measure

0

History is repeating itself!  Berkeley University of California played a central role in the Civil Rights movement, the Free Speech movement, and in protests against the Vietnam War. These young people have a history of leading their country in matters of social justice, and now they are spearheading the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Campaign (BDS) against the Israeli government!

This story also reveals how seriously the Zionist lobby considers this development. Despite the fact that one university’s divestment is only a drop in the bucket, enormous amounts of money and energy are being poured into opposing the move, and the University’s Student President is understandably feeling the pressure!

source: www.sfbg.com…

UC Berkeley Student Senate passes divestment measure, but pro-Israel opponents pushing hard for veto

The UC Berkeley Student Senate has passed a bill that calls upon the university to withdraw nearly $12 million in investments from corporations that do business in the Palestinian West Bank, including Caterpillar, Cement Roadstone Holdings, and Hewlett Packard Company. The bill, SB 160, passed at 5am April 18 by a slim 11-9 margin after 10 hours of emotional debate.

When the final vote count was announced, some students cheered and others broke down in tears. While the measure is largely symbolic and unlikely to change university policy, Israel’s biggest supporters take such divestment votes very seriously and they were actively trying to influence the outcome of this measure.

The fate of the bill is now in the hands of student President Connor Landgraf, a senior bioengineering major who promised student leaders during his campaign that he would not veto any divestment measure. But now, with the bill sitting on his desk, Landgraf is waffling and supporters of the measure say that may be partially because a pro-Israel group appears to have sponsored his trip to Israel last year.

“During my campaign I did say I wouldn’t veto, but now I have different responsibilities,” Landgraf told the Bay Guardian. Since Thursday’s vote, Landgraf said his phone has been ringing off the hook. “I’ve received literally hundreds of emails, and I’m under a lot of pressure.”

read the rest of this article here: www.sfbg.com…

0

Father Dave writes: This seems very bizarre to me! When our local council got involved in the BDS program, the Federal government told us not to meddle in issues that should be left to their Department of Foreign Affairs. It seems that US states have no such inhibitions! But this bill seems to be a double-edged sword for those who created it!

Did Florida’s Legislature endorse a one-state solution and Israeli citizenship for Palestinians?

South Carolina Rep. Alan Clemmons with a group of Israeli soldiers at Masada during his visit to Israel, November 2011. (Alan Clemmons via Twitter)

South Carolina Rep. Alan Clemmons with a group of Israeli soldiers at Masada during his visit to Israel, November 2011. (Alan Clemmons via Twitter)

NEW YORK (JTA) — The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a hotly debated issue — but not in the Florida Legislature.

Both houses of the state’s Legislature voted unanimously in February to stake out a bold position on the issue — but it’s not entirely clear what, exactly, Florida lawmakers were trying to say.

The resolution supports Israel’s “God-given right of self-governance and self-defense upon the entirety of its own lands” and says that the Jewish state is not “an occupier of the lands of others.” It concludes by saying that “peace can be afforded the region only through a whole and united Israel governed under one law for all people.”

The activists behind the measure say their goal was to affirm Israel’s right to determine what happens with the territories it captured in 1967 and the right of Israeli settlers to live anywhere in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. But critics counter that the plain reading of the resolution ends up endorsing a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — with Palestinians in the West Bank being granted equal citizenship.

Such a prescription not only contradicts the stated policies of both the U.S. government and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it represents what leaders in both countries have described as an existential threat to Israel’s existence as a Jewish democratic state.

Supporters of the measure, however, denied that this was their intent.

“One law for all people — and by ‘all people’ we mean Israeli citizens,” said Joseph Sabag, executive director of the Florida chapter of the Zionism Organization of America, who helped organize lobbying efforts in Tallahassee to get the measure adopted.

Asked about suggestions that the text of Florida’s resolution seems to call for a one-state solution, one lawmaker said the reading did not occur to him.

“I would have to say, I did not focus on that,” said Rep. Jim Waldman, a Jewish Democrat from Coral Gables, who was one of more than 30 co-sponsors of the resolution in the Florida House of Representatives. “If it’s anything other than support for the State of Israel, then I would say shame on us for signing on.”

