RESOLVING TO DIVEST THE HISTORY OF SJP AT UCLA’S

DIVESTMENT CAMPAIGN

 

2 

 

Arturo speaks at divestment, Fall 2014 

ABSTRACT - - - - X This article reviews the history of Students for Justice in Palestine at UCLA’s campaign to pass a divestment resolution through the Undergraduate Students Association Council (USAC). In the pages that follow, this article briefly historicizes campus Palestine activism, reviews the history of SJP at UCLA, and then provides a detailed historical account and analysis of the divestment struggle, from the first discussions of ethical investments in early 2013 to the ultimate passage of divestment in November, 2014 . 1

1 This article is the culmination of years of advocacy for the Palestinian cause as well as a conscious attempt to battle an ahistorical understanding of campus Palestine organizing that has allowed for persistent mischaracterizations of this strand of activism and relevant organizations. But many of the issues presented here are presently evolving, and information pertaining to the formative years of Palestine organizing in the US remains difficult to come by. The co­authors therefore consider this text to be a fluid archive, and invite all connected to the efforts recounted here to continue to share their stories and wisdom. 

 

3 

 

 

PART 1: SJP’S HISTORY   Background - - - - X  

A Brief History of Campus Palestine Activism  

As Raja Abdulhaq writes in an article reflecting on the legacy and present status of the General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS), "From the very beginning, students have played an active role in the Palestinian national movement ." The Organization of Arab Students (OAS), founded 2

in the US and Canada in 1952, was the first North American student organization to engage in pro-Palestine activist work, which it carried out within the context of a larger, pan-Arab struggle. However, GUPS would soon come to take the helm concerning student Palestine organizing. Founded in Cairo in 1959, GUPS had "more than 100... branches worldwide." In her lecture, "Historicizing the Palestinian Struggle," Jennifer Mogannam explains how the framing of Palestine as an anti-colonial cause resonated with the internationalist bents of many organizations . North American branches of GUPS forged connections with other causes, a 3

pattern that continued up through the 1980's with GUPS at San Francisco State playing a particularly crucial role. These developments occurred in tandem with the redefinition of the campus as a critical setting for political activism that had been initiated by the Free Speech Movement, which began at UC Berkeley, and the student-strikes of the late 60s/early 70s that included addressing crucial gaps in educational curricula through the formation of Ethnic Studies programs (among others) as a platform , . Contemporary manifestations of inter-community 4 5

accompliceship around the Palestinian cause on campus were made possible by these early legacies of joint struggle . 6

 But over time, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) shifted its focus from an

international anti-colonial struggle to a two-state solution, and following the Oslo Accords all

2 Raja Abdulhaq, “Rebuilding a General Union of Palestinian Students” https://electronicintifada.net/content/rebuilding­general­union­palestinian­students/7821  3 Jennifer Moghannam, “Historicizing the Palestinian Struggle” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0KIORWHaUw  4 Calisphere, “The Free Speech Movement” http://www.calisphere.universityofcalifornia.edu/themed_collections/subtopic6b.html  5 Joanne Barker, “The Beginning and End of Ethnic Studies” https://tequilasovereign.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/the­beginning­and­end­of­ethnic­studies/  6 Jimmy Johnson, “Our Palestine statement draws on history of Black internationalism, says organizer” https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/jimmy­johnson/our­palestine­statement­draws­history­black­internationalism­says­organizer  

 

4 

 

North American branches of GUPS eventually dissolved with the exception of the San Francisco State chapter, which remains active to this day . Relatively little is known about the state of 7

campus organizing in the years directly following the decline of GUPS, but in 2001, the first chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) was formed at UC Berkeley. In 2002, a new national student coalition known as the Palestine Solidarity Movement was formed, holding conferences at Berkeley, Michigan, Ohio State, Duke, and Georgetown. Although the organization dissipated, by 2005 SJPs had sprung up at universities across the country. And in 2011, a new organization named National Students for Justice in Palestine had been formed to continue organizing national conferences and providing support for the roughly 100 chapters of SJP that now exist across the country.  

BDS work, primarily in the form of passing resolutions calling on universities to pull funding from companies complicit in the occupation, began to take increasing priority in the efforts of campus groups such as SJP and Students United for Palestinian Equal Rights (SUPER) following Palestinian Civil Society's call in 2005. These early political formations and subsequent domestic, international and ideological shifts remain a living component of the present state of campus Palestine activism.  

The Founding and Growth of SJP at UCLA  

Although campus activism for Palestine had been taking place at UCLA for many years prior to the foundation of Students for Justice in Palestine, records of this activity are spotty at best. Palestine was certainly an issue on the campus, with the campus paper's editorial board openly endorsing divestment as early as 2002 . What is known is that by 2005, students on 8

campus had decided to establish an independent organization to carry out Palestine activism work. Founded in 2005, SJP at UCLA began organizing events in early 2006. The organization's first events included a talk on connecting Native American and Palestinian struggles with Professor Robert Perez of UC Riverside, a Hip Hop for Palestine Event featuring Invincible, the Nomads, and the Philistines, and a speakout with an IDF refuser. 2006 also saw the start of ten consecutive years of Palestine Awareness Week on campus.  

The early years of the organization were marked by energetic and creative protests and actions, such as mobile mock checkpoints and impressive outreach efforts in classrooms. One shortcoming, however, was a relative lack of focus - the organization's goals shifted depending on the interests and goals of its leadership. This characterization of the organization may have applied between 2005 and 2008, but Operation Cast Lead, and the student reaction to it, marked an important shift in consciousness and strategy.  

7 SFSU GUPS https://www.facebook.com/GeneralUnionofPalestineStudents  8 Daily Bruin Editorial Board, “UC must respect human rights, divest” http://dailybruin.com/2002/07/07/editorial19/  

 

5 

 

Operation Cast Lead shifted campus activism in two important ways. First, SJP at UCLA engaged with the political process on campus for the first time, working to pass a resolution condemning Israel's assault on Gaza and its deadly consequences for the Palestinian people . 9

After a long debate, the resolution eventually passed overwhelmingly. It also enjoyed the support of student groups from across campus. It was one of several resolutions of solidarity passed at UCs after Cast Lead. However, despite the resolution's political importance, and the high degree of work involved in getting it passed through the student government, the text did not engage with UCLA's own institutional relationship to Palestine/Israel (namely, investments in companies complicit with the occupation). Second, the post-Cast Lead period of student organizing at UCLA focused on understanding and working to end institutional complicity with Israeli human rights violations. In May of 2009 SJP at UCLA held its first event focused on the BDS call. Although subsequent programming in the years after 2009 included a focus on BDS, it took several more years for the debate to return to the level of student government. In that period, other SJPs in the state were also beginning to pass divestment resolutions. In 2010, UC Berkeley held a highly publicized divestment campaign which was vetoed by the student government president. Other campuses, such as UC San Diego, also made multiple attempts to pass divestment. In 2012, however, UC Irvine became the first SJP to successfully pass divestment in California. It was followed by successful campaigns in 2013 by UC San Diego and UC Berkeley, with other campaigns growing across the state . 10

 At that time, SJP at UCLA did not see the orientation of the student government as

favorable to a divestment resolution, and chose not to engage in a specific campaign at that point. However, the growing campus wide interest in divestment campaigns in general meant that although SJP wasn't ready to propose divestment, the issue was coming to the campus anyways. In spring of 2013, a coalition of student groups proposed something more broad, namely an ethical investments framework that would enact criteria in regards to labor rights, environmental justice, and human rights.

