By Caroline Snowden '17
When we signed "Rights, Rules, Responsibilities" at the beginning of our freshman year, we committed ourselves to creating a “community in which all members can participate fully and equally.” As Princetonians, we are both honored and compelled to be part of this effort for positive impact in our school, our country and the world.
It is therefore imperative that, when our Princeton community is challenged to respond to a complex and divisive issue, we remember our promise. This week there will be a vote on a referendum to divest from multinational corporations involved in Israel’s military operations in the West Bank. Needless to say, the conflict in Israel is nothing if not complex. Yet the divestment referendum creates the impression that there is only room for binary judgment. It represents an attempt to make a public statement about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, using Princeton’s name to legitimize condemnation of what is termed the “collective punishment” and “state repression” of Palestinian citizens. In reality, the pro-divestment group does a disservice to peace by creating false dichotomies.
The concern for basic human rights is important, and it definitely deserves our attention. The present situation in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank is undeniably heart-wrenching. Compassionate people cannot fail to be moved by the devastating violence that fills newspaper images; rational individuals cannot condone hunger or fear. It is not only appropriate but also essential that we feel a desire and a responsibility to end the conflict that has caused misery for so many years.
In the grip of such powerful and basic emotions, it is tempting to see the solutions to such conflicts as equally clear-cut. When considering those who suffer in this war, however, such oversimplification is a dangerous trap. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has affected lives throughout the entire region, drawing upon generations of religious and cultural hatred to fuel acts of violence against both parties.
Palestinian citizens live in a well-documented state of chaos, but Israeli citizens must conduct their daily business as missiles rain upon their country and terrorists detonate explosives in their streets, buses and marketplaces. In 2014, Israel was criticized for bombing a UN school in Gaza, but many failed to mention that the UN found Hamas missiles stored in three different schools. While the divestment group references the demolition of Palestinian homes, it neglects to mention the tunnels constructed in order to attack Israeli residential communities on one of their holiest religious holidays.
The language and mission of the divestment referendum suggests that one must choose to support the oppressed or side with the oppressor. In this situation, divestment from certain Israeli and American businesses is equated with opposition to Palestinian suffering. Divestment supporters argue that divestment “should not be controversial,” pointing to their 500 signatures on a related petition obtained in January as proof of such fact. However, the 1,000 signatures collected against divestment in January reveal a different truth: that this conflict is far from clear-cut, and to suggest otherwise would be both impractical and dishonest.
Some still might argue that action, any action, in the face of suffering is superior to inaction. But what is the action of divestment intended to accomplish? Ultimately, this referendum serves little humanitarian purpose. Its economic impact is unlikely to be felt, since this situation does not meet Princeton’s pre-existing criteria for divestment. This referendum does not forward reconciliation and resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, since organizations like Tigers Together are already leading campus efforts to engage both parties in dialogue. In many ways, this referendum undermines the campus atmosphere of tolerance and collaboration that is essential for positive change. Divestment is an assertion that two-party discussion is over, that we want to end relations with one of the two sides to this story.
In the debate on divestment, we do, as divestment supporters have suggested, have an opportunity as Princeton students to send an important message. What message will that be? Will it be obstruction: Princeton has determined that open debate is no longer practical or worthwhile? Or will it be a message of cooperation and understanding?
At the beginning of our freshman year, we made a promise to ourselves and to this university. We promised to create and maintain a community that seeks to resolve complex problems with both respect and openness to diverse perspectives. It is clear that we are therefore honor-bound to vote "No" to divestment, reasserting our commitment to forwarding positive change both in our community and in the world.
Caroline is a sophomore from Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla. She can be reached at cks2@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.”
