FAQ – CUNY Alliance for Inclusion

Frequently Asked Questions

A1: The main purpose of PSC CUNY is to ensure fair & safe working conditions, compensation, and benefits for the CUNY workforce. It is OK to express solidarity with workers in other institutions and industries in the US, and support all who live in the US, regardless of their immigration status.

Taking strong opinions on issues outside the US is bound to lead to oversimplification and misguided resolutions, as happened with the pro-BDS resolution. As seen in yet another example, the union’s recent resolution on “No Cold War with China” [1] fails to mention China’s mistreatment of the Uyghur, Tibet, Hong Kong, and its domestic dissidents [2]. These misguided departures from the union’s core mission are therefore an embarrassment to our credentials as informed scholars and supporters of human rights.

Yes, Palestinians are suffering, but so are Israelis. The conflict is much more complicated than the way it is depicted in the PSC resolution. Both sides at times missed opportunities to solve the conflict, many times groups of extremists on both sides set the tone, and both sides took highly regrettable actions (depending on which side you ask, you will hear different and even contradicting accounts of this). But this is not a labor-based disagreement, and it is too far removed for PSC CUNY members to get involved in. Critical sections of the PSC resolution were presented and passed in haste in the last couple of minutes of the session with no discussion at all, emphasizing how haphazard the process was. We can certainly engage with the details of grievances as we go along, and show why the criticism of Israel amounts to baseless vilification (see below). However the critical first point here is that adjudicating this conflict is completely outside the range and the mission of the union, and it impedes our ability to make progress on genuine union issues.

A2: We support the just struggle of people of color against racism and discrimination in the US and the quest for equity and against discrimination around the globe. However, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict does not break down along color lines [1,2,3].

While many Jews in the US came here from Europe and might pass for whites, most Israelis have resided for centuries in the Middle East and North Africa [4,5]. Average Israelis look very much like their Palestinian neighbors. In fact, as popularized by the Netflix TV show “Fauda”, not even the most astute intelligence officers on either side can tell the difference between Palestinians and Israelis. Therefore, introducing arguments of race and color into this debate is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the conflict.

A3: Simple Answer: Yes, Palestinians are Indigenous to the land as are Israelis/Jews [1].

More Complex Answer: Israel/Palestine lies at a crossroad between ancient great civilizations and (often rival-) empires. As such, peoples have migrated into and through Israel/Palestine for hundreds of thousands of years, complicating any question of which one is “indigenous.” Moreover, as the Holy Land, Jews, Christians, and Muslims have been migrating in and out of the land throughout the last several thousand years and up to the present time. The identities of the peoples of this land have, therefore, always been somewhat fluid and continue to be up through today.

The Jews/Hebrews/Israelites are the earliest surviving group of inhabitants of the land of Israel, dating back more than 3000 years [2,3,4,5,6]. Many of them were forcefully removed by various foreign conquerors, particularly by the Assyrians, Babylonians, and later Romans. Arabs conquered the land in cycles starting in the 7th century CE. Arab culture was brought to the land from what is modern day Saudi Arabia. Scholars of Israelite and Jewish history are in agreement that Israelite/Jewish culture is native to this land, going back thousands of years, and continued to have a presence in the land throughout the last 3000 years. There is similarly overwhelming evidence that modern-day Jews (currently identified as either European, Mediterranean/Middle-Eastern, Yemenite, or Ethiopian Jews, in addition to a number of other groups) are the descendants of ancient Israelites/Judeans who spread throughout the region after they were expelled from the land. So the Israelis are in fact indigenous people of this land. Nevertheless, most Israelis accept that Arabs lived in this land for hundreds of years and they have every right to establish a sovereign state. But this should be based on mutual recognition, including that the Palestinian state should recognize the legitimacy of Israel.

The historical/indigenous connection of the Jewish people to this land, and its right to establish in part of it a national homeland (alongside a Palestinian homeland in the other part) has been recognized by the international community in official resolutions for nearly a century now (in the United Nations, and its predecessor organization – The League of Nations, see excerpts below).

A4: Jews never deserted the land of Israel. Except for a brief 80 year hiatus in the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE, Israel/Palestine was under continuous colonization by one empire after another from the middle of the first millennium BCE until 1948. Throughout that period, Jews were systematically deported and oppressed both inside and out of their ancient homeland [1,2].