9 UCLA’s 2009 Gaza Resolution http://www.sjpbruins.com/2/post/2009/02/text­of­2009­ucla­gaza­resolution.html  10 Rahim Kurwa, “BDS Campaigns Sweep UC Campuses” http://solidarity­us.org/pdfs/ATC\%20165­­BDS.pdf  

 

6 

 

 Early Photos from SJP at UCLA 

 

7 

 

Part 2: Momentum Builds for Divestment 

The Beginnings of the Divestment Debate - - - - X  

The Ethical Investments Resolution  

"The USAC Resolution for Ethical Investments" proposed in spring 2013 called for the UC Regents to pull funding from any company found to be complicit in practices harmful to the environment, workers, and human rights. At the time, one student aptly qualified the collective relevance of the resolution as follows:  

 

8 

 

"The USAC Resolution for Ethical Investments is in the interests of all students on campus and is based on widespread public support for policies favoring human rights, workers' rights and environmental sustainability .” 11

 Although not specific to Palestine/Israel, it was common knowledge among concerned

parties that any effort to apply socially responsible criteria to the UC's investments would necessarily touch on the UC's investments in companies aiding Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Unfortunately, a largely conservative student council tabled "The USAC Resolution for Ethical Investments," and later, at a forum dedicated to addressing public concern about the resolution, pro-Israel students demanded a clause saying that Israel would be exempt from the ethical investment framework. This demand revealed that even pro-Israel campus activists knew Israel's actions were in violation of Palestinian human rights. But in a broader sense, pro-Israel opposition to the ethical investments resolution demonstrates the hypocrisy of future anti-divestment tactics: at this point in time, pro-Israel students attacked resolutions for being too broad, whereas later on they would attack resolutions specifically focused on Israel/Palestine as too narrow (usually by asking why Israel was being `singled out' when there were so many other countries perpetrating human rights abuses). According to their stated logic, the broadly construed ethical investments resolution should have been the perfect solution for those who use this line of argumentation to oppose Palestine-related divestment measures. The fact that pro-Israel students nevertheless felt compelled to oppose the resolution shows the artificiality of the argument, suggesting that the ‘singling out' complaint is merely one out of a slew of often contradictory and disposable rhetorical strategies used to disguise straightforward nationalism as ethical vigilance.  

At any rate, pro-Israel groups now knew that the issue of divestment had come to UCLA, and that divestment measures specific to companies aiding Israel's occupation would likely follow shortly. The ethical investment resolution had opened up a debate that garnered the widespread interest of students. In May 2013 the student government passed a fossil fuel divestment resolution, which served as yet another warning sign that more divestment resolutions were to come . This prompted pro-Israel groups to try a new way to head off the 12

passage of divestment - positive investments.  

11 Jason Smith, “USAC treatment of ethical investment policy resolution fails to display unity” http://dailybruin.com/2013/04/15/submission­usac­treatment­of­ethical­investment­policy­resolution­fails­to­display­unity/  12 “UCLA Resolution to Divest from Fossil Fuels” https://www.usac.ucla.edu/documents/resolutions/UCLAResolutiontoUSACfortheDivestmentofFossilFuels.pdf  

 

9 

 

The Anti-BDS Resolution  

SJP-UCLA's first divestment-related victory was not the passage of a divestment resolution, but rather the successful countering of an anti-divestment resolution authored by then-USAC Internal Vice President (and later Student Regent) Avi Oved (who would later go on to be one of the central figures in the Adam Milstein funding controversy) . Titled, "A 13

Resolution in Support of Positive Steps Towards an Israeli-Palestinian Peace" (sic) the document was presented as a "pro-dialogue" and "pro-peace process" measure that called for the UC to invest in companies employing both Israelis and Palestinians - a concept labelled "positive investments." But buried in the second page of the resolution were several clauses that actually disavowed the tactic of divestment as harmful and counterproductive. The resolution was transparently cynical. As we asked in an article at the time,  

"How does ending our investments in companies that violate human rights, in Palestine or anywhere else, harm anyone on campus? On the other hand, many Palestinian students at UCLA and on other campuses have expressed great discomfort with the fact that their tuition dollars are being funneled into companies that are harming their own families in Palestine ." 14

 Following a lengthy public comment portion (during which many student organizations

came out in support of SJP and against the resolution), as well as an extended editing session on the part of the student representatives, the resolution was ultimately voted down by a 5-7 margin. The resolution lost its momentum once the clauses banning the student government from considering divestment were highlighted, and once council members realized how inappropriate it was to have excluded Palestinians from a resolution that claimed to speak on their behalf. Further, many found it hard to believe Oved’s claims about having written it by himself in good faith, having equally excluded pro-Israel groups and pro-Palestinian groups from involvement. Momentum against the bill also shifted as the student body and many council members defended the university's time-honored ability to use divestment as a tool to promote social justice, and saw the anti-divestment clause in the bill as threatening that history. But after these clauses were removed, there was no longer any impetus to pass the resolution, and Oved and the resolution's sponsors made no effort to bring it back. This behavior suggested that the other vague language around dialogue and promoting peace was less important than the language around stopping divestment.  

13 Alex Kane, “Caught in a lie: E­mails prove right­wing pro­Israel donor Adam Milstein gave money to California student candidates” http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/milstein­california­candidates/  14 Rahim Kurwa and Omar Zahzah, “USAC bill fails to consider Palestinian view” http://dailybruin.com/2013/10/22/submission­usac­bill­fails­to­consider­palestinian­view/  

 

10 

 

What came out of the discussion was the news that one of the resolution's sponsors had taken a free trip to Israel provided to him by the Anti-Defamation League . Sunny Singh, the 15

student in question, denied that the free trip could in any way have inappropriately influenced his views on the subject, but nevertheless continued to cultivate a relationship with the ADL, including giving a speech at its annual gala. This revelation foreshadowed much extended debate over the appropriateness of free trips offered to student government members by lobbying groups . 16

 

 Pro Palestinian students line up to speak at the divestment hearing 

15 UCLA SJP, “The Israel Lobby’s Use of Free Trips to Sway Student Government” http://www.sjpbruins.com/news­­opinion/the­israel­lobbys­use­of­free­trips­to­sway­ucla­student­government  16 UCLA SJP, “Judicial Board Case Summary” http://www.sjpbruins.com/judicial­board­case­summary.html  

 

11 

 

SJP Launches its First Divestment Campaign

- - - - X  

By the end of 2013, the alternatives to a direct debate over the university's financial involvement in Israeli violations of human rights were exhausted. Perhaps scoring an own-goal, the pro-Israel community had sunk the broader student attempt to ensure ethical investments. It then failed to mis-direct the student government through the positive investment/anti-BDS resolution. All that remained was for SJP to construct its own divestment campaign.

