On 14th May, a Student General Meeting (SGM) was called to get student consensus on two topics: the new definition of antisemitism, and the University of Sydney’s ties to Israel.
Quorum was called at 5:20pm, with the meeting officially beginning at 5:28pm.
The meeting was a formal vote on five motions:
- Reject the new definition of antisemitism adopted by all Australian Universities
- Endorsing the call for a single, secular, democratic state across all of historic Palestine
- USyd completely revoke the anti-protest Campus Access Policy and commit to guaranteeing free speech and the right to protest.
- USyd end its complicity in Israel’s apartheid regime and genocidal onslaught in Gaza
- USyd SRC to financially and materially provide resources to support the campaigns supported in the previous motions.
Angus Dermody, from Students Against War (SAW), was the mover of the motion. Speaking to the necessity of the SGM, he said, “We are here because for the last year and a half Israel has… killed at least 50,000 people in Gaza, tens of thousands of those are children, tens of thousands are being starved to death.”
He referenced many ongoing ties between USyd and Israel, including exchange programs with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Technion, and Tel Aviv University; though he noted “We forced them to stop sending students to the Bezalel Art Academy in Israel.” In February, the SCA formally cut ties with the Israeli Bezalel Academy.
Dermody reinstated the aims of the meeting: “Cut ties with Israel, cut ties with Apartheid, cut ties with weapons companies.”
Next, Vieve Carnsew seconded the motion and spoke to the devastation of Palestinian life “which our university has chosen to support”. They spoke about violations of international law committed by Israel, and condemnation by human rights organisations such as Amnesty International.
Carnsew also directly referenced the Labor party’s complicity in the ongoing genocide. They said that “there can be no honeymoon period for Labor… they are still providing [weaponry] to Israel.” Carnsnew urged the room to “look to students in the US, at universities such as Columbia, to students [organising] in Bangladesh… to students in Greece and Serbia. Across the world, students are demonstrating their strength, and we need everyone to be involved.”
MOTION 1 — Reject the new definition of antisemitism adopted by all Australian Universities
Moving onto the motions themselves, the first motion calling to reject the new definition of anti-semitism was moved by Bri, who spoke to the conflation of anti-semitism and anti-zionism as a tool used to “fearmonger Jewish students”. She reiterated the ongoing role of Jewish people in the fight against Zionism, and the separation between Judaism and Zionism itself. The speaker concluded her speech, saying that “Trying to smear pro-Palestinian protestors as anti-semitic is fighting the movement that is fighting for Jewish safety around the world.”
The first speaker against the motion spoke as a representative of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS) and emphasised that they are elected by Jewish students from across different states. They stated that the movers of the motion at the SGM were uninterested in criticising Israeli policy but rather “interested in making Jews feel unsafe… interested in vilifying them”.
The second speaker in favour of the motion was Miriam, who spoke to the fact that this definition conflates any criticism of Israel’s actions as antisemitic. The definition, the speaker argued, can and will be used to stop Palestinian solidarity on university campuses. She referred to UTS and UNSW as universities who have rejected the definition, and affirmed that “standing against injustice is not hate”.
The second speaker against the motion spoke to “two simple claims which all progressive minded and reasonable people should agree on” which were “the right to self determination for indigenous peoples period” and “the right to define for themselves their own identity and what is discriminatory and racist”.
The third speaker for the motion condemned the complicity of USyd in the genocide, slamming the university for “conduct[ing] weapons research programmes” and warning that “every penny we spend become a missile fired at Palestinians.” They highlighted the “Jewish comrades who are here today” in solidarity with Palestine, and finished with a final affirmation that “the future is us, not the incompetent bureaucrats in power.”
The motion was then taken to a vote, and was carried with only one vote against the motion.
MOTION 2 — Endorsing the call for a single, secular, democratic state across all of historic Palestine.
The second motion was to endorse a single, secular, democratic state across historic Palestine.
The first speaker for the motion, Sophia, spoke about the importance of being involved in university action on Palestine and resisting complicity and complacence in genocide. “No one can be authentically human while preventing others from being so.”
The second speaker for the motion, Dermody, said “What about Palestinian self-determination? What about self-determination for the hundreds of thousands who were rejected from historic Palestine and have never been able to return?”
The first speaker against the motion, the same speaker from AUJS, spoke in support of a two-state solution, saying “I completely agree… but I don’t see at all how one big state where everyone lives in Kumbaya, you know, everyone’s suddenly going to start loving each other, and no one’s going to kill each other anymore magically. I don’t see how that achieves self-determination for either people.”
The second speaker against the motion said “I would like for you to all look at how Hamas, a terrorist organisation, came into government in Gaza. This is just one simple example of a lack of factual information behind the things that we are voting on. You’re welcome to stand up and turn your backs on me, I won’t take it personally.” The crowd immediately stood up in unison and turned their backs on the speaker.
The motion was then taken to a vote, and was carried.
A procedural motion was moved by Dermody to move Motions 3, 4 and 5 en bloc and to wrap up the meeting with a rally at F23. The procedural carried.
MOTIONS 3, 4, 5 (EN BLOC)
MOTION 3 — USyd completely revoke the anti-protest Campus Access Policy and commit to guaranteeing free speech and the right to protest.
MOTION 4 — USyd end its complicity in Israel’s apartheid regime and genocidal onslaught in Gaza
MOTION 5 — USyd SRC to financially and materially provide resources to support the campaigns supported in the previous motions.
The first speaker for the bloc was Jesper Duffy (QuAC). Duffy talked about the weaponisation of free speech and the use of the Campus Access Policy to censor students. “The university has told us time and time again that this policy is for the psychosocial safety of everyone on campus, that we are allowed to dissent, but only quietly, so as not to offend the sensibilities of anyone who does not agree with us. They monitor the left-wing students on campus.”
The second speaker in favour was a First Nations student, who said “My people suffered massacres and genocidal ideology to the point where I can’t even look at my family tree two generations back because it’s gone… I came here hoping for a safe place from a really queerphobic, racist town in Queensland. And yet, what am I met with but racism, queerphobia… the threat over protesting. It is disgusting, it is sickening, and I will not stand for any of it.”
There were no more speakers supporting the bloc, so Fisher asked if speakers against the bloc would like to be given a ground reply. Seeing none, the reply was waived and the bloc was taken to a vote. The bloc was carried unanimously.
With all motions carried by an overwhelming majority, the SGM is called to a close. After the SGM, students went to rally at F23 to continue the protest.