The Florida resolution is largely based on legislation that was approved unanimously by the South Carolina state House of Representatives last June.

At a January meeting in New Orleans, the Republican National Committee embraced a resolution identical to the one passed by the South Carolina lawmakers when it was proposed by a committee member from the state. An RNC spokesperson later stressed that the resolution does not bind the party since it is not part of its platform.

The RNC’s action, however, raised a few left-wing eyebrows.

“There is no interpretation possible other than that the RNC is also advocating complete Israeli annexation of the West Bank, including granting citizenship to the Palestinians living there,” wrote Mitchell Plitnick, a dovish blogger who first reported on the RNC’s action.

J Street tweeted that the RNC action “confirms the decades long bipartisan consensus on a two-state solution is shattered.”

But the author of the original South Carolina resolution said he was not calling for a one-state solution.

“We stand with Israel in its own self-determination over those lands,” said state Rep. Alan Clemmons, a Republican. “I think that really is the bottom line of what the resolution stands for.”

Clemmons, whose resolution was a model not only for Florida but other states now considering similar measures, told JTA that he was inspired to draft the measure following President Obama’s speech last May in which he said that future borders between Israel and a Palestinian state should be based on the 1967 lines with agreed-upon adjustments.

“I remember looking at my wife at the time and saying, ‘I just don’t know anybody that agrees with that position,’” Clemmons said. “We are Christians. We believe the Abrahamic covenant to mean what it says, that the land of Israel is an inheritance to the children of Israel, the Jews, for eternity. We take that quite literally.”

Clemmons, a real estate attorney from Myrtle Beach, says he regards the biblical claim to Israel as the “oldest recorded deed in history” and set out to draft a resolution that reflects this view.

The South Carolina resolution cites Leviticus in asserting a bibilical Jewish ownership of the land and asserts that “God has never rescinded his grant of said lands.”

The reference to “one law,” Clemmons said, was intended to refer narrowly to Jewish building rights, which he believes should be no different whether the Jew in question lives in Tel Aviv or in the West Bank.

“When it came up for debate, there was no debate,” Clemmons said. “It was voted on unanimously without objection.”

Sabag said the ZOA took the South Carolina resolution’s language and “enhanced it” before sending it along to Florida legislators and the leaderships of both the Republican and Democratic national committees.

The ZOA’s changes stripped out the reference to Leviticus and to God not having rescinded his promise and inserted language that explicitly mentions the 650,000 Jews who live in “Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem” and who “reside there legitimately.”

In its statement hailing the Florida Legislature’s passage of the resolution, the ZOA explained, “The mention of ‘one law for all people’ is a specific call for the Jews of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem to be permitted the same rights of land use and development as Jews living elsewhere in Israel.”

The resolution, however, makes no mention of land use or development issues.

Morton Klein, the ZOA’s national president, acknowledged that given the way some have interpreted the “governed under one law for all people” line as calling for granting citizenship to West Bank Palestinians, it “was a poorly worded phrase.”

“It’s not so clear what it means,” Klein said. “I remember struggling with that phrase. It was not written very clearly.”

According to Klein, there is movement to have similar measures adopted in Pennsylvania and Ohio — both states that, like Florida, are sure to be crucial battlegrounds in the November presidential election. Sabag said the resolutions “will be addressed and clarified” as they are taken up elsewhere.

“It’s not in its final version,” Sabag said.

The resolution is one of several items taken up by the Florida Legislature in recent weeks that has commanded Jewish attention. A bill that intended to combat the application of Islamic law was opposed by many in the Jewish community out of fear that religious divorces decided by a rabbinical court also might be invalidated. The bill failed to come to a vote before the legislative session ended last Friday.

Also, a bill adopted March 1 allows students to deliver “inspirational messages” in schools, which critics decried as opening the door to school prayer. The Anti-Defamation League urged Gov. Rick Scott to veto the bill, saying the law is “unnecessary, divisive, and unconstitutional,” and would invite costly litigation.