Starting in December, 2013, SJP at UCLA began its first divestment campaign, drafting a resolution calling on the UC Regents to pull funding from five companies complicit in the occupation: Caterpillar, Cemex, Cement Roadstone Holdings (CRH), General Electric (GE), and Hewlett-Packard (HP) . SJP also made sure to prioritize outreach with other student 17

organizations. Significantly, SJP did not limit our outreach to organizations that would automatically agree with divestment or SJP's politics more broadly, but at the time believed that it was important also to convey our position to student organizations with opposing viewpoints, including pro-Israel groups. These groups stated that they did not object to the text of the resolution, but would nevertheless oppose divestment anyways, even if further clauses that they wished to see were added. As we described in another article, however, an atmosphere of intense normalization led to such outreach being deemed insufficient, and everyone from pro-Israel groups to student politicians who would later vote on the measure voiced the opinion that mere outreach wasn't enough and that SJP should have actually allowed pro-Israel groups to co-author the resolution . This is, of course, a double standard to which no other group would 18

have been held. But it also promoted an idea that simply was not true. In private, these groups admitted that they had no problems with the text of the resolution, but that they still could not cooperate with SJP in any way, shape, or form. But in public, they claimed that their non-cooperation was a product of a lack of outreach by SJP. This was finally made public in a radio interview in which a pro-Israel leader admitted that the most her group would be willing to cooperate on was a statement that the parties would agree to disagree . 19

 This is an important issue to reflect on because it represents another challenge

commonly encountered by students who organize around Palestine: the misconception that Palestine solidarity work is inherently divisive, and so campuses should emphasize collaboration

17 Kaleb Adney, “Our Money, Our Responsibility” http://www.sjpbruins.com/news­­opinion/our­money­our­responsibility  18 Omar Zahzah and Rahim Kurwa, “Good Faith or Good Tactics? How Some Anti­Divestment Groups Manipulate Public Discourse and Smear SJP” http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/17319/good­faith­or­good­tactics­how­some­anti­divestmen  19 Daily Bruin, “Long Story Short” http://dailybruin.com/2014/02/25/long­story­short­february­24­2014/  

 

12 

 

and partnership with pro-Israel groups rather than allowing students interested in Palestine activism to pursue their cause with full autonomy. Such attitudes are also connected, more broadly, to the post-Oslo shift in official and popular discursive framings of Palestine/Israel from an issue of anti-colonial liberation to a simple "conflict" best remedied by universal emphases on the need for "peace," collaboration and co-existence, as neatly outlined by Joseph Massad . 20

 On February 5th, 2014, another divestment campaign came to the UCLA student

government - this time centered on private prisons which the UC system was invested in. The campaign, led by the Afrikan Student Union, was extremely successful, and quickly earned an overwhelming majority of votes on the council , . At the discussion of the resolution, one of the 21 22

non-voting administrative assistants who sits on the council extolled the campaign for presenting human narratives and stories that powerfully conveyed the need to divest from private prisons as a strike against the broader system of mass incarceration which affects communities of color in the United States and at UCLA as well.  

20 days later, Students for Justice in Palestine presented its resolution to the same student government that had just voted to divest from private prisons. In favor of the resolution were several progressive and independent council members, joined by 19 student groups. Given the size of the turnout (estimated at roughly 500 students), the hearing was moved to the campus' largest public venue - Ackerman Grand Ballroom. The debate lasted over ten hours and went until 6 in the morning the following day . Of note was the intrusion of individuals from the 23

anti-Palestinian organization StandWithUs, who filmed pro-Palestinian speakers without first securing permission until they were eventually kicked out. The atmosphere of intimidation created by StandWithUs was compounded by the presence of IDF soldiers speaking out against divestment and a string of violent and Islamophobic comments made by anti-divestment speakers . Intimidation also reached council members. As Daily Bruin columnist Eitan Arom 24

wrote in March of 2014,  

“Three separate unsigned emails to USAC Student Wellness Commissioner Savannah Badalich, who was seen as a swing vote on the divestment issue, made that comparison [of support for divestment being anti-Semitic], with one saying “if you as a council

20 Joseph Massad, “Palestinians and the Dilemmas of Solidarity” https://electronicintifada.net/content/palestinians­and­dilemmas­solidarity/14518  21 Kendal Mitchell, “USAC passes resolution calling for reevaluation of company investment” http://dailybruin.com/2014/02/05/usac­passes­resolution­calling­for­reevaluation­of­company­investment/  22 UCLA Private Prison Divestment Resolution https://www.usac.ucla.edu/documents/resolutions/USACPrivatePrisonDivestmentResolution.pdf  23 UCLA February 2014 Divestment Livestream Archive http://dailybruin.com/2014/02/25/watch­live­usac­discusses­divestment­resolution/  24 Press Release, “Muslim Student Association calls for prioritization of Diversity Requirement, accountability, and positive campus climate”  http://www.sjpbruins.com/news­­opinion/muslim­student­association­calls­for­prioritization­of­diversity­requirement­accountability­and­positive­campus­climate  

 

13 

 

member vote for this you are undoubtedly anti-semitic.” Another wrote that those pushing for divestment should “watch your backs .”’ 25

 Although the leaders of the anti-divestment side claimed to reject Islamophobia, their

official presentations to student government were riddled with the same racist tropes they claimed to eschew . But putting aside the racism and intimidation present in the debate, the 26

core issues were relatively clear, and even the campus paper, shy to explicitly endorse divestment, could not help but editorialize in favor of the resolution. In its editorial calling for a broader student referendum, the editorial board wrote, "the moral core of the resolution is on point – the University of California should not invest in companies complicit in human rights abuse" and later added,

"UC investments in companies that support the military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and provide for the building of illegal Israeli settlements in the region are deeply problematic and contribute to a status quo that threatens the ongoing peace process ." 27

Despite the outpouring of support and the fact that the large majority of public comment

was in favor of the resolution and came from a diverse cross section of the student body, the student government narrowly defeated the resolution . Organizers in SJP were humbled by the 28

solidarity shown by a diverse array of student groups, activists and faculty who showed their support by co-sponsoring the resolution, coming out for public comment, and issuing official statements in defense of the measure. But in addition to the fact that every divestment campaign, regardless of the outcome, is a victory in that it allows for coalition building and outreach and forces student politicians to discuss the plight of the Palestinian people at the hearing, the results of the night in question also illuminated two starkly different world-views.

