Divestment bill vetoed at Berkeley

[oberliner]

NEW YORK (JTA) -- The student government president at the University of California vetoed a bill calling for divestment from two companies doing business with Israel.

Will Smelko, the president of the Associated Students of the University of California, Berkeley, shot down the bill Wednesday, the Daily Californian reported. The association's Senate had passed the bill last week by a 16-4 margin.

The bill, which singled out United Technologies and General Electric for supplying Israel with technology used to perpetrate war crimes, was widely condemned by Jewish campus groups.

"While the ASUC as a body has stated convincingly that it does not want ASUC and UC dollars going to fund weapons, war crimes, or human rights violations, this veto has to do with the mechanism by which the ASUC achieves its mission of building peace and goodwill in a way that avoids the shortcomings of the bill, ... selective, one-sided focus on a specific country that lacks important historical context and understanding," Smelko said in a statement.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/03/25/1011371/divestment-bill-vetoed-at-berkeley

[Violet_Crumble]

1. That's a real shame that it was vetoed n/t

[oberliner]

2. Perhaps they will override the veto

A 2/3rds vote is required to do so and the initial bill passed 16-4.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. It'll be interesting to follow what happens n/t

[oberliner]

9. Daily Cal Op Ed on the bill and veto

Invest Time, Then Divest
Campus Issues: Divestment bill was within ASUC Senate's right, but adequate research, proper timing and an effective strategy were lacking.

http://www.dailycal.org/article/108818/invest_time_then_divest

[Violet_Crumble]

11. That wasn't about overriding the veto...

That's what I'd be interested in hearing about if it happens...

[oberliner]

13. Whether or not to override the veto was the entire point of the editorial

"As senators ponder whether to override the veto in the next few weeks, they ought to consider these fundamental issues and attempt to improve their final product."

[Violet_Crumble]

14. It was an anti-divestment article, not news about the veto itself...

I'm sure you can tell the difference between the two...

[oberliner]

20. It's a pro-divestment article, the headline is: Invest Time, Then Divest

The suggestion is for the senators to invest time into making some improvements in the bill.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. That's a very misleading thing to say...

While the article said that they supported past divestments, they had issues with this particular one. From the article:

'Choosing to target only one country (Israel) in a bill supposedly in support of divestment from war crimes in general is also troubling. Though the bill states that the senate avoided taking sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict, it left a distinctly anti-Israel impression overall.'

[proteus_lives]

3. Good.

[IndianaGreen]

6. So you approve of what rightwingers do?

Will Smelko is a rightwinger.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Will Smelko is a frat rat and a rightwinger

He was interviewed by the California Patriot back in September 2009:

http://www.californiapatriot.org/magazine/2009/09/an-interview-with-asuc-president-will-smelko/

The California Patriot is a rightwing publication:

The California Patriot is the premier conservative magazine at the University of California, Berkeley. The California Patriot has been recognized as the #1 conservative magazine in the country providing the much-needed conservative voice at Cal.

http://www.californiapatriot.org/magazine/about/

[oberliner]

7. You have not a clue what you are talking about

Will Smelko is a member of the Cal Berkeley Democrats as well as the California College Democrats.

Barack Obama was interviewed by Fox News.

Does that make him a right-winger also?

[azurnoir]

10. No your right it does not

any more than Glenn Greenwald's writing for the American Conservative puts him as being in league with or the same as Pat Buchanon

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Excellent point! n/t

[oberliner]

15. Glenn Greenwald is a journalist - Obama and Smelko are office holders

Very different situations.

Journalists are often associated with the newspapers/magazines to which they contribute.

[azurnoir]

25. Ah so you agree with the sentiments

expressed on this forum concerning Greenwald being a a right wing extremeist in his views on the I/P situation

[oberliner]

26. I don't think Greenwald is a right wing extremist

I do think he is probably in the "Paleocon" camp when it comes to the I/P conflict though and holds opinions that are similar to those of Pat Buchanan on that subject.

