AIPAC official on taking over student gov't

DPrival78

AIPAC- We’ll take over the UC Berkeley student government (video at link)

Why both with moral persuasion when you can just threaten to take over government… everywhere?

On March 18, UC Berkeley’s student senate voted 16 to 4 in favor of divesting from companies that profit from the Israeli occupation. A week later, in a move oddly predicted by AIPAC’s Jonathan Kessler at AIPAC’s policy conference, the vote was vetoed by the student senate president. (Students hope the senate will overturn the veto next Wednesday.)

When asked about fighting the Berkeley pro-divest initiative, Kessler said, “we’re going to make sure that pro-Israel students take over the student government and reverse the vote…This is how AIPAC operates in our nation’s capital. This is how AIPAC must operate on our nation’s campuses.” Kessler is at 3:58 in video below. Student elections are happening now at UC Berkeley and you can bet everyone’s looking for the AIPAC-Manchurian candidate, if such a thing exists.

Drowned Out

Almost sounds like a zionist conspiracy of some sort...? :evil:
You know things are bad when this shit is happening at Berkeley, of all places. fuck AIPAC and their righteous arrogance; their complete contempt for both the democratic proccess and free speech. That quote, and this story in general, make me sick.

DPrival78

zionist conspiracy? nahh.. no such thing.

Open

Think of all the blood shed due to this organization. F AIPAC

DPrival78

this dude comes out and in plain english spells out their m.o.

chances of anything being done about these bastards?

yosi

I'm no fan of AIPAC, but this entire discussion seems to be misrepresenting what they do. If you watch the video it's pretty clear that they are talking about identifying leaders (in this case potential student government members) and educating them (i.e. trying to convince them of the correctness of AIPAC's positions). They aren't involved in any sort of secret conspiracy, and frankly they aren't doing anything wrong. If you disagree with AIPAC's message try to refute their arguments. Don't start making unfounded accusations of conspiracies and such.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

it's pretty clear that they are talking about identifying leaders (in this case potential student government members) and educating them

This is what was said:

“we’re going to make sure that pro-Israel students take over the student government and reverse the vote…This is how AIPAC operates in our nation’s capital. This is how AIPAC must operate on our nation’s campuses.”

Not quite the same thing as your arrogant assertion that the Berkeley student leaders need educating.

yosi

I didn't say that anyone "needs educating." Please don't misquote me. I noted that in the linked-to video Mr. Kessler talks about educating student leaders, which given the context clearly means trying to convince them of the rightness of AIPAC's positions. Like I said, I'm no AIPAC fan, but they aren't engaged in conspiracy, they are engaged in politics and advocacy, both of which are perfectly legitimate.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

I didn't say that anyone "needs educating." Please don't misquote me. I noted that in the linked-to video Mr. Kessler talks about educating student leaders, which given the context clearly means trying to convince them of the rightness of AIPAC's positions.

O.k, I apologize. I didn't watch the video.

yosi wrote:

Like I said, I'm no AIPAC fan, but they aren't engaged in conspiracy, they are engaged in politics and advocacy, both of which are perfectly legitimate.

I don't see anything legitimate in supporting and encouraging Israeli expansionism and aggression. Unless you think that the amount of land stolen since 1967 warrants all of the bloodshed on both sides of the conflict in that same period of time?

yosi

No need to apologize. I wasn't offended. I'm used to you jumping to ill-founded conclusions.

The issue of whether or not you think AIPAC's policy positions are legitimate is separate from the legitimacy of their methods, which is what is actually under discussion here.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

No need to apologize. I wasn't offended. I'm used to you jumping to ill-founded conclusions.

The issue of whether or not you think AIPAC's policy positions are legitimate is separate from the legitimacy of their methods, which is what is actually under discussion here.

Obviously their position underpins and largely dictates their methods. Like most all Israel apologists subterfuge is their preferred weapon of choice.

yosi

That is a totally unfounded and unsupported accusation. More than that it is an ad hominem attack. Resorting to such ugly methods demeans you.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

That is a totally unfounded and unsupported accusation. More than that it is an ad hominem attack. Resorting to such ugly methods demeans you.