On one hand, there was a wonderful outpouring of support of a wide swath of the UCLA community. From groups with a deep history of cross-movement solidarity, to organizations whose members quickly came to support the position of SJP, there was an outpouring of support based on the commitment to human rights and desire not to contribute to the degradation of

25 Eitan Arom, “Nature of divestment talks reflects poor campus climate” http://dailybruin.com/2014/03/04/eitan­arom­nature­of­divestment­talks­reflects­poor­campus­climate/  26 SJP at UCLA,  “SJP at UCLA Denounces Racism in Bruins for Israel Presentation to Student Government”  http://www.sjpbruins.com/news­­opinion/sjp­at­ucla­denounces­racist­speech­by­bruins­for­israel  27 Editorial Board, “Editorial: USAC should let students vote on divestment issue” http://dailybruin.com/2014/02/24/editorial­usac­should­table­divestment­resolution/  28 Press Release, Press Release: Students for Justice in Palestine Decries Failure to Support Palestinian Students and Human Rights at USAC Hearing” http://www.sjpbruins.com/news­­opinion/press­releasestudents­for­justice­in­palestine­decries­failure­to­support­palestinian­students­and­human­rights­at­usac­hearing     

 

14 

 

Palestinians through our own university investments. A post-divestment meeting held just after the resolution failed was a particularly remarkable moment, as tearful students explained how the divestment debate had catalyzed them to action and strengthened their resolve to pass divestment on the next attempt. In the weeks following the vote, students began a “second class Bruins” campaign to highlight how the lack of respect for human rights affected Palestinian students. Some Jewish students composed a statement encouraging more progressive views than were present in their community’s discourse, prompting a response by SJP as well , . On the 29 30

other hand, the leadership of the pro-Israel community saw the events in a different light. Rabbi Chaim Seidler-Feller wrote the following in a message to the Hillel community after the vote:

"I look at it all and view it as a periodic ritual that different minority groups have had to enact in order to legitimate their claim to victimhood. The ritual involves making the case that your oppression was caused by the world's most recognized victims-the Jews. And the goal is to establish that the ‘Victims’ are actually the most egregious victimizers. Last night the Palestinians took the stage to attempt to gain their bona fides; and they failed...The initiative and others like it thus had little to do with Israel and the Palestinians. Rather, it was about one community at UCLA ‘getting' and outing another community as racists and bigots, part of the oppressor class in America. This is a sick remnant of the identity politics of the 90's."

Seidler-Feller's view of pro-divestment Jewish students was just as hostile. He wrote, “[There were]... a host of Jews and Israelis who marched up to the mike [sic] in order to announce that they were really moral human beings because they had the ‘courage’ to publicly denounce Israel and distance themselves from their own community."

Those students later went on to found the UCLA chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace.

 "When we firststartedorganizingourdivestmentcampaignin2012,we                     wereadvisedtogiveourselves10yearstogetadivestmentresolution                      passed.That'sabouthowlongittooktopassresolutionsondivesting                       fromSouthAfricaattheUCs,soitseemedlikearealisticgoal.Itdid                            nottakeUCLA10yearstopassaresolutionondivestingfromcompanies                        thatviolatePalestinianhumanrights.Andtosaypassingdivestment,in                     suchashorttime­frame,wasthebiggestvictoryofourcampaignwould                      be a lie. We educated students and faculty about the realities of                       Israeliapartheid,builtacommunityoncampus,andsawindividualsfrom                    all walks of life join the movement for Palestinian rights. In my                       opinion, that was the biggest victory."­ Lila 

29 “On the Israeli­Palestinian Conflict: A Statement by Progressive Jewish Students at UCLA,” https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1FN_nU9ru4ihkUvjKdsuS_z8n4iI2szzyOuo2wmLpRaA/viewform 30 “Open Response to Progressive Jewish Students at UCLA Statement” http://www.sjpbruins.com/news­­opinion/open­response­to­progressive­jewish­students­at­ucla­statement  

 

15 

 

The influence of outside anti-Palestinian groups on the campus debate - - - - X 

Free trips as a means of gaining influence  

The divestment campaign also provided students with the incentive to begin looking into the role of the Israeli lobby in student government. SJP uncovered a shocking pattern whereby anti-divestment lobbying groups such as the Anti-Defamation League and American Jewish Committee would actively recruit student politicians and provide them with free "educational" trips to Israel with the expectation that these politicians would return to their respective campuses to "apply what they learned”. , Two of the USAC members who voted against SJP's 31 32

resolution had received such trips, a circumstance that provided the material for a subsequent Judicial Board complaint filed by SJP against the two USAC members in question. The logic of the complaint was that large gifts made in advance of a vote could sway elected leaders of student government to consider the position of their beneficiary rather than the student body. The Judicial Board ultimately ruled in favor of the two USAC councilmembers, maintaining that there could be no conflict of interest when benefits were received prior to (rather than after) voting. The narrow reading of the concept of conflict of interest was disappointing, but the case was nevertheless crucial in calling attention to what had been a hitherto silent pattern of lobbying groups trading benefits of an exorbitant financial value for political favors, primarily votes against divestment resolutions , . Exposing the extensive intervention of off-campus pro-Israel 33 34

forces in student political affairs became a pivotal component of SJP UCLA's work well into the summer of 2014 .   35

31 “SJP at UCLA Charges Council Members Singh and Rogers with Conflict of Interest” http://www.sjpbruins.com/news­­opinion/press­release­students­for­justice­in­palestine­at­ucla­charges­council­members­singh­and­rogers­with­conflict­of­interest  32 Rahim Kurwa, “Coming to a Campus Near You: ADL recruits student politicians for Israel trips” http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/defamation­recruits­senators/  33 “SJP at UCLA Concerned by Judicial Board Verdict and its Implications for Student Government” http://www.sjpbruins.com/news­­opinion/press­release­sjp­concerned­by­judicial­board­verdict­and­its­implications­for­student­government 34 “The Israel Lobby’s Use of Free Trips to Sway Student Government” http://www.sjpbruins.com/news­­opinion/the­israel­lobbys­use­of­free­trips­to­sway­ucla­student­government  35 Omar Zahzah and Rahim Kurwa, “Lobbyists, politicians must not meddle in campus debates” http://dailybruin.com/2014/09/10/submission­lobbyists­politicians­must­not­meddle­in­campus­debates/  

 

16 

 

Funding student elections to create an anti-BDS bulwark  In the summer of 2014, leaked emails from the campus group Bruins United revealed that

an anti-Palestinian real estate mogul named Adam Milstein had been funneling off campus funds from pro-Israel sources to Bruins United candidates for student government in an effort to ensure that these students would be elected and not allow divestment to pass . Milstein, it 36

should be noted, had also been funding the AJC trips to Israel given to council members for free. What we know of the system is as follows: some members of Bruins United emailed Milstein making general pitches for contributions to the Bruins United campaign. The pitches explicitly stated that the election of pro-Israel candidates through Bruins United was the only thing standing in the way of SJP , . Milstein then turned around and sent these solicitations to other 37 38

donors, directing them to make tax-deductible contributions to Hillel at UCLA, which would then funnel the money to Bruins United. Those involved in the project were clearly aware of how inappropriate it was. In an email to Milstein, Avinoam Baral wrote,  

“I can not stress enough how discrete (sic) this initiative must be. If this letter or any evidence of outside organizations involvement in these student government elections were to be found by our opponents it would compromise our campaign, Bruins United and all student government pro-Israel activism across America .” 39

Milstein, for his part, lied to the press about his donations, stating that he did not give

funds to candidates. Another student government member, Avi Oved, who was being considered as Student Regent at the time the emails became public, also issued contradictory statements to the campus press. His claims that he did not know who was donating to his campaign were contradicted by evidence that he personally solicited funding and was copied on emails in which Milstein himself confirmed his own $1,000 donation. Finally, the Bruins United party lied by omission, telling the public that it received funds from corporate sponsorships and from candidates themselves, but omitting its pro-Israel funding sources. When these documents became public, four of the five council members from Bruins United claimed no knowledge of this funding scheme, and one disaffiliated from the party . Apparently aware of how 40

unsustainable their position was, Bruins United leaders slated a pro-divestment student to run in special campus elections in fall 2014.

