The AMS organized a last-minute student forum on BDS on Tuesday night.
As part of the AMS’ role in supporting discussion around the ongoing BDS referendum, students were invited to observe and participate in the structured discussion. Community and Regional Planning professor Aftab Erfan facilitated the discussion on whether the AMS should divest from companies that support the Israeli military's actions in Palestine.
VP Academic Anne Kessler said that although the event was first made public on Facebook a day before the event, they put a lot of time into planning it.
“It’s the worst time of term for everybody," said Kessler. "We all have a lot of stuff going on right now but I feel like I’ve invested a lot of time in this.”
As students began to fill up the room, the divide between the 'yes' and 'no' sides of the BDS campaign was clear. Erfan acknowledged the difficulty of the conversation and the sensitivity of the topic.
“I was already called a brave person for moderating this discussion," said Erfan.
The forum was meant to create a space for students to safely voice their opinions and sentiments regarding BDS on campus. The night began with students acknowledging their emotions around the fact that this issue was brought to campus.
“I am upset that we even need to have this forum,” said one student from the 'no' side.
Erfan later made room for a more formalized debate, having each side stand in distinct parts of the room while each side answered questions by the opposing and neutral sides.
One of the arguments made about BDS was that it opposed dialogue. This was brought up against the members of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights, who organized the petition to hold a referendum on BDS, throughout the night.
Rabbi Chalom Loeub from UBC's Chabad Jewish Centre mentioned the space for “Open Dialogue” that is currently being provided by Hillel House, saying that a discussion between pro- and anti-BDS students in that space would be more productive than the current BDS movement.
“I’m not part of Hillel, but I just love what they’re doing [with open dialogue],” said Loueb.
After the 'no' side finished arguing their stance against BDS, several of those members left the room instead of listening to the opposition.
“This is exactly what is going on in Palestine, there cannot be dialogue when one party is unwilling to listen,” said one student who was in favour of the BDS.
Secretary of SPHR Ciara Thibault said that an invitation to engage in dialogue at Hillel was not welcoming or respectful to their members.
“I think we’ve been labeled the ‘anti-dialogue’ group on campus," said Thibault. "I don’t think it’s fair that you expect us to have dialogue on your terms.”
Members from the 'yes' side mentioned facts that they felt were ignored or disputed by Hillel in past discussions, such as the existence of an Israeli occupation in the area and the Right of Return for Palestinians in occupied territories.
Still, the night ended on a positive note as members from both sides were able to recognize the advantage of having an open discussion on the subject.
“Before I came tonight, I was upset. I have family that is suffering in Palestine, so it’s natural to be angry,” said one supporter of BDS. “But I have come to understand your position better and I am thankful. All of this dialogue came through BDS. This dialogue was great and I think both sides can agree with that.”