2015 Emergency General Meeting

Date: Sunday 7th week, Hilary 2015 (2015-03-01)

Agenda

OUSU Council: BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) against Israel

This JCR notes:

1. That Balliol JCR is affiliated to OUSU.
2. That the President and the Affiliations Officers each have a vote to use in OUSU Council as representatives of the JCR.
3. That there exists a process in Standing Orders by which the JCR’s stance on OUSU Council votes can be decided.
4. That OUSU Council is going to meet on Wednesday 4th March.
5. That the following motion and amendment is to be presented at OUSU council:

Opposition to any motion aligned with Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions at NUS Conference

            Council Notes:

1. The upcoming NUS Conference may feature a motion about whether or not the NUS should be aligned with the “Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions” (BDS) movement against Israel.
2. The last time common rooms were extensively consulted on this issue in 2013, the result was that OUSU Council voted strongly against aligning with the BDS movement (69 votes to 10).           

            Council Believes:

1. The BDS movement includes a commitment to a full academic and cultural boycott of Israel. It indiscriminately targets all Israelis regardless of their political position, rather than targeting action against those involved in the illegal occupation of the West Bank (such as Israeli settlements)
2. A wholesale boycott of Israel by the NUS puts at risk any British student relationships with all Israeli organisations, including those promoting an anti-occupation and/or pro- peace agenda
3. The BDS movement alienates moderate Israelis and strengthens the right-wing ultra-nationalist narrative in Israel – which is damaging for those wishing to see a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
4. The policy positions of the BDS movement (and the rhetoric of many of their leaders) entail opposition to the two-state solution – which is internationally recognized, including by the Palestinian Authority, as the only viable solution to the conflict that respects the wish of both sides to have a sovereign state.           

            Council Resolves:

1. To mandate OUSU’s NUS delegates to vote against any motion aligning the NUS with the BDS movement at the NUS national conference.
2. To mandate OUSU’s NUS delegates to vote for any motion rejecting the BDS movement at the NUS national conference.

            Proposed: Ben Goldstein (Lincoln) Seconded: Adam Dayan (Magdalen)

            Proposed Amendment:

            To replace both "vote against" in Resolves 1, and "vote for" in Resolves 2, with    "abstain on".

            Proposed: Nick Cooper (St John's) Seconded: Marina Lambrakis (St John's)

This JCR believes:

1. That the votes cast by the three Balliol representatives at OUSU Council should accurately reflect the opinions of the JCR as a whole.
2. That a vote at this Extraordinary General Meeting can be used to determine the opinion of the JCR in time for the next OUSU Council.

This JCR resolves:

1. To establish the JCR’s opinion on this matter using the system outlined in Appendix I.
2. To mandate the President and the Affiliations Officers to vote at OUSU Council in accordance with said opinion.

Appendix 1: 'AtRozFord' OUSU Council Voting System

In Standing Orders part III section 11, Duties of the Affiliations Officer, the following process is outlined for establishing the opinion of the JCR following a show of hands on the motion:

1. Calculate the net number of votes for (or against, mutatis mutandis) the motion as a percentage of the total number of votes.
2. Vote in the Oxford University Student Union Council on this matter as follows:
   1. if the percentage is higher than 70%, a net vote of three for the motion shall be cast, otherwise;
   2. if the percentage is higher than 40%, a net vote of two for the motion shall be cast, otherwise;
   3. if the percentage is higher than 10%, a net vote of one for the motion shall be cast, otherwise;
   4. if the percentage is below 10%, a net vote of zero for the motion shall be cast.
3. The exact combination of votes used to achieve these net values is left to the discretion of the Affiliations Officers. 

Minutes

We voted to allow the MCR reps to speak at this meeting. Richard May outlined the motion.

Kat Pritchard asked whether the JCR could abstain on the motion; it was clarified that this was possible, and the JCR’s exact stance would be decided through means of the process outlined in the appendix.