36 Alex Kane, “Pro­Israel Muslim­basher Adam Milstein at center of storm over funding of California student elections” http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/milstein­california­elections/  37 Chloe Hunt, “Funds to UCLA student political party came from outside sources, leaked emails show” http://www.dailycal.org/2014/07/03/funds­ucla­student­political­party­came­outside­donors­leaked­emails­show/  38  Amanda Schallert, “Leaked emails reveal hidden sources of Bruins United campaign funds” http://dailybruin.com/2014/12/11/leaked­emails­reveal­hidden­sources­of­bruins­united­campaign­funds/  39 ibid 40 Amanda Schallert, “USAC councilmembers respond to campaign funding conflict of interest” http://dailybruin.com/2014/12/11/usac­councilmembers­response­to­campaign­funding­conflict­of­interest/  

 

17 

 

Afrikan Student Union makes public comment at the divestment hearing 

 Unity circle outside Ackerman Union after the resolution fails to pass 

 Pro­divestment students protest the outcome of the first divestment vote 

 

 

18 

 

 

"IwouldwalkonBruin­walkduringfallquarterof2014andhearpeople                         

Ihadnevermetbeforetalkingaboutwhatdivestmentwas,whichtous                         

mightbeasimpleorobvioustopicbuttoaregularcollegestudentisa                          

complexissueofhumanrightsadvocacy.Forthefirsttime,thousandsof                       

people ­ people I never knew and who were not in anysocialjustice                           

organizations­werecriticallythinkingaboutPalestine.Studentsinmy                  

microbiologyclasseswerediscussingifthemilitaryoccupationofGaza                   

andtheWestBankwasillegal.StudentsImetforthefirsttimeina                           

coffeehousewouldseemy‘UCLAdivest’shirtandapproachmeandaskme                           

questionsabouthowUCLAwascomplicitinhumanrightsviolations.Even                     

students who I knew were very polar right on the topic before, and                         

unwilling to hear about the Palestinian struggle were finally moving                   

more towards the center." ­ Ayesha 

 

 “Inthefirstiterationof#UCLADivest,theresolutiondidnotpass.In                       

thehourthatfollowedthevote,Iremembersteppingoutsidetomeetthe                        

sunrise,numbequallywithshockandgrief.Itwasalltooeasytofeel                           

asthoughourcountlesshours hadgonetowaste.ButI'llneverforget                         

whatmyfriendtoldme.Hesaid"ifIhadknownatthebeginningofthe                              

year that by the end of this, we would have gotten dozens of student                           

groupendorsements,hundredsofnewmemberstoourlist­serve,andevery                     

corner of this campus talking about Palestinian human rights, I would                     

have done it over and over again­­regardless of the vote." ­ Reem 

  

"InmyfouryearsatUCLA,thebiggestachievementofSJPwasnotthe                           

passage of divestment, but the shift in political conversation on                   

Palestine. When I got to UCLA, I would presume that besides SJP and                         

organizationsadvocatingforminoritiesandcommunitiesofcolor,noone                   

reallyknewmuchaboutPalestineatall.Manypeoplemighthavehada                        

very skewed perception that was dictated by a biased media or were                       

merely ignorant. Through the divestment campaign, and the events and                   

efforts of SJP, the atrocities in Palestine were brought to the                     

forefrontofourcampus.YoucouldevensayaregularUCLAstudentnow                        

had something of an understanding about the violation of Palestinian                   

humanrightsandhowUCLAhasaroletoplay.Thisishuge.Icouldn't                           

havedreamedofthis...Theresolutionfailingforthefirsttimewasa                      

blessingindisguise.Itgaveustheopportunitytoeducatethecampus                       

and raise awareness about why Palestine deserved attention; why it                   

deserved justice. The shift in campus conversations and awareness on                   

PalestinewasSJP'sbiggestachievementandIcouldn'thavebeenprouder                    

to have been there to watch it happen."­ Ayesha 

 

19 

 

Part 3: Passing Divestment 

After Protective Edge, Divestment Passes - - - - X  

Following the return to campus after Israel's latest assault on Gaza, Operation Protective Edge, SJP UCLA again undertook a divestment campaign, drafting a new resolution that added Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and United Technologies for these companies' role in servicing the IDF with the weapons and technologies used in Protective Edge , . As before, outreaching to student groups was a priority. SJP at UCLA 41 42

reached out to over 50 groups and made roughly that many presentations. Sometimes, those presentations redounded to endorsements of divestment. Other times, those presentations helped decrease the level of opposition of other student groups. One example was the Bruin Democrats, which openly opposed divestment the first time, but decided to remain neutral the

41 Students for Justice in Palestine at UCLA Announces Fall 2014 Divestment Campaign http://www.sjpbruins.com/news­­opinion/for­immediate­release­students­for­justice­in­palestine­at­ucla­announces­fall­2014­divestment­campaign  42 SJP Divestment Page http://www.sjpbruins.com/divest.html  

 

20 

 

second time. This shift might be attributed to ongoing engagement with the group, even though it ostensibly shared little in common with SJP's core principles. In addition, SJP held regular teach-ins, showing Roadmap to Apartheid regularly, as well as explaining the principles of divestment and walking students through the arguments for and against the campaign.  