Over these 2700 years, some Israelites/Jews were forcibly expelled, others gave up in the face of systemic oppression, but always Jewish culture maintained a desire to return (viz., the motto shouted annually at the end of the Passover Seder: Next year in Jerusalem!). Eventually, they found their opportunity and started returning in large numbers at the end of the Ottoman Empire (end of 19th and beginning of 20th centuries).

A5: We learned a lot from Edward Said’s analysis of orientalism and colonialism. However, most Israelis are of Middle Eastern descent, and since they returned to their ancestral land (some from their diaspora in Europe, others from their diaspora in the Middle East and North Africa), they are not colonialists [1,2].

Unlike colonialists, they do not have a homeland elsewhere to which to return. Moreover, since more than half of Israel’s Jewish population are the descendants of Jews who migrated back to the land of Israel from the Middle East and North Africa, they are not European and do not represent European colonization of the Middle East; they continue an ancient culture that is native to this part of the world. Their language, sacred texts, and even names of people & places are uniquely Israeli/Hebrew/Jewish and based on the tradition and history of this place.

Following the 1947 UN resolution on the establishment of a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian state (in the area between the Jordan River & the Mediterranean Sea), there was a large increase in Jewish population, as many Jewish refugees started flowing in. These were both European Jews looking for a safe haven after the Holocaust, and Middle-Eastern Jews fleeing widespread persecution in the surrounding Arab countries, but both groups are descendants of people who were previously deported from this land.

Thus, while the concept of settler colonialism may broadly and usefully describe varied patterns throughout history of economically opportunistic, socially organized migration, use of the term as a normative, value-laden accusation is the product rather of postcolonial ideology, specific to the post-Columbian era and that has nothing to do with Jews’ reestablishment of a state in their historic homeland. In fact, much of Jewish displacement from their ancient homeland came as the product of settler colonialist practices of the various empires who conquered and ruled their lands over the past 2600 years. At the same time as Jews in the land of Israel were being persecuted and oppressed by their colonizers, Jews in the diaspora, both in Christian Europe and Islamic North Africa and the Middle East, were likewise being oppressed until both came to a head in the middle of the 20th Century with the Holocaust in Europe followed shortly thereafter by Jews in Arab lands being driven out of their homes there as well. The vast majority of Israel’s current Jewish population derive from these two mass immigrations. Therefore, while the settler colonialist model can explain some aspects of the Jewish return to their ancestral homeland (particularly the experience of Palestinians on the receiving end of this return), a much more apt model to describe how most Jews arrived in Palestine/Israel in the middle of the 20th century would be as refugees. Moreover, the main reason to choose to describe these immigrants as settler colonialists rather than as refugees would seemingly be anti-Semitism [3].

A6: This suggested partition is based on the current population concentrations of the two people, but it stems from history, international resolutions, and recent developments [1].

This land does not belong only to the Palestinians who resided in it before the establishment of the state of Israel, and it should be divided between these Palestinians and others who lived in the land historically and until the present day, including the Jewish people. At the time of the rise of the Zionist movement, the land was sparsely populated, and most incoming Jews settled in desolated areas that they purchased and developed.

In 1922, following World War I, the League of Nations (the predecessor of the UN) gave the British Empire a Mandate to run the county in preparation for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”, in recognition of “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine”, while preserving the “civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” [2].

In 1947, based on the 1922 resolution and toward the end of the British Mandate, the UN Security Council divided the land into a Jewish/Israeli and an Arab/Palestinian state according to the areas where the two people were concentrated [3]. Israel fully accepted this partition (as well as earlier partition plans). In contrast, the Palestinians and the surrounding Arab nations rejected this compromise and tried to conquer the whole land. They lost that war, and Israel gained a bit more territory. Palestinian chose not to establish their own state in the remaining area, so the West Bank (i.e., the Arab-held area west of the Jordan River) became Jordanian and the Gaza strip became part of Egypt. In 1967 the neighboring Arab countries again tried to eradicate the State of Israel. Again they lost, and Israel gained control over the previously Jordanian-held area of the West Bank and the Egyptian-held area of the Gaza Strip.

Again and again Palestinians and the neighboring countries refused territorial compromise. They are now asked again to accept an Israeli State in this land. Nonetheless, they are still offered control over the areas where most Palestinians live. In recent years, Israeli Prime Ministers Ehud Barak (Camp David, 2000) and later Ehud Olmert (Annapolis, 2007) offered the Palestinian leaders an Arab-Palestinian nation-state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including a capital in East Jerusalem, in exchange for their recognition of an Israeli Hebrew/Jewish nation-state in the pre-1967 borders. These offers were rejected without any counteroffer.

