When we first reported on the January 29 ASUCD vote that called on the UC Board of Regents to divest from “corporations that aid in the Israeli occupation of Palestine and illegal settlements in Palestinian territories,” it was clear that this was an issue of local import – it was not clear that it would gain national traction as it did.
That is important to keep in mind when we gauge the actions of ASUCD senator Azka Fayyaz whose picture and comments posted on her personal Facebook page have become the poster child for national right wing blogs and publications.
She posted, “Hamas & Shariah law have taken over UC Davis. Brb crying over the resilience.”
As a Cal Aggie editorial notes, “Fayyaz’s post was met with harsh criticism. As a result of of public backlash, Fayyaz uploaded the same photo again on Jan. 29 with a different caption stating, “If a movement is not controversial, if no one is mad, it’s not strong enough & it’s not worth the fight. Israel will fall Insha’Allah : ) #UCDDivest.” She has since disabled her Facebook account.”
Ms. Fayyaz published an extensive public statement in the Aggie, and she writes, “Although I made a comment on the picture stating that the caption was satirical, the anti-divestment community conveniently left out the comment from the rest of the picture and took the caption out of context. In doing so, they shared my picture on various Islamophobic, racist and anti-Palestinian blogs and articles.”
She notes, “I received hateful e-mails and violent messages and was labeled as an anti-Semite, a spokesperson for Hamas and a Jew-hater. All of these judgements are grotesquely disgusting and factually incorrect.”
At the same time, she does herself no favors referring to the “Zionist lobby groups” and arguing that “student senators and other students affiliated with Aggies for Israel on campus have also yelled Islamophobic slurs at me such as ‘terrorist’ and threatened me by holding my position as an ASUCD senator hostage over me.”
“Attacks such as these have been directed at me from the day that I assumed the position as an ASUCD senator. Their intentions are clear, to suppress any opposition and slander the individuals while they do it,” she writes.
The Aggie editorial was critical of her conduct, “While it is understandable — and even encouraged — for a political figure and an ASUCD senator to express her excitement over a bill she supports passing, the Editorial Board believes it is inappropriate and insensitive to make a post on a public area that marginalizes and offends certain groups. Although the posts were published on her personal Facebook profile, Facebook posts are a grey area, as ASUCD senators historically use Facebook politically to promote their campaigns, publicize events and release public statements.”
They note that ASUCD officials agree to certain policies including upholding the principles of community which states in part that members of ASUCD “strive to make decisions in an open and inclusive manner that respects, nurtures and reflects understanding of the needs and interests of all community members.”
The Aggie writes, “We believe Fayyaz has failed to uphold the ASUCD Principles of Community with her public statement and Facebook posts. These posts did not reflect the needs of a broad range of student groups and community members on our campus.”
They noted that, at the January 29 meeting, Ms. Fayyaz made an extreme statement about the definition of Zionism.
“You can’t have coexistence with Zionists. Their purpose of Zionism is discrimination, elimination and ethnic cleansing of a group of people,” Ms. Fayyaz said at the meeting. “So if you want to talk about coexistence, I’m not talking with you because you’re going to try to kill me. I’m Muslim.”
The Aggie adds, “Furthermore, a public statement is an opportunity to empathize and connect with her constituents, and we feel her letter did not do so.”
“We feel that Fayyaz’s public statement was insensitive not only for its absence of remorse to the general community but also for its incendiary nature in this sensitive time. The campus community would benefit from its leaders showing cooperation and positive communication over this indisputably-divisive and polarizing issue,” they write.
The Aggie concludes, “We hope that Fayyaz can remedy her wrongs, as it is not becoming of an elected official to not offer an apology that empathizes more with the students she hurt and represents.”
It is easy to turn Azka Fayyaz into the villain in this story. She, in fact, seems to want to be that villain. We need to remember, however, that this is a student, she clearly thinks very strongly of her position, and fails to recognize she is doing her position far more harm than good.
She has allowed a legitimate discussion about Middle Eastern politics to degenerate into credible charges of anti-Semitism. She has become the poster child for this discussion in a way that no one in the center will sympathize with and everyone on the extreme can use as example of what is wrong with the position.
As an American Jew, I have often found myself in an uncomfortable middle position between two very vocal extreme groups. On the one hand, the history of the Jewish people up until the founding of Israel was one of repression, discrimination and, of course, genocide. The founding of Israel and its survival against all odds should be the model that repressed peoples across the world strive to embody.