[azurnoir]

27. A paleocon let us explore that term

Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is a term for an anti-communist and anti-imperialist right-wing political philosophy in the United States stressing tradition, civil society and along with religious, regional, national and Western identity.<1> Chilton Williamson, Jr. describes paleoconservatism as "the expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture—an identity that is both collective and personal."<2> Paleoconservatism is not expressed as an ideology and its adherents do not necessarily subscribe to any one party line.<3>

Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often highlight their points of disagreement with neoconservatives, especially on issues like immigration, affirmative action, U.S. funding of its allies abroad, foreign wars, and social welfare.<1> They also criticize social democracy, which some refer to as the "therapeutic managerial state,"<4> the "welfare-warfare state"<5> or "polite totalitarianism."<6> They see themselves as the legitimate heirs to the American conservative tradition.<7>

Paul Gottfried is credited with coining the term in the 1980s.<8> He says the term originally referred to various Americans, such as traditionalist Catholics and agrarian Southerners, who turned to anticommunism during the Cold War.<9>

Paleoconservative thought has developed within the pages of the Rockford Institute's Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.<10> Pat Buchanan was heavily influenced by its articles<9> and helped create another paleocon publication, The American Conservative.<11> Its concerns overlap those of the Old Right that opposed the New Deal in the 1930s and 1940s,<12> as well as American social conservatism of the late 20th century expressed, for example, in the book Single Issues by Joseph Sobran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism

hmmm it would seem a paleocon would support the current status quo which makes the term a far more accurate descriptor of some here on this forum

don't you find it passing "odd" that Greenwald is constantly associated by some with a publication that he has written for or that published his writing only very occasionally rather than the publication that he is a columnist for?

[oberliner]

28. Wikipedia, I feel, does more harm than good in these situations

Anyway, you can look at pretty much any op-ed piece by Pat Buchanan about Israel and be fairly confident that Glen Greenwald would agree with most of the sentiments expressed within.

I doubt he would agree with Pat Buchanan on much else. That's why I am claiming that Greenwald holds the Paleocon position on this issue (not (necessarily) on other issues) and would thus not have a problem contributing to a Paleocon magazine (American Conservative).

Generally speaking, I think Greenwald's views are more aligned with Salon, the source in which he primarily publishes, than any other source.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

8. I'm sure there were white supremicists who supported South Africa who were relieved

when those early attempts failed.

No worries. The time will come! Maybe next year... maybe in 10 years, but justice can't be denied forever to a people who don't give up.

[oberliner]

16. Debate Over Israel Divestment Bill Continues

In the wake of a presidential veto, the debate within the ASUC student government on whether to urge divestment from two companies contracting with the Israeli military is far from over.

ASUC President Will Smelko vetoed a bill Wednesday-passed by a 16-4 vote in the senate a week before-that called for the ASUC and UC to divest from General Electric and United Technologies because the companies, according to the bill, provide Israel with the technology used to attack civilian populations in Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. While some senators said they will seek to override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote, other senators are reconsidering their support for the bill.

A possible senate vote to override the veto will likely not take place until on or after April 14.

The bill had drawn national attention, spurring more than 2,000 e-mails to senators from proponents and opponents worldwide. Some senators said the additional input may lead them to vote against overriding the veto.

"I really thought I was doing the right thing ... but in hindsight I think we should have talked about it more," said Nhu Nhu Nguyen, a Student Action senator who voted for the bill.

http://www.dailycal.org/article/108798/debate_over_israel_divestment_bill_continues

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Are you opposed to divestment from Israel? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Kick for Oberliner n/t

[oberliner]

21. I join Americans for Peace Now, Meretz USA and J Street in opposing divestment

Americans for Peace Now strongly opposes one sided actions and statements, including divestment.