One change from the first campaign bears examination, however. Although SJP’s first divestment campaign was transparent and open, the second effort was significantly more so, and particularly because of a growing public interest in the issue from students across campus who had little formal contact or membership in SJP. In other words, once the debate had been brought to the forefront of campus, a much larger subset of the student body became invested in it. Students from around campus engaged in the debate about Palestine with their peers without prompting by SJP or its members. This flowering of public discourse was remarkable, and included the creation of student initiated projects to demonstrate support for divestment, from a creative YouTube video counteracting pinkwashing to a campaign highlighting the international support for Palestinian freedom through the creation of divestment-flag icons for use on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter . 43

To support and keep up with this dynamic, SJP made the process more inclusive by providing an online forum for students to give feedback about what they would like to see in a divestment resolution and hosting a Town Hall attended by roughly 100 students designed to consolidate the feedback and allow any and all interested students to voice their opinions of the resolution and help shape it to fit their interests and concerns , . While during the first campaign, SJP 44 45

reached out to the pro-Israel community to discuss the resolution in private, this time the entire process was conducted publicly, with pro-Israel students included in the larger cross-section of students providing their input and feedback. Ultimately, these efforts helped to demonstrate the strength of the ideas undergirding divestment and allowed other students to participate and take ownership of the resolution. It also put the lie to the claims that SJP was not open to talking to pro-Israel groups. SJP also moved its annual Palestine Awareness Week up in the yearly calendar, using it as a teaching week to build education and momentum for divestment. The week highlighted featured talks by Sherene Seikalay and Nasser Barghouti about the history of Palestine/Israel, the current facts on the ground, and, most importantly, students' responsibility to address the issue through campus BDS work . 46

 As with the previous campaign, there was no shortage of challenges to our efforts: it was

eventually revealed that UCLA Hillel staff had hired an outside PR firm, 30 Point Strategies, for

43 Queers Divest, “It Gets Better: Coming Out as Pro­Divestment” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNIWXUVRqAY  44 Alejandra Reyes, “SJP announces campaign for new divestment resolution” http://dailybruin.com/2014/11/03/sjp­announces­campaign­for­new­divestment­resolution/  45 Chandini Soni, “SJP members address divestment resolution at town hall meeting” http://dailybruin.com/2014/11/12/sjp­members­address­divestment­resolution­at­town­hall­meeting/  46 Zachary Micheli, “SJP’s Palestine Awareness Week seeks to educate students” http://dailybruin.com/2014/11/03/sjps­palestinian­awareness­week­seeks­to­educate­students/ 

 

21 

 

advice on how to combat the prospect of divestment passing on the UCLA campus . 47

Interestingly, and in contrast to previous anti-divestment efforts, the ‘advice’ consisted of urging anti-divestment students to refuse to engage SJP or those in solidarity with SJP directly, instead dismissing SJP and its allies as a collective of "isolated graduate students" and asking all third parties who would listen to consider why SJP "doesn't condemn ISIS." Regardless of these tactics, SJP made a serious effort to engage with pro-Israel students on the question of divestment . 48

 These tactics represented the crumbling of a cohesive and compelling anti-BDS narrative.

Despite narrowly defeating divestment the first time around, it had become clear that their earlier tactics, which included appeals to authority such as a statement of opposition to BDS from Samantha Power, had little effect on free-thinking students . The strategy the second time 49

around had changed in an obvious manner - if you can't win the debate, attack your opponents. But this strategy of attack was not only reserved for SJP: pro-Israel students also applied it to the entire student council. The pro-Israel group "Bruins Against BDS" created a cynical campaign called "Students First" that argued that by debating divestment the student government had put other interests above the interests of its own students. This strategy backfired as many on campus noted that Palestinian students were affected by the Israeli occupation and that students themselves had initiated and brought forward the divestment campaign. To erase divestment as a student concern was to erase Palestinian students. On the night of the divestment hearing, pro-Israel students did not show up, holding an alternative meeting instead. Instead, they sent four representatives from "Bruins Against BDS" to make a public statement denouncing the council as "unrepresentative" of UCLA students for voting on a measure that was so "irrelevant" to student life and well-being, despite the fact that a much more diverse and numerous crowd of students had mobilized in support of the resolution. One representative from J-Street protested that the resolution for divestment was insufficiently deferential to the two-state solution because the divestment logo used the historic map of Palestine, rather than one that delineated only the Occupied Territories. Nevertheless, having failed to convince the student government, they declared that they would reject student government . These tactics left greater space for 50

the pro-divestment side to make its case, including one important moment when a video appeal by Palestinian students from Birzeit University was played for student government members at the hearing . 51

47 Alex Kane, UCLA Hillel partners with PR firm to fight BDS movement http://mondoweiss.net/2014/10/hillel­partners­movement/   48 “Letter to Students Opposed to Divestment” http://www.sjpbruins.com/news­­opinion/open­letter­to­students­who­may­be­opposed­to­divestment  49 Samantha Powers’ statement against BDS, http://static1.squarespace.com/static/533b1dc6e4b09e45fee141f3/t/533b9c3fe4b04aa62c005c35/1396415551495/SamanthaPowers.pdf  50 Bruins for Israel, “UCLA Students Reject USAC” http://www.bruinsforisrael.com/blog/2014/11/19/ucla­students­reject­usac  51 “Palestinian Students' Video Address to USAC,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcyqg3hfgks  

 

22 

 

In the end, all these strategies proved ineffective, as the new divestment resolution was successfully passed by an 8-2 margin, making UCLA at the time the 6th out of 9 UC campuses to have passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal of UC funds from companies profiting off of the oppression of the Palestinian people , . To be sure, myriad factors contributed to this 52 53

result, chief among which is, as always, the staggering displays of solidarity on the part of scores of student groups and individuals of conscience. As SJP wrote in its year in review,  

"The overwhelming show of support from the students who came out to provide public comment as well as the fact that 32 student organizations endorsed our resolution and 15 co-sponsored it as equal partners was a definitive blow to the tired myth of divestment being ‘divisive.’ It's impossible to even count how many students contributed to divestment's success in some way - through educating their peers, sharing information, attending the town hall, talking to council members, presenting to student groups, and so on. Tellingly, groups opposed to divestment failed to make a case against the substance of the resolution itself, resorting instead to attacking the process and organizations supporting this cause ." 54

 To this primary factor, one might also add moral indignation at Israel's actions in

Protective Edge; the general shift rightward of the Israeli political scene; increasing skepticism and criticism of third-party involvement in student political life; the overall transparency of SJP's campaign; the failure of `dialogue' and `positive investments" as compelling alternatives to divestment; and the comprehensively stronger set of arguments on the pro-divestment side as key components that facilitated the passage of the resolution . To wit, the eight votes for 55

divestment included both independent council members and one member of Bruins United. In his statement preceding his vote in favor, this particular council member (Carlos Quintanilla) noted that he had been conflicted on his position up until the start of the hearing - having been torn between the claims and pressures of both sides. But hearing the case presented by students giving public comment, seeing the broad support for the resolution from groups across campus, and finding no error or fault in the resolution's text, he felt compelled to vote yes . This was a 56

particularly poignant moment as SJP had no expectation that he would vote to support the resolution, assuming that his position as a leader of Bruins United would outweigh other factors of social justice and moral concern. Indeed, when he made the announcement, the public in the room reacted in stunned shock.