Dan Turner asked how we voted last time. Chessy Whalen replied that we decided to vote two votes in opposition and one vote of abstention. She also explained that the AtRozFord system was introduced in response to the confusion over the vote last time.

We moved to debate, and the real fun began.

An MCR member began by arguing that the NUS delegates would be forced to take an official stance that may be in direct opposition to their personal stance, and that there had been a lack of proper debate on this issue due to insufficient time. He believed that it would be best for NUS delegates to vote according to their own beliefs.

Chessy said that this debate had occurred previously in 2013, and that similar criticisms had been raised in that debate. She said that the timeframe this year had been far better than the previous debate, but that it would likely be delayed at OUSU until the following week. She also expressed a belief that the NUS delegate candidates had not run with a particular stance on this issue. Rob Walmsley raised a point of information: that several candidates had in fact run with a specific stance on BDS.

A JCR member argued that it made far more sense for us to decide as a JCR than to allow NUS delegates to vote on conscience, and that the JCR had been notified with more than sufficient time to investigate the nature of the motion. Furthermore, he stressed that the motion was not related to whether or not you oppose Israel, and that it was entirely possible to oppose Israel’s policies or government without supporting BDS. He then went on to argue that BDS in fact derails the peace process by causing Israel to elect more antagonistic leaders in response to isolationist pressures from outside, and that BDS argued for a total boycott extending to educational and cultural institutions that bore no connection to the Israeli government or its policies.

Joe Spearing asked how the NUS delegates were likely to vote if it was left up to them; Rob said that five out of seven delegates would be likely to support BDS.

Dan said that he had several questions, and warned that since his information was taken from Wikipedia it could be wrong. Joe Spearing commented that that had never stopped him from talking in tutes, and Dan mused that it didn’t tend to stop him in GMs either. Dan said that several of the statements in the ‘Council Believes’ section of the motion seemed to contradict the Wikipedia articles about BDS. An MCR member agreed, and said that Believes 1 applied to a version of BDS not supported by the NUS, that Believes 2 was false on the grounds that a number of Israeli institutes in fact support BDS, and that Believes 4 was irrelevant.

Xav Cohen said that he felt that people with strong views on the matter tended to view BDS as being broader then it actually was.

Colm Britchfield said that the discussion on the nature of the motion before us largely missed the point – if we voted the motion down, we would be making no statement to the NUS reps regarding what our position on BDS actually was, allowing the NUS reps to vote for anything they wanted instead of representing our opinions.

Rose Hadshar asked how the motion before us was connected to what we were voting on, and how we would vote at OUSU. Duncan said that the motion itself was subject to change at OUSU, and consequently we were voting on our general stance on whether to support BDS.

Aisha Simon said that while BDS was something we needed to discuss and establish our position as a JCR, the motion wasn’t about whether we personally believed in BDS or not. She said that BDS was primarily focused on preventing human rights abuses by Israel, and that the situation had changed since the previous debate in 2013.

Chessy said that her understanding of the NUS debates was that very little discussion on motions actually happened. She argued that Believes 1 was factually accurate according to the BDS website, and that she had seen real and personal impacts on Jewish students at the University. She said that by supporting BDS, OUSU would reject the existence of the Union of Jewish Students, and that consequently students would have to choose which to join.

An MCR member responded that the boycott was not broadly targeted, and that examples such as the protests disrupting the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra were because the orchestra had received funding from the Israeli government.

Chessy clarified that her point regarding BDS was that if the NUS supported BDS, it would apply to OUSU, and that the nuances of OUSU’s stance would likely be lost at the NUS meetings. She said that the Union of Jewish Students was a significant group that would likely fall victim to the BDS boycott, and that based on her discussions with the people involved in the debate in 2013 supporting BDS would make Israeli and Jewish students feel less welcome, and would be damaging to applications from Israeli and Jewish students.

A JCR member felt that motions like this were reactive rather than proactive, and that they were liable to miss the nuances of the discussion.