Thank you kindly Sir.

yosi

You are very welcome. You certainly deserve it.

DPrival78

yosi wrote:

I'm no fan of AIPAC, but this entire discussion seems to be misrepresenting what they do. If you watch the video it's pretty clear that they are talking about identifying leaders (in this case potential student government members) and educating them (i.e. trying to convince them of the correctness of AIPAC's positions). They aren't involved in any sort of secret conspiracy, and frankly they aren't doing anything wrong. If you disagree with AIPAC's message try to refute their arguments. Don't start making unfounded accusations of conspiracies and such.

"taking over student governments" to force their viewpoints on a group that clearly disagrees with them goes well beyond advocacy and "education".

same goes for what they do in washington.

Best of Times

yosi wrote:

I'm no fan of AIPAC, but this entire discussion seems to be misrepresenting what they do. If you watch the video it's pretty clear that they are talking about identifying leaders (in this case potential student government members) and educating them (i.e. trying to convince them of the correctness of AIPAC's positions). They aren't involved in any sort of secret conspiracy, and frankly they aren't doing anything wrong. If you disagree with AIPAC's message try to refute their arguments. Don't start making unfounded accusations of conspiracies and such.

yosi

DPrival78 wrote:

yosi wrote:

I'm no fan of AIPAC, but this entire discussion seems to be misrepresenting what they do. If you watch the video it's pretty clear that they are talking about identifying leaders (in this case potential student government members) and educating them (i.e. trying to convince them of the correctness of AIPAC's positions). They aren't involved in any sort of secret conspiracy, and frankly they aren't doing anything wrong. If you disagree with AIPAC's message try to refute their arguments. Don't start making unfounded accusations of conspiracies and such.

"taking over student governments" to force their viewpoints on a group that clearly disagrees with them goes well beyond advocacy and "education".

same goes for what they do in washington.

How exactly are they forcing their viewpoint on anyone? It isn't like AIPAC is arming pro-Israel Berkeley students with sub-machine guns so they can storm the student union building and take over. They are trying to convince people to accept their arguments, and they are trying to get those people elected to student government. And by the way, AIPAC doesn't work directly on college campuses. When you talk about what AIPAC is doing at Berkeley you're really talking about what Berkeley students are doing at Berkeley. At most these students have access to AIPAC staff who are available in a consulting capacity, but at the end of the day the students will do what they want to do. They aren't taking orders from AIPAC. If you can explain to me what is wrong with Berkeley students trying to get people who espouse policies and beliefs that they agree with elected to their school's student government I would be very interested to hear what you have to say.

Drowned Out

Noticed this is an old story.....
Took forever for me to find, but here is how this played out (unsurprisingly) :


http://www.merip.org/mer/mer255/erakat.html

On April 26, 2010, the student senate at the University of California-Berkeley upheld, by one vote, an executive veto on SB 118—the student body resolution endorsing divestment of university funds from General Electric and United Technologies, two companies that profit from the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Proponents of the resolution needed 14 votes to override the veto and, as 16 senators had spoken in favor of doing so, it appeared a simple task.
But the vote in Berkeley had shifted the gaze of national pro-Israel organizations from Capitol Hill westward, begetting an unlikely alliance between the hawkish American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its self-proclaimed liberal rival, J Street. The two groups collaborated in lobbying efforts on campus to sustain the veto. Ultimately, two senators changed their votes and a third abstained, bringing the final count to 13 in favor of overriding the veto and five opposed. While adherence to student body procedure has blocked the divestment measure, the numbers indicate the strong support for divestment on Berkeley’s campus and can be regarded as a milestone in the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.
The strident response to Berkeley’s resolution from off-campus groups reflects that the BDS movement is being taken more seriously by its opponents than ever before. Berkeley students have been at the forefront of BDS efforts since February 6, 2001, the day Ariel Sharon became Israeli prime minister. They erected a mock checkpoint on campus and unfurled banners exclaiming, “Divest from Israeli Apartheid.” Within the span of three years, this first university-based divestment campaign spread onto dozens of other American campuses as well as into churches and community organizations. Yet the movement did not gain international legitimacy and elicit serious treatment until a call for BDS came from Palestinian civil society in 2005.
Since then, and especially since the resounding failure of the international community to hold Israel to account for war crimes committed during Operation Cast Lead, the assault on Gaza in the winter of 2008-2009, the notion of extra-governmental tactics targeting Israeli human rights violations has permeated mainstream institutions. No longer the passion of idealistic students alone, BDS demands have reverberated within American retail stores, corporations and international multilateral organizations.
The movement’s deepening acceptance among mainstream stakeholders correlates with the steady decline of faith in efforts to achieve a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While heads of state fail to extract the most modest commitments from Israel, such as a settlement freeze, BDS activists have increased compliance (albeit incrementally) with international law among corporations and institutions that have distanced themselves from, or divested their holdings in, settlement-related enterprises.
(continued...)

