The student senate at Stanford University failed to pass a bill supporting divestment from Israel. Five abstentions kept the bill from achieving a required two-thirds majority, though it did receive five votes in favor to three opposed. The high number of abstentions, which represent an anomaly from normal voting patterns, prompted a rebuke from The Stanford Daily newspaper.
The coverage of the vote as well as an op-ed from the bill’s sponsors, prompted a flury of letters in the student newspaper.
An issue debated by a student government rarely attracts as much attention as the outgoing ASSU Senate’s rejection of a watered-down resolution calling for the University to reevaluate its investments in Israel and Palestine. Divestment presented the Senate with a unique opportunity to shape a decision — one way or the other — with real, if only symbolic, significance.
Given the importance of the divestment resolution, we are perplexed by the decisions of five ASSU senators (of 13 who were eligible) to abstain from voting on divestment. Abstentions by public officials are supposed to be uncommon in a democratic system. Voters choose to support a candidate partly on the basis of his or her campaign platform and governing ideals. Voters subsequently expect their elected officials to legislate and vote in a manner consistent with the philosophies on which those in power campaigned.
An abstention, absent an accompanying rationalization, fails to convey any information about an elected official’s beliefs on the topic at hand.
From the bill’s sponsors Nabill Idrisi, Melissa Morales and Lisa Llanos:
So, why didn’t it pass exactly? The primary reason, from what we’ve seen, is because a very strongly-mobilized advocacy group has used intimidation tactics and consistently claims that organizations such as the U.N. and Amnesty International are “one-sided.” These actions, unfortunately, only detract from the main point of our resolution, which is a human rights matter at its core. We don’t want to see our endowment — to which we, as current Stanford students, will probably be contributing to in a few years — being invested in companies that profit from severe human rights abuses and blatant violations of international law.
Another claim by opponents of the bill is that the discussion has done nothing but stifle dialogue on campus. We firmly disagree and point out that actions by these same critics, in fact, have stifled debate. When we contacted several student groups to organize a campus-wide town hall meeting — the least that the senators could agree upon — Stanford Israel Alliance’s president flat-out rejected our invitation for dialogue, noting that the whole idea of a town hall on divestment rests on false premises and that “it is a disservice to the students to begin a ‘dialogue’ on these terms.” We and several other senators strongly disagree and believe that such a town hall with representatives of varying perspectives would indeed be beneficial to students.
From the Stanford Israel Alliance Co-Presidents, Carrie Mlynarczyk and Mark Donig:
Those who voted “no” probably have a deeper understanding of the Middle East than others, and knew that the bill represents flawed thinking that would not lead to the stated aims. Perhaps those who abstained simply understood enough to know that the bill contained some half-truths, and excluded much relevant context relating to the situation, and we applaud their abstention votes on that basis.
Did you know that this September, hundreds of thousands of youth activists in Palestine and Israel will be mobilizing their communities to support a two state solution? Did you know that there exist organizations such as Ishmael and Isaac that promote collaborative productive projects between the American Arab and American Jewish community to help promote peace between Palestinians and Israelis?
How might the Stanford community model itself after these efforts, and contribute to these efforts? How can we turn down the volume on unproductive efforts that one-sidedly vilify Israel and consume so much of the precious time and energy of Stanford students? How can we redirect that time and energy towards mutual projects that actually might make a positive difference? Perhaps we can have a Town Hall on that?
A response from Tala Al-Ramahi, president of the Coalition for Justice in the Middle East:
I am a little disappointed that they have painted the Stanford Israel Alliance as the purveyor of dialogue and peace while neglecting to mention the many attempts by both Students Confronting Apartheid by Israel (SCAI) and the ASSU to organize a town hall meeting on divestment.
They also failed to mention that CJME has recently presented the Stanford Israel Alliance (SIA) with an opportunity to co-host an event by members of Combatants for Peace, an NGO that was co-founded by ex-Palestinian combatants and ex-Israeli soldiers who have renounced violence, and are now working hand-in-hand in ending the occupation through dialogue and other non-violent means. Unfortunately, SIA has refused that invitation because CJME has signed SCAI’s divestment petition.
Recent Comments