Tom Posa had two points to make. He warned that he had to make them quickly, since his presence was required elsewhere. After the JCR had finished expressing their amusement at his political commitments, Tom expressed a view that Aisha had implied that BDS was the only solution to the issue, and that he disagreed strongly with this stance. He found it offensive to suggest that failing to support BDS in some way condoned the recent deaths in Gaza.

Aisha apologised if she had offended Tom or anyone else in the room, that she had not meant to do so, and that she had not meant her comments to be construed along those lines.

Richard May asked whether the Believes in the OUSU motion were relevant at all, given the likelihood of them changing and the fact that the NUS debate would ignore these nuances. Several people felt that this was not the case.

At this point, Tom had to leave to attend Port & Policy. He requested that he be allowed to vote by proxy, through Jacob Rabinowitz. This was accepted by Richard May.

Tushar Kelkar asked how amendments to the OUSU motion would work, and Duncan and Richard clarified that we were voting on the JCR’s stance in general rather than on a specific motion that could be subject to change.

Dan said that he would support a move to place peaceful pressure on Israel, but that he was unsure how that point of view could be made clear within the JCR’s votes. He said that we needed to choose between the three options on the table (general opposition to sanctions, general commitment to sanctions, and abstention).

It was requested that the poll at the end of the motion be conducted by secret ballot. The procedural motion passed.

At this point, Richard May left the room to prepare the secret ballot, and Aisha Simon took over minuting.

Rose said she would like us to keep our options open.

Chessy said the BDS movements has specific aims, and expressed concern for the way this will affect the students of Oxford

Rachel said that as a member of OUJS she would feel uncomfortable in a University that took a one-sided stand on this.

Xav said that we need to get a stronger handle on what Divestment means. BDS is a way of standing against fundamental human rights abuses. He said that in political questions like this there can be unfortunate consequences of these decisions, but is necessary for greater good and justice. He asked that we consider the number of Palestinian students in Oxford, and for those who cannot reach Oxford because of the international injustice.

Richard May returned, and asked what question should be put for the secret ballot.

Dan drew attention to the difference in the way people view a ‘BDS Movement’ and the general aims of ‘Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions’.

Akram pointed out that the Boycott can mean different things and that there is no single organisation, no single line and that there are a multitude of societies and unions supporting BDS.

At this point, we paused for a break. Alex McKenzie left the meeting to purchase additional snacks, and Richard May drafted a question together with Duncan Shepherd, Aisha Simon and the MCR members present.

Proposed question:

In the event of a motion at the upcoming NUS conference regarding the BDS movement, OUSU’s NUS delegates should take a stance:

[For BDS / Against BDS / Abstain]

Alex McKenzie returned, the meeting resumed, and Richard May returned to minuting.

Tushar asked whether our delegates could be mandated to bring amendments to OUSU. Duncan said that while this was possible, it could be extremely problematic. Chessy said that she felt it would be impossible for the room to approve amendments that were representative of the JCR, due to the evident division in opinion.

It was asked by an MCR member whether we could add an option to require the delegates to bring an amendment; Duncan and Chessy both expressed a view that this would be difficult and unlikely to be constructive, both at the OUSU and the NUS level.

Joe Spearing said he had a point to make, but warned that it might not be entirely relevant. He expressed a view that this debate was not about Israeli foreign policy, but rather whether we supported a particular set of views regarding the best way to deal with Israeli foreign policy. Duncan requested that we return to Joe’s point once he’d figured out if it was relevant to the question.

Rose requested that the question be modified to include a provision establishing the JCR’s stance on whether we supported boycotts in general. Richard May asked whether such a distinction would make it out of OUSU to the NUS; there was no clear consensus on this. Duncan also clarified that the OUSU motion solely concerned the BDS movement.

Rose proposed an additional question, with the following form:

In the event of a motion at the upcoming NUS conference regarding the BDS movement, OUSU’s NUS delegates should take a stance (subject to the results of the previous question):

[For boycotts against Israeli institutions violating international law / Against boycotts against the Israeli institutions violating international law / Abstain]

Duncan said that while he recognised it was an extremely worthwhile question, he did not feel it was relevant to the debate that would occur. Further debate on this topic followed, but did not cover much new ground.

