By: Elise Backman
Last week, a group of students published an opinion piece supporting the Princeton Divests Coalition’s (PDC) referendum to divest from several companies that sell products used by the Israeli and Egyptian military forces in the West Bank and Gaza. PDC is correct in stating that maintaining the status quo in the region is untenable. Unfortunately, this divestment petition will worsen the situation on the ground for both Israelis and Palestinians. All Princetonians who support a sustainable two-state solution between Israel and Palestine should vote against this referendum.
Divestment encourages mistrust between Israelis and Palestinians, an essential issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A 2013 poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research states that though a majority of both Palestinians and Israelis support a two-state solution, neither side trusts that the other will uphold the principles of a peace agreement. Divestment reinforces this mistrust by placing the responsibility for changing the status quo on Israel. By divesting from companies that supply equipment to the Israeli military, the referendum implicitly blames Israel alone for the current regional political realities.
Though a significant power imbalance exists between Israel and Palestine, the capacity to change the status quo rests with both parties. Past evidence indicates the potential for negative consequences as a result of unilateral action from either side. Israelis took a unilateral step toward peace by withdrawing military personnel and evacuating Israeli civilians from Gaza in 2005. Following the evacuation, Hamas, deemed a terrorist organization by the European Union and the United States, violently ousted the more moderate Palestinian Authority. Since then, it has exploited its own people by embedding military infrastructure in civilian areas in violation of the Fourth Geneva Conventionand has launched rockets at Israeli civilians. This increased hostility is the result of unilateral action, which divestment supports by assuming that Israel alone is responsible for changing the status quo and ignoring past peace efforts.
By blaming Israel alone, the divestment referendum also discourages Palestinian leaders from making concessions in future peace negotiations. At the same time, calls for divestment from Israel’s allies, like the United States, lend credibility to the political rhetoric of right-winged political parties in Israel, diminish the voice of moderates and encourage mistrust of international moderators. This increases the polarization of Israeli society and makes it less likely for Israel to engage in future peace talks. Divestment is consequently counterproductive to achieving a two-state solution.
The divestment referendum also ignores security threats to Israelis and Palestinians, thereby worsening the status quo. It does not acknowledge the danger posed by Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad or al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, which seek the destruction of Israel and kill Palestinians who collaborate with Israel. These organizations derive their legitimacy and power from setbacks to the peace process. These threats do not justify excesses by Israeli security forces or settlement construction. However, the immediate dismantling of all military infrastructure in and around the West Bank and Gaza without a peace agreement, as suggested by the divestment referendum, would pose an immediate danger to Israeli and Palestinian lives. Though we want an expedient end to Israel’s military presence in and around the West Bank and Gaza, to be successful we recognize this must come with security guarantees for both peoples. According to the The Atlantic and theS. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, “Only when the question of security is satisfactorily addressed will [Israeli and Palestinian] leaders have the political capital required to resolve the remaining core issues of the conflict.” By ignoring these threats, the divestment referendum does not address the security concerns that affect the success of the two-state solution.
If divestment is counterproductive, what steps can actually improve the situation in the region, and what role should Princetonians play in this process? As stated at the outset, the core problem in the Israeli-Palestinian relationship is the lack of mutual trust and credibility. Trust must be fostered through non-governmental and governmental channels.
As a marketplace of ideas, Princeton can work to promote trust among Israelis and Palestinians by participating in initiatives like Tigers Together. Tigers Together fosters trust by supporting organizations that promote interdependence and development in Israel and Palestine by hiring civilians from both sides to work in four key areas: environment, leadership, healthcare and business. Tigers Together has already raised funds for crucial projects like the Good Water Neighbors initiative, which increases awareness of the shared water problemsin the region.
Outside of trust building through non-governmental channels, it is important to increase the mutual credibility of Israeli and Palestinian governmental agreements. According to Princeton professor and former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and EgyptDaniel Kurtzer, the U.S. government should take an active role in this process by exacting consequences for bad behaviors on both sides. For this strategy to be successful and politically feasible, these consequences must not be related to security, as advocated by the divestment referendum, or humanitarian aid.
We are not naïve. Like our fellow students, we are extremely concerned with the status quo that characterizes the current Israeli-Palestinian relationship. We also know that much groundwork must be laid before Israelis and Palestinians can achieve a sustainable peace. These motivations, however, should compel us to support governmental and non-governmental avenues that build trust among Israelis and Palestinians, rather than to vote in favor of a referendum that endangers the two-state solution. Over 1,000 faculty members, students and alumni recognized the dangers of divestment in the fall.There is a better way than divestment to improve the political reality for Israelis and Palestinians.
Elise Backman is a Woodrow Wilson School major from Sea Bright, N.J. She can be reached at ebackman@princeton.edu.
Read More
Where do idealogues die when free speech lives?
Siyeon Lee“When conservatives prime free speech to be understood as a sacred neutral, they disregard the truth that the ideal of free speech in itself — and the best way in which it should be pursued — is inherently dogmatic.”
“When conservatives prime free speech to be understood as a sacred neutral, they disregard the truth that the ideal of free speech in itself — and the best way in which it should be pursued — is inherently dogmatic.”
Want to study abroad? You might be out of luck.
Chloe Cresswell“Princeton’s study abroad policies undermine its emphasis on the international experience. Not only do the strict course approval process and inflexibility of major requirements deter students, but in several cases, it makes taking a semester abroad virtually impossible.”
“Princeton’s study abroad policies undermine its emphasis on the international experience. Not only do the strict course approval process and inflexibility of major requirements deter students, but in several cases, it makes taking a semester abroad virtually impossible.”
An appeal to the majority: Let faculty have the option of a remote vote
John Londregan“Several colleagues and I have proposed a new measure: if a faculty proposal passes, but at least six members in attendance object after its passage, our proposal would allow for remote voting by the full faculty on that proposal.”
“Several colleagues and I have proposed a new measure: if a faculty proposal passes, but at least six members in attendance object after its passage, our proposal would allow for remote voting by the full faculty on that proposal.”