A7: It’s true there are some Israeli extremists that do want to push Palestinians out of the West Bank and establish a larger Jewish state in the whole historic land of Israel/Palestine, but this is a small minority. Some Israeli leaders on the right have used these extremists to take actions that inflamed public opinion in order to win elections or remain in power in spite of an evenly split electorate. Yet the vast majority of Israeli Jews, even many right wing voters, actively support-, or acknowledge the necessity of- splitting the land into a separate Israeli and Palestinian states, while leaving the Palestinians in their current homes.

The specific homes in Sheikh Jarrah have been owned by Jews for generations, before the buildings were inhabited by Palestinians when the area fell under Jordanian rule (between 1948 and 1967 [1]). In spite of this legal Jewish ownership, many Israelis would argue that it would be wiser to let the current Palestinian residents stay. Unfortunately, this legal conflict was used by extremist on both side to inflame the situation, triggering the recent cycle of violence. However, this legal dispute does not justify firing rockets aimed exclusively at civilians in the pre-1967 borders (rocket were fired only at Israeli towns between Tel Aviv and Be’er Sheva, not at military bases or Jewish settlements on the West Bank).

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-sheikh-jarrah-eviction-case-court-offers-palestinians-protected-residents-status-1.10071018

A8: Israel has no wish to unnecessarily limit Palestinian mobility. Indeed, prior to the Intifadas (the Palestinian uprisings of 1987 and 2000) there were no borders or walls around the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; tens of thousands of Palestinians came to Israel each day to work, shop, and go to the beach. However, relentless suicide bomber attacks on Israeli civilians in buses, restaurants, offices, and hotels caused thousands of casualties. To prevent these suicide bomber from entering Israel, Israel put up a wall to separate the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Israel [1]. The separation wall has been extremely effective in stopping suicide bombers, though it does hinder the movement of ordinary Palestinians.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/background-and-overview-of-israel-s-security-fence

A9: There is not a single Israeli soldier or civilian in the Gaza Strip. Israel had tried to establish working relations with the people of the Gaza Strip, but everyday connections were shut down after suicide bomber attacks inside Israel, terrorist attacks on the border checkpoints, and in factories in which both Jews and Palestinians worked. Following repeated attempts to bring weapons and ammunition into the Gaza Strip, both its eastern border with Israel and its southern border with Egypt were put under strict control by these two countries. Both Egypt and Israel try to control the passage of civilian goods in and out of the Gaza Strip to reduce the flow of weapons and material with military use.

A10: No. Following the housing dispute in Sheikh Jarrah, Palestinians in East Jerusalem started rioting. As they were chased by police, they retreated into the Al Aqsa mosque (on the Temple Mount) while showering the police and nearby Jewish worshipers in the Western Wall (the last remnant of the Jewish Temple) with Molotov cocktail grenades and rocks. The police stopped these riots using stun grenades. While many Muslims were upset by this, the Hamas regime in Gaza (about 60 miles from Jerusalem) took it into a completely different level [1]. Hamas started firing rockets on a wide range of Israeli towns around the Gaza Strip, targeting civilians all the way north to Tel Aviv and south-east to Beer Sheva. The firing of rockets from Gaza to Israel invoked the Israeli military response against Hamas’ rocket launching sites and command posts in Gaza, which also caused unfortunate civilian casualties (which was intensified due to Hamas’ use of Gazans as human shield). Being upset about legal conflicts in Jerusalem is understandable; using it as an excuse for indiscriminate shelling of Israel’s civilian population is not.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.HIGHLIGHT-and-then-hamas-did-two-unexpected-things-israel-gaza-operation-1.9792147

A11: We all grieve the harm caused to any civilian. The Israeli army goes to great length to avoid harming Palestinian civilians, and it can make mistakes of judgement regarding the impact of weapons, as happens in any conflict. However, the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip routinely uses civilians as human shield, building command posts and weapon depots under civilian houses, hospitals, and communication centers [1.2].

Hamas spent a large fraction of its budget to dig tunnels throughout the Gaza Strip [3], but these are used only to protect militants, not the civilians above [4]. In contrast, Israel invested heavily in building reinforced bomb shelters in every apartment (to protect residents from incoming rockets [5]). Israel also spent a fortune to build the “Iron Dome” rocket interception system [6]. As a result, in spite of Hamas’ firing of over 4,000 rockets [7], Israeli systems of self-defense were largely effective, many rockets were intercepted, and many times hits to civilian Israeli homes did not kill its residents [8].

