"Facts On the Dining Hall? Sabra Hummus was the Main Get For UCR Protestors"

[I expand this discussion here.]

Josh Marshall (Talking Points Memo) has a new piece entitled "Facts On the Dining Hall? Sabra Hummus was the Main Get For UCR Protestors." 

It received the expected sarcastic replies when he posted it on Twitter. Malcolm Nance, a strong Trump critic who has taken a one-note stance on anti-Israeli protests, retweeted it.

The article upfront notes that the University of California at Riverside negotiated a peaceful settlement to end an encampment there. These pro-Palestinian encampments have received some one-sided negative coverage. The fact the college negotiated with the protesters is notable. Only a few colleges have significantly done that. 

What did the protestors get in return?

A major controversy is investments in businesses that help Israel, particularly arm manufacturers. The specific school here does not have the power to disinvest. So, a task force is promised with a bunch of caveats.

(The first item in the agreement -- which is not cited by JM -- is a promise of full disclosure of UC investments, updated as appropriate.)

The "most concrete" thing is allegedly a review of Sabra Hummus (co-managed by an Israeli manufacturer), which JM says the group hopes to be banned from the dining halls. The agreement does not say anything about banning. Also, the link provided shows that they want it banned from the campus as a whole.  

The agreement also regulates study abroad programs, which has implications for studying in Israel. The School of Business has also discontinued global programs in Israel and other places, including Cuba, Vietnam, and Brazil. A university FAQ clarifies:

Through our dialogue, we learned that these study-abroad programs were not offered under the auspices of the UC Riverside Office of International Affairs, nor are they consistent with university policies. So they are being discontinued.  

Okay.  The protest side sees the agreement as a first step. They will have a wait-and-see attitude. If they are not satisfied, they might start encampments again. That this is an "SNL sketch" as one back/forth on Twitter asserts (with JM agreeing) is rather dubious.

The Sabra hummus thing is an easy thing to ridicule/latch on to, but it is but one aspect of the agreement. The very fact that there was a negotiation provides the protestors some value. And is it really that the "main get," going by the list? Why are the other things basically meaningless?

If we move past ridicule, the campaign against Sabra has been ongoing for around fifteen years. There is clearly a symbolic quality to it, down to the very name (Jew born in Israel). Perhaps, instead of sneering, we can understand why it was one of multiple aspects of the agreement.

Or, we can go another way, I guess.