Meretz USA Executive Committee Condemns Divestment

J Street and J Street U reiterate our strong opposition to Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions

[Violet_Crumble]

22. I think yr very wrong on this issue...

The sort of attitude you have on this is a lot like those who opposed the boycotting of South Africa. While I know that boycotts and divestment won't have a marked effect, I wouldn't feel right not boycotting...

[oberliner]

24. Here is an article in Tikkun that you might find interesting

Excerpt:

The moral flaw of calls for total divestment from Israel stems from the fact that, unlike South Africa, the Israel/Palestine conflict is not simply between right and wrong, but rather between the legitimate claims and needs of two traumatized peoples—in pursuit of which both have often resorted to illegitimate and heinous means as well as to mutual demonization and blame. That is what has made this mess seem not only intractable but also morally impenetrable—so much so that it has become polarizing even among people of good will who are sincerely concerned with peace, justice, and human rights.

On the one hand, for nearly two generations the Occupation has been the central reality shaping lives and events in Israel/Palestine—the suffering of Palestinians, the increasing insecurity and international isolation of Israel, the militarization, the spiritual coarsening, and the emergence of depraved perversions of religion among both peoples—and it is the main obstacle to a resolution of the conflict.

On the other hand, another real impediment to a just peace is the tendency within the Palestinian (not to mention Islamist) national narrative, pre-dating the Occupation, to portray the Jewish people in the land of Israel/Palestine as interlopers, and to refuse to acknowledge that they have become a nation with legitimate national rights. Combine this attitude with the fact that armed Palestinian groups target any and all Israeli Jews for attack, and many Israelis believe—mistakenly, but not without foundation—that violence, not peaceful relations on the basis of equal national or civil rights, represents the true desire of most Palestinians.

The objective of a divestment campaign is generally to delegitimize the targeted regime. In the case of Israel/Palestine the question is: Which regime does the campaign delegitimize—the military Occupation or the state of Israel itself? In other words, the moral problem with efforts to divest from Israel is not so much that they are one-sided, but that they are double-edged.

http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/Feldman-divestment-not-the-rightquestion

Note: This piece is from 2005.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Thanks, but it's more of the routine anti-boycott nonsense I've seen so much of in this forum...

None of it's the slightest bit convincing...

[oberliner]

30. Here's Uri Avnery's writing on the topic. Routine nonsense and not the slightest bit convincing?

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1251547904

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Divestment From Israel Is a Necessity

I am proud of the UC Berkeley students who have supported the endorsement of the ASUC bill urging UC divestment from companies that supply Israel with materials used by their military.

When I read the article that contributing writer Allie Bidwell wrote regarding the momentous and significant milestone, it confounded me that she chose to showcase the opinions of Rachel Horning (a sophomore, sociology major) who clearly opposes the bill.

Furthermore, to add insult to injury, she chose to close the article with the opinions of Noah Stern (the Student Action Senator and presidential candidate) who claims he does not support the bill at all. In fact, she completely denigrates the bill altogether by posting his opinion that he is pro-peace, pro-negotiation and pro-reconciliation but the bill does not foster any of those qualities.

What the Israeli military did in Gaza back in December 2008 was abominable, killing an estimated 1,100 to 1,400 Palestinians, many of which were innocent, unarmed women and children. There were only 13 Israeli soldiers that were killed.

How can you justify such a slaughter when the Israeli military are armed with the most advanced weapons, missiles, bombs, jet-fighters, tanks and rifles and the Palestinians had nothing but homemade rockets and stones to defend themselves? Evidence has also been found that the Israeli military even used phosphorous bombs upon the Palestinian population. How can Americans continue to support such heinous tactics? There are Palestinian boys who are being shot in the head by Israeli soldiers on the Gaza border because they are throwing stones.

How is that acceptable? The borders surrounding Gaza have been closed for months and the Israeli military has prevented other nations from contributing materials to the people in Gaza to rebuild their schools, homes and infrastructure. Is it not clear that they prefer that the Palestinian people suffer and die altogether?

http://www.dailycal.org/article/108821/divestment_from_israel_is_a_necessity