Not all the actions of the Israeli army are sufficiently well targeted to avoid civilian casualties, but Israel is doing a better job than any other army. For example, the US army has killed many thousands of innocent civilians in its conflicts throughout the Middle East, in spite of its announced intentions to keep civilians safe.

The overall balance of power between Arabs and Israelis is more complex when viewed in a wider focus than just Israel and Palestine. The Palestinians are actively aided and supported by Iran and the Arab world, a group of 22 countries (some of them very rich/large). While in recent years some Arab leaders in the region decided to accept the existence of Israel as a fact, other leaders and large sections of the Arab population call for Israel’s destruction, and have been doing so for the length of Israel’s existence.

A12: Israel is given one of the largest portions of financial aid that the US government awards. The majority of aid is used to purchase of high-end stealth aircrafts [1,2], which is in America’s regional interest of positioning itself against Iran (a policy supported by representatives of both parties in Congress and the White House). Many in America support the right of Israel to defend itself from destruction by terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, both proxy powers that receive much of their funding from Iran. A number of other countries receive similarly large aid packages (Afghanistan, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and others). In practice, these aid packages are not always perfectly used by any of these countries. The excessive, disproportionate criticism of Israeli use of the monetary aid suggests that other, more sinister motives are behind this criticism.

A13: No, Zionism only means that one is in support of the idea that Jews should have a national homeland in their ancestral land [1,2]. Zion is a term that refers to both the city of Jerusalem and the historic land of Israel (without specific borders). Most Zionists foresee living in Israel alongside a Palestinian state. Some Jewish extremists push the concept of an Israeli state that comes at the expense of a Palestinian state, but this extreme form of Zionism is certainly not indicative of mainstream Zionism. Just as Liberals and Feminists refuse to be defined by the extreme interpretation of their motives by their opponents, Israelis stick to the mainstream positive definition of the term Zionism, which is inclusive and promotes a peaceful and respectful coexistence alongside Palestinians. This is similar to what we see in the US: Most Americans, from both parties, see themselves as American patriots. This does not mean that they all endorse everything that all US governments say or do. Just as we expect that not all Americans will be viewed as supporting everything that a given US president says or does, Israelis and Zionists (i.e., people who support Israel’s right to exist) are also not uniform in their goals and attitudes.

A14: No, Israel is not an Apartheid state [1]. The Palestinians who stayed in Israel after the 1948 war of Israeli independence (and did not flee during the Naqba) have full civil rights. While there are difficulties, as in all multi-ethnic countries, Arab citizens of Israel are members of Parliament, participate in the coalition & government, and hold top/senior positions in the Supreme Court [2], medicine, academia, civil service, banks [3], finance, and industry [4]. There is no restriction on religion or the use of the Arabic language. Arab citizens are not required to sing the national anthem or fly the Israeli flag. There is still road ahead and more equality to achieve, but Israel’s behavior is not different than that of other liberal democracies.

The situation for Palestinians in the West Bank has become progressively more challenging since the first intifada in 1987, and particularly since the second intifada beginning in 2000, with many restrictions on movement between different regions of the West Bank. Therefore, many in Israel are eager to resolve it ASAP by establishing a Palestinian state as the homeland for the Palestinian people, conditioned on the recognition of Palestinians of Israel as the homeland for the Jewish/Hebrew people. There are no Israeli forces or restrictions within the Gaza Strip, and the regulations on the borders between Israel or Egypt and the Gaza Strip refer to the transport of ammunition and goods that can be used by Hamas to launch attacks against Israelis. Most Israelis are eager to move to peaceful relations with a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and would support assisting Palestinians in building a flourishing country.

A15: The Jewish people have inherited an ancient Middle Eastern culture in which peoplehood and religion were not entirely distinct. This was also the case for other ancient peoples of the region, such as the Moabites, Ammonites, and Arameans, to name but a few. For this reason, Jews can be defined as both a people and a religion, with some Jews identifying more with one or the other aspect of this identity. In any case, the religious aspect of Jewish identity has never negated their identity as a people, and as a people Jews have yearned for 2600 years for independence in their ancient homeland. This yearning is emblemized in Psalm 137 which famously laments, “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.” Indeed, Messianism, at its core, is a desire for the reestablishment of an independent kingdom in Israel. The Hebrew “mashiach” (=messiah) means to anoint, and it was how the ancient Israelite kings were coronated as king.

