By Zachary Foster
There is one major problem with the University faculty petition to divest from companies that profit from the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the siege on Gaza.
Why single out Israel? The authors, anticipating such criticism, write that “the State of Israel has been singled out as the recipient of unparalleled amounts of unconditionalU.S. military aid, andAmerican diplomatic supporteffectively exempts Israel from compliance with international law.” They added that “many governments violate human rights, but in few other cases do Americans and American institutions have such leverage to enact positive changes on the ground.”
But is it true that Israel is more susceptible to U.S. pressure than other human rights violators? Or perhaps the companies that profit from Israel’s crimes have unique leverage over Israel? The petition is silent on these critical questions.
Meanwhile, Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Morocco, Jordan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Qatar, Iraq, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Honduras, the United Arab Emirates and Kyrgyzstan all routinely receive diplomatic, military and financial assistance from the United States. Many are close allies. Most are ruled by dictators who imprison, torture and kill political opponents.
In Bahrain, peaceful, pro-democracy activists gathered at the Pearl Roundabout in Manama in February 2011, demanding the government put an end to torture and discrimination and release political activists. In response, the Bahraini government, with the assistance of another critical American ally, Saudi Arabia, slaughtered dozens, arrested more than2,900people, at least five of whom died from torture.Twelve peaceful, pro-democracy activists are spending the rest of their lives in prison. Meanwhile, in 2012, the United States government decided to resume arms sales to Bahrain.
In Egypt, on Aug. 14, 2013, the military raided two protests at al-Nahda Square and the Rabaa al-Adawiya Square in Cairo. They slaughtered at least 817 people in a few hours, in what Human Rights Watch described as “the most serious incident of mass unlawful killings in modern Egyptian history.” And yet, even after the mass slaughter, nearly 2,000 tons of critical U.S. military equipment continued to flow to Egyptian ports, while the U.S. 2014 fiscal year budget included $1.5 billion in aid to Egypt, $1.3 billion of which was earmarked for military spending. (The U.S. gave $3.1 billion to Israel in 2014.)
The U.S. itself has killed an estimated 258 to 951 civilians in Pakistan alone, including 168 to 200 children. Amnesty International has “serious concerns” that many U.S. drone strikes have constituted war crimes, including extrajudicial executions, arbitrary deprivation of life and deliberately attacking civilians rescuing the wounded.
So why single out companies complicit in Israel’s crimes but not Egypt’s, Bahrain’s or the United States’? Is the University is an institution whose mission it is to promote peace and justice in Israel and Palestine? Is the University more likely to support divestment there rather than elsewhere? Are the authors of the petition part of the nonexistent Department of Palestine Studies, or an Israel-Palestine studies reading group or carry Israeli passports, thus granting them a special obligation to focus on Israel? Is the University located in Israel and therefore carries a special obligation to divest from companies who profit from its own government’s crimes first? If the answer to any of these questions had been yes, then I might have supported the petition. But in each case, the answer appears to be no. Again, why Israel?
And why does the petition target only tenured faculty? Why did the authors of the petition wait until they got tenure to write it? If this is about human rights, then why did their activism have to wait until they received tenure? Obviously divestment onlyfrom companies that profit from Israel’s crimes is not justa human rights issue but also a political issue. The authors of the petition knew this very well, which is why they waited for their tenure decisions to write it.
This is, fundamentally, why divestment initiatives continue to meet with failure on every college campus in the country, as universities tend to avoid politicizing themselves. (This differentiates them from churches, for instance.) The authors cite successful divestment initiatives in South Africa and Sudan but fail to realize that Israel is not the same kind of international pariah that South Africa under Apartheid and genocidal Sudan were, like it or not. It might be in five or 10 years, but it is not today.
Ironically, divestment initiatives have flourished, in part, because even in the occupied West Bank, where the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement first originated, there is a modicum of freedom of expression. One wonders what would happen to Egyptian, Bahraini or Saudi Arabian activists if they were to launch a similar initiative.
So let’s be smart about divestment. The international climate is not where it needs to be to single out Israel in the same way universities singled out South Africa and Sudan.
I applaud the authors and signatories of the petition for making Israel’s human rights violations a matter of public debate at the University, but as individuals who have benefited immensely from the size of our endowment and the prestige our apolitical university affords us, we need to think much more strategically about ethical investing.
As for faculty in the Near Eastern Studies department, why not start with the Middle East? That would silence the criticism of singling out Israel but still keep the petition focused on specific targets. And, as authorities on the Middle East, the University will respect your concern for the Middle East rather than wonder about which ulterior motives led you to single out Israel.
Why head down the well-trodden path of failure? If you failed to convince me – an ideological ally – do you think you are going to persuade the University to politicize itself?
Zachary Foster is a Ph.D. student in Near Eastern Studies. He can be reached atzjfoster@gmail.com.
Read More
Princeton must protect students from Trump’s proposed immigration policies
Jorge ReyesWith the presidential inauguration less than two weeks away, time is running out. Princeton, act now and show undocumented and international students the “energetic and vigorous support” you pledge before it’s too late.
With the presidential inauguration less than two weeks away, time is running out. Princeton, act now and show undocumented and international students the “energetic and vigorous support” you pledge before it’s too late.
The U. doesn’t want you to know about the camera project. Pay attention.
Frances BroganWhen the administration isn’t forthcoming with us about a policy that affects the entire student body, we should be suspicious. Princeton’s lack of communication about the camera initiative suggests a desire to avoid accountability.
When the administration isn’t forthcoming with us about a policy that affects the entire student body, we should be suspicious. Princeton’s lack of communication about the camera initiative suggests a desire to avoid accountability.
Princeton should incorporate well-being days into the academic calendar
Isaac BarsoumPrinceton must commit to ending its mental health crisis by making long-term care accessible, appointing a zero-suicide czar –– and yes, incorporating well-being days into the academic calendar –– to make the Princeton experience happier, healthier, and safer.
