When it comes to the Israel-Palestine conflict, it seems that time runs in a loop.
The tensions, protests and arguments surrounding the conflict frequently spill over to University of California campuses, where year after year we see similar posters and flyers, facts and figures, events and counterevents.
In the most recent development in campus advocacy relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict, UC San Diego’s undergraduate student government, following closely behind those at UC Riverside and UC Irvine, passed a resolution calling for UC divestment from companies doing business in Israel and profiting from the Palestinian occupation.
However, this resolution is unlikely to translate into actual policy.
According to a May 2010 statement, the Regents will only divest from a foreign government or affiliated companies if the United States declares that the government is committing acts of genocide.
This renders the divestment from Israel and affiliated companies somewhat infeasible.
In the particular case of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the issue at stake may be too divisive for the UC to take a stance on investments in the region. But there are other international affairs with less political and social subjectivity, and the 2010 statement prevents the UC from speaking out on these issues.
Israel-related arguments aside, perhaps recent divestment resolutions on UC campuses present an opportunity to reexamine the UC’s divestment policy.
Such a specific policy is effective in that it regulates the monetary investments of the UC, shielding them from passing social trends. Ultimately, however, it limits the University’s ability to take a stance on a broader range of human rights issues, particularly when they lie outside of the federal government’s judgement.
Economic sanctions have historically been an important form of protest in response to human rights abuses.
Today, proponents of Israel-related divestment have pointed to UC divestment from apartheid South Africa as a successful case in which the UC took a moral stand on human rights abuses.
But the historical account is not so clear-cut. Regents initially opposed South African divestment due to financial concerns within the University, but reversed their position a year later. They attributed their change of heart to worsening conditions in South Africa, specifically the detainment of 3,000 black South Africans in June 1986, who were not granted due process.
The regents’ final decision, urged by then-California Governor George Deukmejian, was based on a moral outcry against the South African system of apartheid.
Since then, UC policy for divestment has become more narrow. The most recent UC divestment decision came in 2006, against companies the U.S. government claimed supported a Sudanese government steeped in civil war and genocide.
There are many human rights issues that do not fall under genocide, yet are a worthy cause for divestment. South African divestment, for example, would not have passed under this current policy.
At the time, the United States did not associate South Africa with genocide, but rather maintained a policy of constructive engagement, keeping economic ties with the country, while still publicly encouraging it to reform its apartheid policies.
Other cases could also enter grey areas: for example, the United States did not and still does not recognize the Armenian genocide as such. A state’s geopolitical interests often interfere with how it recognizes human rights abuses or international conflicts. The UC does not necessarily have to abide by those same interests.
The Israeli case calls for a different analysis than that of South Africa – like any conflict, it has many moving parts and conditions unique to its history, from the contested nature of terms like “apartheid” to the numerous political groups involved in the protracted armed conflict.
However, the regents’ current investment policy stunts the conversation. It effectively defers their investment decision-making to U.S. government stances, which, in some sense, might prevent divestment as a result of national interests, not UC-specific judgements.
Gosh, where could we invest – and not be accused of utter hypocrisy – of we were to choose to divest from Israel?
Saudi Arabia precludes all non-Muslims from citizenship while 25% of Israel is not Jewish. In fact all of Europe has a greater Christian majority than Israel has a Jewish majority.
Egypt’s new Shrai compliant constitution does not recognize women as equals.
Iran kills those in the LGBT community without remorse and is ethnically cleansing the Bahai community.
Pakistan is ethnically cleansing what was once the majority Hindu population – a population demogrpahic that is now becoming an insignificant minority.
Qatar is a major funder of Wahhabism – a form of Islam which refuses to acknolwedge equal rights for non-Muslims.
Russia’s elections are rigged. Russia leveled Chechnya to stop the Islamist uprising.
China’s lists of wrong-doings is legion.
India still operates under the caste system.
Turkey has imprisoned more journalists than any country in the world – other than possibly China.
Indonesia has provinces where Sharia is the law – a country with a legal system within a legal system – and where church burnings are very common. A country where discrimination against Christians is accpeted and ignored by the powers that be.
And the US? Well according to what I read at UC internet sites the US is the biggest offender of all.
But let’s get real. OK? Let’s just pick on teeny-little Israel because it’s easy to pick on Jews. It’s a blood-sport that’s been prevalent for thousands of years and why not fan the flames today and tomorrow and well into the future just so as to be consistent. Right?
Thanks for the laundry list of essentialist nonsense. But tell me –to which of the countries you list above does the United States give three billion dollars/year direct aid and three billion dollars/year indirect aid, as it does to Israel?
I can answer your question. PAKISTAN. The same country of Pakistan that committed a genocide in 1971 and killed over 3 million Hindus and raped over 450,000 women. Keep in mind that these estimates are conservative estimates, meaning the ACTUAL NUMBERS are much HIGHER. Oh and they hid Bin Laden and created the Taliban and al-Qaeda and Pakistan’s ISI slaughters our brave American troops fighting for freedom in Afghanistan. Israel has not even come close to matching Pakistan’s evil, yet Pakistan receives billions of dollars/year direct aid and billion dollars/year indirect aid.
It is said that during the centuries when Islamic hordes first invaded Southern Asia up until today that Muslims have been responsible for up to 80 million deaths.
As an example in Afghanistan – once a region with a large and peaceful Buddhist civilization there is not one Buddhist left alive. But that is not enough as the Muslims are also blowing up the Buddhist statues and destroying any remnants suggesting they once lived there.
And in Pakistan a country where Hindus thrived for countless centuries before Muslims invaded we now discover there are very few Hindus left alive and those that are live in fear for their ultimate demise.
As you suggest the same has happened (and is still happening) in Bangladesh.
Now, as the Islamic hordes move eastward in Southern Asia we discover that the Buddhists in Southern Thailand are under seige with 5,000 killed in the last five years; and the Christians of Malyasia and Indonesia are under seige as well.
Finally in NW China Muslims are waging a simmering battle against the native Chinese there.
It is worthwhile reading Sam Huntington’s book “The Bloody Borders of Islam” for a thorough understanding on this subject.
Most of the aid given to Israel comes back to the US in direct purchases by Israelis.
I know you like black and white answers but it’s not that simple.
One could write a book on the give-and-take between the US and the “Royal” House of Saud, no?
And what of the billions in aid the “Palestinians” receive from the international body with the US being the largest contributor. What does the world receive back for all that aid other than advancements in suicide vests?
Disclaimer: I’m neutral. If you want to protest against Israel, that is fine. But let’s also make sure we protest against Iran. Iran is no angel. Here is a little 4 min video to educate all of you on Israel, courtesy of the great liberal thinker Christopher Hitchens. Multiculturalism FTW!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUUylitP6xI
I can’t imagine why any school, or any organization would propose punitive measures against the one real democracy in the middle east. Regime change in Israel happens with a vote. Regime change in the rest of the Arab world happens after massacre, riots and blood-letting. I can’t help but wonder- is this being proposed as a smokescreen to cover the failing of the Arab spring? I just see no reason to target our closest ally in the region in this way