Non-denominational countries like the US are very rare exceptions around the world. For example, most countries in Europe include their Christian tradition in their state operation, such as in their flag, calendar, education, and more. For example, the British head of state is also the head of the national church [1]; in Italy all government facilities display a cross and Catholicism is part of school curriculum [2], while Orthodox Christianity is part of the state curriculum in Greece [3]. The connection between national identity and religions is even more pronounced in the Arab world, where Islam is part of state law & education. Israel is like most countries in the world that base their state culture on a primary religion. However, it is unique in that it is the only country in the world where the primary religion is Judaism. This means that its holidays and calendar follow Jewish tradition, while welcoming people of all religions to practice freely. To Jews around the world, Israel functions as a “safe space”, both physically, culturally, and emotionally. Israel has an excellent (though not perfect) track record of internal coexistence and allowing people of all other faiths to practice freely (while elsewhere in the region mingling of cultures has often led to in-state sectarian violence and bloodshed).

A16: The Holocaust is not a card Israelis play; it is a deep national trauma that symbolizes the epitome of cataclysmic persecutions and repeated attempts throughout history to annihilate Jews. It is like a national PTSD syndrome that continues through generations. In the holistic perspective, this collective trauma affects the nation’s state of mind, like the intergenerational communal Soul Wound that UCLA and Native-American psychologist Eduardo Duran has theorized for Native Americans. But unlike PTSD, it is not based on experiences that are only in the past, and like an unhealed soul wound the pain is intensified with repeated injury. To this day, Hamas, which exercises a regime of intolerance and violence in the Gaza Strip, declares it wants to push the Jews out to the sea (their slogan is “From the (Jordan-) River to the (Mediterranean-) Sea, Palestine will be free”).

At the same time the Ayatollahs of Iran proclaim they want to nuke Israelis off the face of the earth. Both are declarations of intent of ethnic cleansing that Israelis take very seriously. Movements like BDS see no room for an Israeli state in any part of this land, and see nearly all current Israelis as invaders/settlers who should be sent out. So the holocaust is not just an ancient trauma; it is a trauma that resonates with the present and permeates everyday life for all Israelis. As a result, Israelis are deeply concerned about their safety. The holocaust is a living traumatic memory, it is not a tactical card that Israelis play.

The Holocaust was also directly linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. During WW-II, while the Jewish residents of mandatory Palestine supported the British (and later enlisted in the British Army to form the Jewish Brigade and fight the Nazis [1]), the leader of Palestinian Arabs, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, traveled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler in an attempt to form an alliance [2]. A few months later, as the Nazi army was making large advances in the Caucasus (north of Israel/Palestine) and in Libya & Egypt (south of Israel/Palestine), the British and the Jewish residents of Israel/Palestine were preparing to make a last stand against the expected Nazi invasion (and the anticipated Palestinian Arab assistance) by holding “The Fortress on Mt Carmel” [3,4]. Though events soon a turn in favor of the allies, the attempted collaboration between the religious and national Palestinian leadership and the Nazis left an indelible impression on Israelis. Since Hamas is a fundamentalist Islamist movement that sees itself as continuing the tradition the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hamas’ call for the elimination of the Jewish state resonates for Israelis as a call for modern day Holocaust.

In recent years there is a growing recognition in Israel of the trauma of the Nakba (when Palestinians fled their homes in 1948). Israelis gradually learn to feel the pain and empathize with the suffering experienced by Palestinians. However, even if serious mistakes were made, the Nakba was not an organized Israeli attempt to physically harm the Palestinian people, and hence it is not a genocide. The Nakba was a tragic event that is similar to the uprooting of tens of millions in the aftermath of WWII, including the Jews who were uprooted from their homes in Arab countries after the state of Israel was established.

Mentioning the rights of gays in Israel is not an attempt to pink-wash anything. Gay rights in Israel are just one example of Israel being an open liberal society, where sharp criticism of the government is held as a patriotic duty, where huge demonstrations bring down leaders, where the judicial system is robust and independent, and where women have served as political leaders from the inception of the country. As in all counties, Israel has social challenges, and it continues to strive for equality in opportunities and resources to all communities. Israeli embrace of gay rights is just one aspect of it being a liberal society. This is, of course, in sharp contrast to its neighbors, and particularly among Israel’s staunchest enemies such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran [5,6].