52 “A Resolution to Divest from Companies Engaged in Violence Against Palestinians” https://www.usac.ucla.edu/documents/resolutions/USAC%20Divestment%20Resolution%20(11­13­2014)_no%20sponsors.pdf  53 Adam Horowitz, “In landslide, UCLA student govt votes to divest from Israeli occupation” http://mondoweiss.net/2014/11/landslide­divestment­resolution/  54 SJP at UCLA's 2014­15 Year in Review http://www.sjpbruins.com/news­­opinion/sjp­at­uclas­2014­15­year­in­review  55 Avinoam Baral “The Real Winner in Israel's Election: BDS” http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium­1.648009  56 UCLA Divestment Livestream https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F01jTkwwzMU&feature=youtu.be  

 

23 

 

This moment made concrete an understanding held by many on campus: the

anti-divestment side of this public debate had no credible case to make. This fact, implicitly acknowledged by opponents of divestment, is likely what drove individuals to solicit Milstein’s funding to capture seats on USAC; to rely heavily on anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments in their public appeals; to solicit outside PR agencies’ support; and what drove them to ultimately abandon the cause and fail to show up at the second divestment hearing. For all the advantages that this well-funded effort might have had, it could only hold back the tide of public opinion for so long. Summarizing the meaning of the campaign, James Mroz wrote the following:  

"The victory of this resolution is not just important for what it means to Palestinian students and those who stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people. It is not just important for what it means to human rights and the responsibility of all nations to preserve the human rights of all people. This resolution proves that the students at UCLA are powerful. It shows that groups cannot simply rely on money or the influence of outsiders to achieve their goals. Only students can decide the fate of their university, and that makes me proud to be a Bruin ." 57

 "Lastlesson.Don'tbecomplacent.EventhoughIwasneversupervocal,                      

inmyfirstyearinSJPIgainedtheconfidencetospeakupaboutissues                            

andspeakaboutwhatIknowisright.AndIthinkthatinauniversitya                           

lotofpeoplewanttoblendinandjustgetby.Youwanttonotbetoo                                 

controversial,andjusthavefun,notbeserious.SJPchangedmylife                       

andIamsogratefulforit,becauseIlearnedtonotbecomplacentand                           

tospeakup.IneverthoughtI'dlearnaboutPalestineasanengineering                        

student. And SJP changed that. And I'm so grateful for it." ­ Rasha 

57 James Mroz, “The Hidden Actors in UCLA’s Divestment Campaign” http://chicagomonitor.com/2015/07/op­ed­the­hidden­actors­in­uclas­divestment­campaign/  

 

24 

 

Part 4: Looking to the future  

In the University of California, 8 out of 9 campuses in the UC system have passed resolutions calling for divestment from companies that supply arms to Israel and/or profit from the occupation . In early February of 2015 the University of California Students Association, the 58

statewide body representing the 240,000 students of the UC system, passed a similar resolution calling for the Regents to divest from these companies . In December 2014, in response to a call 59

from Palestinian labor organizations, local UAW 2865, the local union representing over 14,000 student workers, presented a resolution calling on the UC and the UAW International to divest

58 SJP West ­ BDS Campaigns http://sjpwest.org/bds/sjp­west­bds­campaigns/  59 On to the Regents: In Historic Vote, UC Student Association Endorses Call for Divestment in Support of Palestinian Rights http://www.sjpbruins.com/news­­opinion/on­to­the­regents­in­historic­vote­uc­student­association­endorses­call­for­divestment­in­support­of­palestinian­rights  

 

25 

 

from the occupation and weapons manufacturers that passed by a 65% majority with a higher-than-usual voter turnout . 52% of voting members also signed on to a personal, 60

non-binding pledge to uphold the academic boycott of Israeli institutions. At the time, this made UAW 2865 the first major US labor union to back BDS, though the UAW International Executive Board, responding to an appeal filed by an anti-BDS rank-and-file UAW member, opted to nullify the vote in December 2015 . Though this nullification has since been upheld by the UAW 2865 61

Public Review Board , scores of organizations and individuals have expressed their support for 62

UAW 2865's vote. Across the country, more than 25 campuses have passed divestment motions through their undergraduate student governments, and major student coalitions such as Movimiento Estudiantil Chican@ de Aztlan (MECHA), and United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) have endorsed BDS , . 63 64

In January of 2016, one of the UC’s corporate divestment targets, the Irish cement firm

CRH, revealed that it was officially ending its relationship with Israeli cement companies. CRH had been a divestment target because of its work with the Israeli cement industry to provide cement used to construct the wall and settlements in the occupied West Bank. CRH’s departure was hailed as a major victory for both Irish and international divestment campaigners . 65

 UCLA's divestment victory was an incremental outcome, the result of years of cumulative

student activist efforts. It is also part of a current, wider momentum driving BDS campaigns forward, even as official instances of repression on all levels become more pronounced . But it 66

is also clear that there is much more work to be done. In the case of South Africa, it took myriad forms of organizing, including inside and outside the university's political structures and at

60 “Historic: UAW 2865, UC Student­Worker Union, Becomes First Major U.S. Labor Union to Support Divestment from Israel by Membership Vote” http://www.uaw2865.org/historic­uaw­2865­uc­student­worker­union­becomes­first­major­u­s­labor­union­to­support­divestment­from­israel­by­membership­vote/  61 Ben Norton, “With help of corporate law firm, small pro­Israel group derails historic UAW union vote endorsing boycott” http://www.salon.com/2016/01/25/with_help_of_corporate_law_firm_small_pro_israel_group_derails_historic_uaw_union_vote_endorsing_boycott/  62 Palestine Legal, “Union officials suppress member support for BDS” http://palestinelegal.org/news/2016/5/25/union­officials­suppress­member­support­for­bds?platform=hootsuite  63 “National MEChA Endorses Palestinian Boycott Call Against Israel” http://www.nationalmecha.org/archives/2012/03/national_mecha_endorses_palestinian_boycott_call_against_israel.php  64 “Students kept busy at USAS Summer Convention” http://usas.org/2014/08/27/students­kept­busy­at­usas­summer­convention/  65 “Irish firm CRH, key target of UC SJPs’ Divestment Campaigns, ends its financial complicity with violations of International Law and Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories,” http://sjpwest.org/2016/01/20/crh­divestment/  66 Greatest Threat to Free Speech in the West: Criminalizing Activism Against Israeli Occupation https://theintercept.com/2016/02/16/greatest­threat­to­free­speech­in­the­west­criminalizing­activism­against­israeli­occupation/  

 

26 

 

several levels of university activity (including undergraduate, graduate, and faculty votes for divestment) to build enough pressure on the Regents to divest , , . Indeed the organizing 67 68 69

around South Africa, and the contemporary work of groups working for fossil fuel and private prison divestment show the pathway forward for Palestine solidarity campaigners. The passage of divestment actions against major coal polluters and private prisons have shown that consistent and persistent advocacy can result in victories for contemporary student divestment movements (Fossil Free UC and Afrikan Black Coalition) , . It seems clear that campaigners at 70 71

UCLA and across the UC system will need to continue expanding the range of divestment advocacy to bring a comparable level of pressure to bear on the University before it too divests. But what is also clear from the experiences of this campaign and the lessons gleaned from past movements is that the process of engaging in this organizing is itself tremendously important. It was through the divestment campaigns that SJP organizers were able to reach and educate the most students on campus, to activate its largest numbers of students into contributors in some form or another, and to move the debate about Palestine forward in a significant manner.