At the same time, the struggles of the Palestinian peoples are very real, as well. They are very much displaced peoples and political pawns between the west, struggling to put to an end the “Jewish problem,” and the powers in the Middle East, eager to foment dissent to destabilize Israel.
Unfortunately, while both sides have legitimate grievances against both each other and the west, neither side is beyond reproach. The indiscriminate use of violence and guerrilla tactics against civilian populations in Israel is inexcusable, but so too is the heavy-handed Israeli response and aggressive and militaristic stances.
Contrary to popular belief, this is not a centuries-long struggle, it is actually a relatively new one created by the haphazard and sloppy way that the west decided to carve up the land that is now Israel. The current conflict is, in fact, less than 100 years old.
Middle Eastern politics, of course, is not often the subject of the Vanguard. However, when the focus of local events becomes nationalized, both through the ASUCD vote and the Swastika incident, it becomes impossible to ignore.
I find myself in the middle ground – I oppose the tactics of both the Palestinians and the Israelis in this, and support a two-state solution.
It is quite obvious that cooler heads will not prevail. I see little to be gained by the public flogging of a UC Davis student, even a student senator who does not seem to be able to extricate herself from a self-created mess.
At the same time, we welcome voices from various segments of the community on this issue. We published one such piece on Tuesday.
Interestingly enough, a long-time family friend of mine asked me if the piece was written by me, if I agreed with the piece, and if I didn’t agree with the piece, why did I publish it. I published it because I believe in free speech – in deed, not just in word – and believed it was an important view that needed to be added to the mix.
Unfortunately, it appears that calmer heads are not going to prevail on this matter, but we as a community can at least attempt to carve out the parameters of discussion and what things should be in bounds and out of bounds.
I agree with the Aggie’s comment that Ms. Fayyaz’s “public statement was insensitive not only for its absence of remorse to the general community but also for its incendiary nature in this sensitive time.” So I call on the adults of this community to lead by example and show Ms. Fayyaz and others in this debate and other debates like this, that there is a better way.
Yesterday we published Alan Hirsch’s piece on consensus building, where he noted the use of “facilitated community meetings as a tool to advance the City through often difficult issues.” Clearly, there are a variety of conflict-resolution tools that could be employed in such situations.
We urge the ASUCD to take seriously the damage that they have caused, not only to their own body but to this community as a whole. They have postponed this week’s meeting, but perhaps they can think about ways to repair that rift before it continues to grow.
These are sensitive times and delicate issues and, whatever side of the fence you are on, I hope we can all agree that the manner in which this was handled was poor and reflects poorly on ASUCD and this community – and that is what needs to be repaired.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“I see little to be gained by the public flogging of a UC Davis student, even a student senator who does not seem to be able to extricate herself from a self-created mess.”
nobody talked about a “public flogging.” having her removed as a senator who obviously does not feel her mission to represent the student body as a whole seems in order.
I agree with LadyNewkBahm, the ASUCD will not be taken seriously if they stay on their current path.
I don’t know very many people who take student government seriously at any level. I certainly didn’t when I was a student, much less now.
I was going to saying the same thing in response to Barack.
Don wrote:
> I don’t know very many people who take student government
> seriously at any level. I certainly didn’t when I was a student
I was one of the few “student government geeks” as an undergrad, but almost all the other students were like Don and did not care AT ALL about student government. We typically had about 5-6% of the students take the time to vote and if you backed out all the Sororities, Fraternities, and Clubs who marched everyone over as a group to vote only about 2% of the students took the time to vote on their own. I know some people who were involved with Junior College student government in the 80’s and they typically has LESS than 1% of the students actually vote…
Maybe most of the students could care less about the ASUCD but it sure looks like they’re being taken seriously with all the press and backlash over the divestment and the Senator’s actions.
My perception is different. I think there are two factors. One is that a student body organization would take a vote – largely symbolic on an issue that is extremely divisive. Second, the comments coming out of that played a larger role in fanning the flame. The vote itself was a one-day story, the Swastika and comments from the Senator gave it legs. Neither of those bare on the legitimacy of the organization. Katehi was very quick to make it clear that the university had no interest in divestment.
I agree with David. The comments by the senator gave the story legs and embarrassed both UCD and the greater Davis community. I am not sure that the swastika would really do much to create a national story. Either the senator is ignorant or just another politician lying when put in a tough position.
No one had to talk about flogging her – it was happening.
I’m not weighing in on whether or not she should resign or be removed as a Senator.