Drowned Out

yosi wrote:

How exactly are they forcing their viewpoint on anyone? It isn't like AIPAC is arming pro-Israel Berkeley students with sub-machine guns so they can storm the student union building and take over. They are trying to convince people to accept their arguments, and they are trying to get those people elected to student government. And by the way, AIPAC doesn't work directly on college campuses. When you talk about what AIPAC is doing at Berkeley you're really talking about what Berkeley students are doing at Berkeley. At most these students have access to AIPAC staff who are available in a consulting capacity, but at the end of the day the students will do what they want to do. They aren't taking orders from AIPAC. If you can explain to me what is wrong with Berkeley students trying to get people who espouse policies and beliefs that they agree with elected to their school's student government I would be very interested to hear what you have to say.

wow, this is some greasy, greasy semantics right here...

First: No, no one has forced anyone to do anything here (at least not that we're aware of)...however, an AIPAC member clearly states that they want to take over a government and reverse a vote....then they get the veto they want, and in the end, two more uni senators change their vote and one abstains. You can tell me that they simply 'educated' these other senators in the meantime, but if you believe that only submachine guns can be used to intimidate (read:force) or influence (read: educate, bribe, grant favours to, etc) someone to change their decision, you are incredibly naive. You seem to imply that AIPAC does everything above-board. Even if that's true (impossibly doubtful), their actions still highlight serious flaws in our systems.

Second: No, AIPAC does not work directly on college campuses. But this is like saying Warren Buffet doesn't work at the NYSE, he just consults a few investors.... or that the board of the RAND corp doesn't work for the US military, they just give them advice once in a while. Way to downplay their influence.

yosi

Look, like I said, I don't like AIPAC. I don't (and wouldn't) expect you to like them either. But at the end of the day it doesn't seem to me that they are doing anything wrong. People keep dealing in innuendo, talking about conspiracies and secret shady dealings without providing any proof to back up the talk. So either put up or shut. Disagree with them all you want, but don't start accusing people of wrongdoing just cause you don't like what they believe.

Drowned Out

yosi wrote:

Look, like I said, I don't like AIPAC. I don't (and wouldn't) expect you to like them either. But at the end of the day it doesn't seem to me that they are doing anything wrong. People keep dealing in innuendo, talking about conspiracies and secret shady dealings without providing any proof to back up the talk. So either put up or shut. Disagree with them all you want, but don't start accusing people of wrongdoing just cause you don't like what they believe.

For someone who doesn’t like them, you sure have a defensive tone. Put up or shut up? No. I'm not in a court of law here, and I'm free to speculate, thanks.….the words ‘forced’ and ‘directly’ were all that kept your post from being as big a stretch as any speculation I could have put forth – AIPAC-worthy semantics and spin. No, I can’t prove any allegation in this particular case, but that doesn’t mean there was nothing shady done…. I’m sure I could find proof of many shady dealings involving AIPAC. So I didn’t think it ok to allow the last word to be, essentially, ‘they’re working within the system to educate Berkeley students on their views’, as this severely understates the significance and subversive nature of their efforts.

I was being facetious with my conspiracy comment, but it is technically true. Just to be clear:
Conspiracy: a secret plan or agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal or subversive act
Subversive: intended or likely to undermine or overthrow a government or other institution

So tell me how, aside from blabbing his ‘secret’, this AIPAC member was not a part of a conspiracy?