It must be said that SJP's campaign worked hard to center Palestinian voices in numerous ways. Presentations to student groups, meetings with student senators, and presentations during divestment hearings were all led by Palestinian students, deliberately. The experiences of Palestinian students vis-a-vis the occupation were also instrumental to explaining to the campus why the issue of Palestine mattered in their local context. These efforts put into practice the idea of resituating Palestinians in the US as a group with claims that should be heard alongside the claims of Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza strip, and '48 territories. Moreover, the success of this campaign rested in large part on the support of other groups on campus. This pattern highlights a framework of organizing that Loubna Qutami has called the Palestine analytic: a philosophy that recognizes the liberation of Palestine as inextricably bound up in the liberation of all oppressed peoples . 72

While the growing number of adherents to the cause for Palestinian freedom and

self-determination, as well as the attendant surge of BDS victories are cause for celebration, the possibility for the student solidarity movement to translate these gains into effective pressure on Israel rests on the ability to continue this organizing work and build upon it. Divestment

67Mahader Tesfai, “UC Divestment From South Africa” http://scalar.usc.edu/works/livinghistoryproject/uc­divestment­from­south­africa  68 Michigan State University “African Activist Archive Project” http://africanactivist.msu.edu/ 69 Clarity Films, “Have You Heard from Johannesburg?” http://www.clarityfilms.org/haveyouheardfromjohannesburg/episodes.php  70 Fossil Free USA, “University of California Begins Fossil Fuel Divestment” http://gofossilfree.org/usa/press­release/university­of­california­begins­fossil­fuel­divestment/  71 Afrikan Black Coalition, “Afrikan Black Coalition Accomplishes UC Prison Divestment!“ http://afrikanblackcoalition.org/2015/12/18/afrikan­black­coalition­accomplishes­uc­prison­divestment/  72 Loubna Qutami, “Rethinking the Single Story: BDS, Transnational Cross Movement Building and the Palestine Analytic” http://socialtextjournal.org/periscope_article/rethinking­the­single­story­bds­transnational­cross­movement­building­and­the­palestine­analytic/  

 

27 

 

campaigning both moves public opinion and translates that opinion into institutional pressure to end the occupation. By continuing to push divestment at the graduate and faculty level on campuses, and by working to translate those votes into changes in UC investments, campaigners can do exactly that. That is a long and difficult road, and one that will continue to present many challenges, but the progress made in the past several years indicates that significant change can be accomplished on campuses in a relatively short period of time, and that more progress is indeed possible.

  

 

28 

 

 “Watchingourfirstdivestmentresolutionnotpassthefirsttimeweproposeditwas                           incrediblydraining,bothmentallyandemotionally.Wehadworkedtirelesslybuildinga                      strongbasewithinSJP,strengtheningconnectionswithothercommunitiesoncampus,and                       meetingwithstudentcouncilmembersacrossthepoliticalspectrum.Wehaddedicatedso                         much time and energy to shifting the conversations on Palestine around campus, and                         thoughtheresolutiondidnotpassthatfirsttime,Ideeplybelieveitwasahugeand                               necessarysuccess.IwillneverforgetsittinginAckermanGrandBallroom,thelargest                        spaceoncampus,watchinghundredsofstudentsgatheringtodiscussPalestinefor12                         hoursstraight.Hundredsofstudentsfromsomanydiversecommunitiescametosupport                         our efforts, and not justasurfacesupport­peoplewereincrediblypassionateand                         well­educated on the issue. That night, we saw the fruits of our efforts, and we                             witnessedashiftoncampus,onewewouldbeunabletopredict,evenayearearlier.                             EveryonewastalkingaboutPalestine.Randomstudentsinclasses,incampuselevators,                       on Bruin Walk, were talking about Palestine and the divestment vote. I had never                           experiencedanythinglikethat,andIknewthatwewouldonlycontinuebuildingonthat                            awareness. 

 

 Aftertheresolutionfirstfailed,Iwasoverwhelmedwithemotionandexhaustion.Asa                         Palestinianstudent,Icouldn'tcometotermswiththefactthatacouncilofstudents,                           after being educated on the issue for months, would actively choose to continue                         investing in an occupation that my family lived under. To be honest, it became                           difficulttocometocampusforquitesometime.Ihadneverfeltsounwelcomeandout                                of place. I was very frustrated with student politics, with people prioritizing                       party­lineloyaltyoverhumanlives,overthelivesandrightsofmyfamilymembers.                           DespiteknowingPalestinehadwidespreadsupportacrosssomanycommunities,Ididn't                      know how to grapple with the fact that those in positions of power were ready to                               undermine our efforts any chance they had. 

 

 Thesecondtimeweproposeddivestment,wehadbeenbuildingonsomuchmomentum.The                             second vote was an expansion of theeducationandcross­communitysolidaritywehad                         beenprioritizingoverthepreviousfewyears.Thenightthatdivestmentwasbroughtup                           in November 2014 is one of the most memorable to me, andoneofmyproudestasan                                   organizer.IhadbeenorganizingwithSJPatUCLAforoverfouryearsatthatpoint,                               andwatchingoureffortscomefullcircleandculminatinginanoverwhelmingmajority                         vote in favor of divestment was so empowering. Seeing the further shift in campus                           discussionevenfromthefirstvoteinFebruary2014tothatNovember,wasincredible.                           When we sat in Ackerman and watched student after student give public comment                         supportingdivestment,withnostudentsopposingit,Iknewwithoutadoubtthatwehad                           reachedatippingpoint.Thoseopposingdivestmentcouldnolongerengageinalogical                         discussionaroundPalestineanddivestment.Wehadwonthelogicalargument,100%,and                         it was so clear that night, when even a council member on the conservative slate                             unexpectedly voted in favor of divestment. I knew there wasnogoingbackafterwe                             reached that point.”  

­ Dana 

 

29 

 

 With many thanks to the student Groups endorsing 

divestment 

Afrikan Student Union American Indian Student Association

Al-Talib Newsmagazine Armenian Student Association

Asian Pacific Coalition Bengali Students Association

Bhagat Puran Singh Health Initiative Black Law Students Association

Bruin Feminists for Equality FEM Magazine

Fossil Free UCLA Improving Dreams, Equality, Access, and Success (IDEAS)

Incarcerated Youth Tutorial Project Indus

Jewish Voice for Peace Law Students for Justice in Palestine

MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán) de UCLA Mentors for Academic and Peer Support (MAPS)

Muslim Law Student Association Muslim Student Association

Native Roots Pakistani Student Association

Project One Queer Alliance

Samahang Pilipino Social Awareness Network for Activism through Art (SANAA)

Student Coalition Against Labor Exploitation (SCALE) UMMA Volunteer Project

United Afghan Club United Arab Society

Vietnamese Student Union Womyn of Color Collective at UCLA Law School

 

Contact us at sjpucla1@gmail.com