I can see no reason why she would feel a need to resign. Despite her protestations, methinks she loves the spotlight.
As to her removal, unless the “adults” step in, can’t see that happening either. After all, she got a majority vote on her pet issue. “Adults” shouldn’t step in, in my opinion, as student government is about learning how to lead, and making mistakes that are best made (and, hopefully, learning from them) when the effect is limited in nature.
This is not limited anymore!
Re: student govt. involvement & students not registering. Gee I wish an actual college student would comment here. My experience with U of A and AZ State student volunteers: they don’t think any party truly represents them. A few have told me, confidentially, while working on the local campaigns here: “the dems are the lesser of two evils but none of the parties (even Green) represents us.” The very intelligent, articulate, compassionate guy, approx. 25 years old, who is my hair stylist, told me the same thing. And before you all assume it’s an AZ thing, it’s not. Can we plz have even one UCD student reply Thanks.
“She has allowed a legitimate discussion about Middle Eastern politics to degenerate into credible charges of anti-Semitism. “
I think that this is one example of how using terms with different meanings interchangeably can lead us to cementing our own positions while casting dispersions on others. I have not read all of the postings of Ms. Fayaz, however, from the information posted here, she seems highly critical of the extreme Zionist position. I have not seen any expression of overall condemnation of Jews. I see judging her on the basis of her anti Zionist position and extrapolating that to mean that she is anti Semitic is very similar to the position taken on this blog by Frankly who claims that Islam is a violent religion and so all Muslims are to blame instead of focusing on the negative actions of the radical jihadist minority.
Can we not, as the adults in the room, even manage to judge people on the words that they have spoken or written rather than what we then extrapolate those words to mean ? How can we ever have a reasoned conversation if we put our negative thoughts and words into the minds of others and then pretend that we are truly listening to their point of view.
Please feel free to correct me if Ms. Fayaz has posted any “anti Semitic” comments….not anti Zionist….which she most certainly has.
How about ” Israel will fall Insha’Allah”?
Arguably, ‘Israel will fall…’ is about the failure of a political entity (if it pleases God/Allah). “Push the Jews into the sea”, is a statement promoting genocide. I believe that Yahweh/God/Allah abhors the destruction of people, and would much prefer that they would live in a just, peacfeul way.
The quote “Israel will fall Insha’Allah” and her support for Hamas clearly show an anti Semitic philosophy. What does Hamas stand for. Looking at Islam now it is clearly a sexist and violent religion. What is the proscribed penalty for conversion from islam to any other religion? It is death. Where are the feminists when it comes to the subjugation of women by this religion. Women are treated like chattel in many of predominately Islamic countries. There have been instances where they justify slavery. The sale of christian women as slaves was justified by muslims just last year. The hijab, burqua or chador are all sexist tools used by the men in this religion. I had a friend that was in the military. He came into contact with Iraqi women who would wear jeans on the army bases but had to wear the burqua off the bases for fear of being beaten or worse. Where are all of the feminists?
One of my devout Catholic friends used to say “God willing”. It sound like a similar sentiment.
I would say most of the Jewish population of Israel could be considered “Zion – ists”. That’s sorta/kinda the point.
I see in today’s Davis Enterprise there is a photo with a young student holding a picket sign that states “Free Gaza End the Blocade!” A sad statement that a student of UCD does not know the correct spelling is “Blockade” and not Blocade” I guess basic literacy is not a requirement for UCD students.
as opposed to a typo? i mean i often misspell words that i know how to spell.
There’s a big difference between a typo and going to the trouble of actually making a sign to flaunt for everyone to see.
same concept – haste. i work in sac, i see misspelled signs all the time. i’ve even misspelled signs in my time, sometimes i catch them, sometimes not.
Maybe she didn’t have enough rom on the sign.
It’s the damn “inventive spelling” taught in schools!
DP… it’s one thing to “mis-hit” a key on a keyboard (a ‘typo’)… it’s quite another when you are hand-printing a sign.
GMTA……LOL
it’s really not, it happens.
I’ve stopped caring. As a writer,it used to annoy me. Now I have other priorities to be annoyed about. As I’ve mentioned before, when I first read this site, I saw some folks correcting grammar and I did not wish to even write a comment ,because I figured the academic intelligensia (did I misspell that? don’t care) would jump all over my grammar and not my thoughts. Now I notice, if certain readers can’t figure out a thoughtful rebuttal, they make leftist jokes, they relate every topic to Obama care, rather than the AFFORDABLE Care Act, or they think anyone with compassion is one step away from becoming a Commie or Socialist.
