“Groups in the United States Call for Divestment from Israel.“
by Will Youmans

Overview:

In February 2001, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a diverse organization based at University of California Berkeley, announced their divestment campaign with a mock Israeli checkpoint at the main campus gate. Two days later, 150 students and community members gathered at a town hall meeting and formalized the campaign to remove shares linked to Israel that are held in the University of California's investment portfolio. Quickly, student organizations across the country brought the campaign to their universities. And despite strong opposition from students, administrators, and faculty, the movement is growing and generating both positive and negative attention.

National Beginnings:

In February 2002, over 450 people participated in a SJP-sponsored national divestment conference. At the plenary session, participants voted on a mission statement and guiding principles to "promote justice, human rights, liberation, and self-determination for the Palestinian people." Twenty-two universities, including the University of Michigan, Illinois, Columbia, Georgetown, and Ohio State, signed on to the final resolutions.

An independent drive calling for divestment was launched at Harvard and M.I.T. The language of the joint petition borrows from one circulated at Princeton. University of California faculty circulated an almost identical petition that garnered 192 signatures in two months.

Models:

The crusade against South African apartheid that mobilized students on American campuses and resulted in divestment from major corporations financially connected to South Africa inspired the current movement. Tens of thousands of activists staged sit-ins, built encampments, and held strikes. Most importantly, it achieved the African National Congresses' (ANC) goals through a framework of universal ideals such as equality under the law.

Another source of inspiration was that student activists successfully utilized a new notion of socially responsible business practices to pressure the university to address issues of global social justice. Such campaigns targeted cigarette company holdings, university merchandise produced in sweatshops, and human rights abuses in Burma and Tibet. These revolve around one of the key principles behind the movement to divest from Israel: that global issues are local when the university's money is involved. They also established attainable and measurable goals, something pro-Palestinian activism on campuses lacked.

These influences transpire in a universalism, a reliance on a language of human rights and equality, which is partially why many globalization critics are joining in. The support global financing provides to Israel during its systematic assault on Palestinians reflects a concept central to critiques of globalization—the global economy is structured in such a way that bolsters ignominious regimes. Divestment is thus a natural corollary. The influence of globalization critics is apparent in other pro-Palestinian campaigns that target corporations such as Starbucks and Caterpillar.

A Schism?

Two divergent schools are emerging within the divestment movement. The first begins with the position that Israel is an apartheid state. Its basis is a theory that portrays Israeli policies and laws systematically advantaging Jews as the essence of the conflict. Divestment based on this conceptualization relies on syllogistic logic: if schools divested from South Africa because it is an apartheid state, then schools must divest from Israel because it is an apartheid state.

Fadi Kiblawi, a student activist from the University of Michigan, expressed this view in the Palestine Chronicle. Kiblawi discussed Israel's policies of "segregation and separation of ethnic and religious classes" that subjugate "non-Jews to both an internal and settler colonization." He argued that Palestinians everywhere, not just in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, are subject to Israel's systematic discrimination. Most signatories to the Berkeley conference advance this view, which is best summarized by the slogan "End Israeli Apartheid."

The second school asserts, "It's the occupation, stupid." This group stresses the human rights abuses of Israel's 35 year-old military occupation as the basis for divestment. The Princeton and Harvard/M.I.T. petitions do not mention the word "apartheid," nor do they demand the right of return, one of the central conditions outlined in the Berkeley Conference resolution. This group refers to international law and human rights reports. At most they draw tactical lessons from the South African campaign, and use the apartheid description sparingly.

The first view is a significant departure from most pro-Palestinian activists discourse. Many see it as more complete than the alternative view because it incorporates the problems generated by Israel's creation in 1948 and the grievances of most of the Palestinian people, inside and outside of the Occupied Territories. Proponents of this alternative have no clear position on a solution. They tend to offer full support for Palestinian equality and self-determination.

Most pro-Palestinian activists in the United States identify closer with the "End the Occupation" school, which rests on 1967 and the West Bank and Gaza as the key time and space of reference. It comports more closely with the prevailing political map—a two-state solution based on Palestine's existing nascent political structures. The end goal of this view is Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories.

Criticism:

Some Palestinian sympathizers question the tactical merits of the divestment strategy. Phyllis Bennis, of the Institute for Policy Studies, pointed out that the South African campaign on campuses did not start because of "some creative activists here," but because an international divestment movement was central to the ANC liberation strategy—which is not the case with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). At a Palestine Center (Palestine Center) presentation, Bennis stated that despite its accuracy, condemning Israeli apartheid resonates with small pockets of progressives, not "the American people." Others think apartheid is an understatement because it fails to account for the ongoing ethnic cleansing.

Most criticism is less friendly and tends to include at least one of several counter-arguments: namely, divestment is one-sided, "insensitive to Israel's security needs," selectively focused on Israel while ignoring other countries, ignorant of differences between Israel and South Africa, and based in anti-Semitism.

Pro-Israeli groups organized counter-petitions and established anti-divestment websites. A group of University of California students and Jewish community members launched one at www.ucjustice.org. Another counter-petition at Harvard/M.I.T. garnered over 580 faculty signatures.

Active opposition to divestment includes more than just students. Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz told a journalist from the Financial Times that he would commit himself to the destruction of any university that divests from Israel. After the editorial board of UCLA's student newspaper wrote and published an editorial calling for divestment, Congressman Henry Waxman voiced his objection in a letter to the editor. Steven Spiegel, a former aid to the Clinton administration on Middle East Affairs, called the campaign "reprehensible and unwise." The Anti-Defamation League condemned it in a press release.

Supporters of divestment welcome the outburst of opposition. It brings their cause more attention and incites public debate, which, for many, is what this is really all about.

Universities Respond:

So far, most universities refuse to discuss divestment. The Princeton University Board "raised the issue for a preliminary debate, ruled that the petitioner's claims were not sufficient, and dropped the issue from its agenda." According to Ha'aretz, Harvard University President Lawrence Summers rejected divestment from the beginning. The Regents of the University of California claimed ambiguously that they will "discuss" the issue during a fall or spring meeting.

Divestment activists are pressuring their universities to review their financial connections to Israel. Aware that a review would take a long time, activists hope the process would ignite debate and force university administrations to take a position. Some universities believe "the petitions could lead to a situation in which the universities decide to relate to the matter and conduct a comprehensive examination of their investments in Israel, which would require the university administrations to explain their position."

What's Next?:

On 12-14 October 2002, student activists from all over the country will gather at the University of Michigan for the second annual divestment conference. The goal is to expand the signatory list on the document produced at the first conference and to strategize in light of the opposition and the university responses.

Will Youmans is a third year law student at the University of California Berkeley and a lead coordinator of the student divestment campaign. The above text may be used without permission but with proper attribution to the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine (Palestine Center). This Information Brief does not necessarily reflect the views of Palestine Center or The Jerusalem Fund. To contact Youmans, write to wyoumans@umich.edu.