A17: This resolution presents a gross over-simplification that reduces a complex conflict to a Disney-like narrative. Important sections of the resolution were proposed and passed in haste without discussion. Smart and dedicated operators on both sides have been trying to resolve this intricate conflict for a very long time. It is presumptuous for an American Labor organization to claim that it understands this complex conflict better than those involved and resolve it. This shallow oversimplification is an embarrassment to CUNY as an academic institution focused on providing access to excellence in scholarly analysis.

The misappropriation of the American struggle for social and racial justice in the US to this conflict (along with fabricated claims of color differences and colonialism) reduces our credibility and blurs our message on fighting systemic racism in the US. We need to refocus the outreach of our labor union on social justice, anti-racism, equity, and inclusion within our community in CUNY, NYC, and our country.

The union issued a number of misguided and uninformed resolutions on international issues. The recent statement on “No war with China” is another such example, since it failed to mention the violation of the human rights of Uyghurs by the Chinese government, the oppression of the people of Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and domestic dissidents. The union failed to express discontent on a range of international atrocities, such as the support of Russia to the murderous Assad regime in Syria, the fight of Turkey against the Kurds or their occupation of Cyprus, and the list goes on. The deliberate singling out and the excessive criticism and rage over the shortcomings of the Jewish state are indicative of implicit and explicit systemic Jew hatred.

Most Israelis are eager to move to peaceful relations with a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and would welcome the opportunity to assist Palestinians to build their own flourishing country. It would be wonderful for the union to encourage its members to assist such joint Palestinian-Israeli ventures, but not to tell people how to solve their intricate conflicts.

A18: BDS only forces the state being boycotted to capitulate to the other side, it doesn’t determine the terms of that capitulation. Regarding South Africa, the terms of the ANC (African National Congress) were an end to apartheid and equal rights for everyone. So, BDS against South Africa forced the government to end apartheid and give equal rights. In contrast, the terms of Hamas are the annihilation and/or expulsion of all Jews from all of Israel/Palestine [1,2] (see also excerpts from pro-BDS demonstrations at CUNY in our Climate of Hostility section). So, those are the ends to which BDS against Israel is working, regardless of the good intentions of some of its advocates. It’s that simple. Applying Ibram Kendi’s thesis from his book, How to Be an Anti-Racist, intentions don’t matter, policies do. So, even if the intentions of some BDS advocates may not be anti-Semitic, in reality, the ends to which they are working are the annihilation of Israel’s Jewish population so long as those are Hamas’s goals.

A19: The misguided condemnation of Israel impedes PSC CUNY’s ability to tackle the things that we really care about. CAFI calls for union members to stand together and promote the core values & causes of liberal labor unions. These are:

Improving the working conditions, compensation, and benefits of CUNY employees; Making sure instructors on tenure track are not subject to intimidation and excessive pressures, and are given the means to succeed in tenure and promotion; Making sure that adjunct instructors are given a fair workload and are given the best chances to continue their employment; making sure that staff is fairly compensated, promoted, and kept safe; Making sure that people employed in CUNY through outside service companies, such as some janitors, are offered fair compensation, safety, and fair working conditions.
Creating a working and teaching environment that promotes upward mobility for all employees and students.
Promoting diversity, equity and inclusion in CUNY. Facilitating the participation and promotion of women, minorities, and people from disadvantaged backgrounds in academic and professional life in CUNY and beyond. Supporting free expression of personal identity, and the fight against implicit and explicit discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical and mental disability
Keeping CUNY free of harassment and intimidation by allowing CUNY employees to peacefully support causes of their choice in the US and around the world without being afraid of harassment and intimidation by coworkers who take a different view on these issues.
Promoting the causes of all residents of NYC, regardless of immigration status.

A20: No, this resolution is a constant source of vilification, harassment and intimidation for many Jews and Israel supporters throughout CUNY. People who support Israel were viciously attacked and harmed on the basis of these opinions, as this statement amounts to implicit incitement to act against Jews and Israel supporters. Students were barred from participation in student activities and harassed in class (see student testimonies on our web site). Junior faculty members are concerned about their prospects of promotion. We have all seen how implicit incitement leads to real violence. We need to create a safe space for everyone in CUNY, and fight against the demonization, intimidation, and bias-against anyone in CUNY, including Jews and Israel supporters. We must repeal the PSC CUNY resolution on Palestine.