OUSA rescind Israel boycott
The issue came to a head earlier this year after the student body's decision to ban Domino's Pizza from "Tent City" during O Week.
It was justified as being part of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) position — a Palestinian-led movement promoting boycotts, divestments and economic sanctions against Israel or products with ties to it.
But OUSA walked back the policy at an executive meeting on Monday, citing a lack of information.
This has led to Green Party MP Francisco Hernandez urging the association to rethink the damage done in a letter to the executive.
Mr Hernandez asked OUSA to be mindful of their reputation.
"While there may be sponsorship and funding opportunities that OUSA will lose as a result of taking this stance — there is no immediate expectation that OUSA seamlessly shift from 0-100 on the Boycott, Divest, Sanction campaign so the immediate impacts and costs are not as dramatic as you may have been advised.
"But doing the right thing is rarely easy and politics is sometimes about making difficult choices."
The letter also referred to the fact the executive had surveyed the students earlier this year, and more than 53% were in favour of the sanctions.
A trio of action groups — Otago Students for Justice in Palestine, Muslim Student Association and Otago Staff for Palestine — also had stern criticism about OUSA's attempts to take a neutral position in a joint letter.
"Purchasing decisions are not 'neutral'; they are actions. Currently, OUSA, on behalf of the students of Otago, wants to continue actively buying goods from companies directly complicit in war crimes."
Academic Dr Olivier Jutel said the genocide in Gaza was "the moral horror of our time".
Reuters has reported that Gaza's health ministry said Israel's post-October 7, 2023, military assault had killed more than 56,000 Palestinians.
New Zealand Jewish Council representative Juliet Moses said she welcomed OUSA's about-face.
"However, we believe it is a positive development to recognise the complexity of this war including the role of Hamas and its ongoing holding of hostages and oppression of Gazans, the desirability of constructive informed dialogue and engagement, and the need for two peoples to have self-determination and live with dignity and security."
OUSA president Liam White defended the change in position.
"This decision does not represent an abandonment of the underpinning principles of BDS. The OUSA executive remains committed to pursuing alternative actions that reflect solidarity and support in a more sustainable manner.
"While the executive continues to express deep concern over the ongoing and distressing situation in the region, its foremost responsibility is to ensure the continuity and stability of essential student services provided by OUSA to benefit all students at the University of Otago."
matthew.littlewood@odt.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
6 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Israeli far-right minister backs contentious West Bank settlement plan
Israel's finance minister has backed plans to build 3400 homes in a particularly contentious area of the occupied West Bank, calling for the territory's annexation in response to several countries' plans to recognise a Palestinian state. In response, the United Nations chief warned that building Israeli homes in the area
NZ Herald
8 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Te Karaka solar farm funded to boost resilience in extreme weather
Te Karaka will benefit from Māori-led action to combat climate change, with a new solar farm set to power 200 homes and important infrastructure. On Thursday, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts met locals at a site where a solar farm will be developed along Kanakanaia Rd. Funding for the
NZ Herald
8 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Only one option on recognising Palestinian state
Recognising a supposed state which is split in two, with one bit run by the corrupt Fatah movement and the other by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hamas, surely meets those tests. Yet Peters going so public on the matter on Monday was still extraordinary. In a formal media statement, the Foreign Minister publicly acknowledged the Cabinet is divided over whether to recognise Palestine, with 'a broad range of strongly held views within our Government, Parliament and indeed New Zealand society'. 'This is not a straightforward, clear-cut issue,' Peters said, in what risks reading as a subtle dig at Luxon. Peters promised to approach the matter 'calmly, cautiously and judiciously' and to 'canvass this broad range of views before taking a proposal to Cabinet' which he would then present in New York late next month, when representing New Zealand at the UN's annual leaders' week. While Peters would be right to worry about US President Donald Trump's reaction to New Zealand recognising Palestine in an age of arbitrary tariffs, it is almost unthinkable that Cabinet would decide against it. Recognition of a Palestinian state is common ground between the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, representing over two-thirds of MPs in Parliament, and of at least two of the smaller parties. It is also now the position of our only military ally and biggest economic partner, Australia, and the conditional stance of two other close Five Eyes friends, the UK and Canada. Strong objections can be made that the divided Palestinian Authority currently fails to meet the usual tests of statehood, including control of territory and effective government. Moreover, recognising Palestine as a state risks being seen not just as endorsing the corrupt West Bank regime of Fatah President Mahmoud Abbas – now into the 20th year of his first four-year term – but the evil Hamas organisation which has run Gaza for nearly as long. On the other hand, that may be too purist. Recognising Palestinian statehood is not about supporting Abbas or Hamas but a way of expressing opposition, not to Israel itself, but to its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. It isn't clear if Luxon meant his attack on Netanyahu this week – that he has 'gone way too far' and 'lost the plot' – to be so unequivocal that it attracted global media attention and was flattered by a tough response from Israel. 'When you don't really need an army because your most deadly enemy is a possum or a cat,' its deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel said tartly but not inaccurately, 'you wouldn't comprehend the challenges that come with facing Hamas – a jihadist death cult – only a few kilometres away from your country, that rape, execute, burn alive and starve your people.' Nevertheless, Luxon almost certainly spoke for a majority of the Cabinet, Parliament and New Zealanders. The only inaccurate part about his critique of Netanyahu is that he described his going too far and losing the plot as a recent development. In fact, Netanyahu – who has been on trial for corruption and fraud in the Jerusalem District Court since 2020 – has tragically been coming to mirror his enemies for much longer. Israel and the world would be better off had he retired from politics after he implemented his extraordinarily successful economic reforms 20 years ago. He has managed even to alienate Germany, whose leaders have described one of the purposes of the very existence of their country since 1949 as being to assure the security of Israel. Even it has felt forced to suspend all military exports to Israel that could be used in Gaza. With Luxon having made his attitude so clear – not just to New Zealanders but to the international community – Cabinet cannot choose other than to endorse his support for New Zealand recognising Palestinian statehood. No matter how frustrating it can sometimes be for foreign ministers, foreign policy is ultimately the prerogative of the head of government. If, somehow, Luxon's views were not to prevail on such a matter, he would be rendered a complete lame duck around his own Cabinet table. Moreover, rightly or wrongly, actively deciding not to recognise Palestine in the current international environment would no longer be interpreted as a refusal to do anything that would legitimise Hamas but as an active endorsement of Netanyahu and some of the extremist parties that keep him in office and so potentially out of jail. New Zealand foreign and trade policy is strongest and most successful when it reflects a consensus between National and Labour. For all their faults, they are ultimately the grown-ups in the room. The antics of Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick or the more reflexively pro-Israel views of some within the Act Party should not influence the forthcoming decision. The Cabinet Manual demands that matters such as this be considered at that level, and not just resolved in a meeting between the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Foreign Minister. So be it. Cabinet government is a better system than taking decisions on a Prime Minister's couch. Still, with New Zealand's unfolding economic crisis needing to be tackled without distraction, it would be better if the decision could be taken more quickly than late September. And it should be the Prime Minister who makes the announcement in New Zealand and explains why the decision was made, not the Foreign Minister at the UN in New York. As leader of the country, not just a mere first among equals around the Cabinet table, Luxon needs to assert himself.
