|
|
The American Stance on Divestment from Israel A divestment movement to boycott Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is taking place worldwide with an extreme push from over forty college campuses including Harvard, Princeton, University of California - Berkley, University of Michigan, Yale, Penn, and many other prestigious universities (Tutu). The term occupation describes Israel’s control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, territories acquired through victory in Six-Day war in June 1967 (Karsh). This divestment campaign is a plan similar to the anti-apartheid movement for the abolition of “legal segregation” in South Africa that was strengthened by a push from college campuses in the 1980’s. It was the extreme push from colleges that eventually got businesses to divest from South Africa in the 1980’s, so present day divestment campaigns hope to have similar, monumental effects. Campaigns for divestment from Israel actually began nearly two years ago, “but have intensified since the September 11 terrorist attacks as students grow more aware of international issues,” said Francis Boyle, an international law professor at the University of Illinois (Marklein). After the success of economically pressuring the South African Government, universities are eager to use similar tactics and bring about an end to Israeli occupation upon the questionable lands (Serwer). The student groups are advocating that colleges review their financial profile and divest, or sell all shares of stock, from any company that participates in business transactions with Israel (Lacayo). The divestment plan intends to cause the divested companies to lose a tremendous amount of money from their generous college sponsors so that the companies will, in turn, stop doing providing their specific businesses to Israel. For example, divestment activists at Harvard claim to have more that $600 million invested in companies that have interests in Israel (Lacayo). Then, Israel, devoid of many invaluable services, will be forced, just like the South African government, to end their occupation in order to regain the trade (Urbina). To date, thousands of faculty, students, staff, and alumni nationwide have signed petitions supporting the divestment campaign (Marklein). Furthermore, countries such as Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, and Sweden have already taken action begun to boycott Israel (Urbina). After selling an estimated 170 million dollars worth of military equipment to Israel in 2000, Germany announced that it would suspend further arms sales, which will hurt Israel’s plans to begin production of its top-of-the-line Merkava tanks. Belgium, which supplies light weapons for security forces also decided to end all military export to Israel while France and Italy are considering similar measures. Britain, which shipped over twenty-five million dollars worth of arms to Israel last year also has a “de facto arms embargo in effect” (Urbina). Despite the push from many college campuses and protesters, the American government has yet to follow this international trend of divestment from Israel and should stay strong on its reluctant stance. Although comparisons have been made between South Africa’s apartheid and Israel’s occupation, they originate from two very divergent causes - one from the white race attempting to establish superiority, and the other originating from the pivotal concern for national security. Israel occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, both formerly Palestinian territories, because had anti-Semitic supporting countries along Israel’s borders and the proximity to cause major damage to the nation of Israel if measures weren‘t taken. Israel is faced not only with protecting its nation and people, but the only Jewish nation in the world.
|