Just yesterday I was asked to clarify a remark I made about the need for LGBT parity. I believe the reader said I had an incomplete thought and needed to back up my comments w/stats: Sorry, you need to back up your comment with your own stats. I finished my sociology degree years ago & don’t have the interest in researching quantitative & qualitative stats any longer.
The main point of language is communication. If the poster communicates their thought and your only reply is to correct their grammar or spelling, you really have not made a contribution, to the core subject, IMHO. Thanks everyone.
Wes, you never know, it could have been and intentional play on words … bloc and ade … as in if you think this blockade is working, you are drinking the koolade.
I once saw a sign where a guy was calling some group a bunch of “morans”. So who was the real moron?
Maybe the student is a Textiles and Clothing major and meant “End the Brocade”
Unless, of course, the sign was meant to be ironik or sarkastic. (and to save ewe a responze PD, theze are KNOT tipos!)
In Las Vegas each winter for years they felt that things were Tarktastic.
You realize he just passed, right, Matt?
No I did not Pierce. That was an accident of serendipity. Tark will be missed. He made watching basketball fun.
Barack, was that sign at a Paso Fino meeting?
What are you trying to say Matt?
I meant what I said, and I said what I meant Horton … was that sign that you saw at a Paso Fino meeting?
Okay, no I didn’t see it at a Paso Fino meeting. If I remember right I think I saw it about a year ago at a NRC meeting, but I might be wrong. ( ;
I like Bugs Bunny’s take: “what a marooon!”
Regardless of what this has turned into. The basic question that ASUCD government asked is do people support or oppose divestment from “corporations that aid in the Israeli occupation of Palestine and illegal settlements in Palestinian territories.” An even more basic question, I think, is whether people support or oppose Israel building settlements in Palestinian territories. Is this something the ASUCD should involve themselves in? Probably not, but the question was asked.
All the rest is just noise to me – way too emotional and tinged with irrationality and hatred – that is being used to distract from any constructive discussion.
I went to a meeting years ago that illustrated this. A Palestinian American man felt that he had been discriminated against or was offended in someway and tried to describe the context of what happened. It is hard to remember the details, but it definitely was a Palestine/Israel issue. What I do remember is that the discussion rapidly disintegrated. One Jewish woman started loudly crying and wailing and kept this up the entire discussion making it impossible to talk.
When this issue comes up, I walk away. It is not for us to resolve and there are too many people interested in having no resolution.
The problem here is the acceptance of these proxy complaints as the source of the problem. The settlements are nothing. They are just something for the collection of those that are Antisemitic, anti-Israel, irrationally victim mentality-obsessed or just plain ignorant about the topic… to latch on to.
There is a simple test to confirm or deny this point. If Israel were to stop building settlements today, and actually concede existing settlement land to the Palestinians, would this result in peace between the Palestinians and Israel?
Absolutely not. We know this as the pull out of Gaza did nothing for the peace process.
The point here is that the Palestinians are miserable and envious and hate. Until and unless they start looking inward for their problems instead of blaming Israel and the US, they will be forever miserable and the conflict will continue.
Israel has nothing to gain and more to lose conceding settlements. Palestinian leaders know this. Most Palestinian intellectuals know this. It is western liberals that seem ignorant of this… or else they are in bed with Palestinians in their simple hatred of Israel and/or Jews in general.
The settlements are something to many people.
Opposing the settlement expansion policies of the Netanyahu government does not mean one is anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, victimmentalityobsessedgobbledygook, or ignorant.
It means one believes, as I do, that the current government of Israel is one of the impediments to any forward progress on reducing tensions and, perhaps, bringing peace between the governments of Israel and the Palestinians.
I believe that Hamas is also an impediment to forward progress. I support the actions of the Obama, Bush 1 and 2, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter administrations in trying to keep peace talks going. And all of those administrations have opposed expansion of the settlements.
I absolutely don’t. We heard the same about the occupation of Gaza and look where we are.
You’re welcome to your opinions. But just because we disagree on this doesn’t mean that one of us is anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, or any of your other vituperative characterizations. My position is much closer to that of the opposition parties in Israel, as well as the official position of successive US administrations, than yours is.
OK. Then support the settlements and move toward a single state, but then all residents would have to be given equal rights and benefits of being a citizen of that state.
Or support two separate states and