Max Dalton said he felt that it was fundamentally difficult to mandate officers to vote on every possible hypothetical question that might come up. He felt that our officers would be able to accurately represent our more nuanced opinions with a general mandate.

There were numerous calls to move to a vote, and the questions were passed unanimously.

At this point, Richard May once again left the room to prepare the secret ballot, and Duncan Shepherd took over minuting.

Joe Mansour said that the difficulties in defining BDS challenge the ability of the JCR to hold a considered view; Dan countered that this was not a problem.

Jacob Rabinowitz argued that the new question supported Dan in claiming that the new question solves this problem.

Sam Gibb lent weight to the previous point, and Colm pointed out that BDS did lack support from some Palestinian Groups when taken as a coherent group.

Sam said that despite the number of levels of bureaucracy there was a chance that students could feel isolated by this motion.

Conor Jordan asked what the NUS defined BDS as. Dan raised a point of information of the NUS definition of the boycott (largely companies that support Israel military capacity, or contradictions of human rights), and Conor asked if we could accept that.

Colm pointed out that the NUS’ definition of BDS was not relevant to our own, especially as the JCR has attempted to give its own definition.

Joe accepted Colm’s point, but recognised that the JCR’s OUSU reps could bear in mind the spirit of the debate.

Richard Ware agreed, and added that the lack of clear definition of BDS prevents an easy definition of the JCR’s view.

Akram claimed, once again, that the question of BDS was more tangential than the question of democracy.

Chessy, Cealach McKeating, and Charlotte each pointed out the issues with the voting for the NUS delegates from the start.

Xav claimed that the principle matters more than the nuanced specificity due to the complexity of the bureaucracy, and added that the statement of the NUS rejecting BDS would be far larger.

Richard May returned with the ballot papers and ballot box, and returned to minuting.

Joe argued that if you supported sanctions but did not support BDS, you should vote no to the first motion and yes to the second one. He did not feel that there was a problem with the clarity of the questions.

Matt Lynch asked how Duncan would vote in the case of a specific motion that solely specified ‘BDS’ if we specified that he should vote against ‘BDS’. Duncan said he would vote against the motion.

Dan said that he felt current NUS policy broadly aligned with what he supported.

An NUS delegate arrived, and the JCR voted to allow him to speak. He said that if the motion passed at OUSU, he would be forced to vote to overturn the existing NUS policy.

There was a call to a vote, but it was disrupted by several substantive points of debate. Dan reiterated his call to move to a vote.

Anna brought an amendment to strike question 1, on the grounds that the confusion regarding the definition ‘BDS’ was causing issues. Seeing broad approval, Richard May moved to take the amendment as friendly, but Sam Bumby opposed this on the grounds that question 1 specifically dealt with the subject of the OUSU motion and was thus still relevant.

Following much debate that retrod previous ground, Dan called for a move to a vote on the amendment. Matt Lynch interjected, asking how Duncan would vote on the OUSU motion if question 2 passed. After some thought and discussion, Duncan said that he would vote against the OUSU motion. Matt Lynch felt that Duncan’s difficulty in deciding was a strong example of how removing the first question would lead to a lack of clarity. Dan withdrew his amendment.

An amendment was brought to strike question 2, provided BDS was clearly defined as being current NUS policy. We moved to a vote, and the amendment passed.

There was a call to move to a vote, and it passed.

The motion passed unanimously.

Richard May, Duncan Shepherd, and Aisha Simon were selected as Returning Officers. The ballot box was examined and found to be empty, and was duly sealed. Ballot papers were distributed, and voting commenced.

Following the GM, spare ballot papers were destroyed in the JCR Office shredder, and the ballot box was then brought to the JCR Office for counting.

Following the count, it was concluded that two votes should be cast in favour of BDS, where ‘BDS’ was to be interpreted as being current NUS policy, and one vote against.