Divestiture Israel
 

An article about the pressure being put on colleges to divest in Israel and the debate over this.

"Students and faculty at a growing number of universities are joining a fledgling movement to pressure schools into selling their holdings in companies that do business in Israel, prompting a counter-campaign among Jewish groups that consider the effort part of a creeping tide of anti-Semitism on campus.

The divestiture drive is designed as a way to protest Israeli treatment of Palestinians, but Jews and others say that by adopting tactics used to oppose apartheid in the 1970s and 1980s, the movement not so subtly paints the Israeli government as racist and oppressive."

more here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Oct11.html

Re: Divestiture Israel
 

Hah, this might make more sense to me if I knew what divestiture meant :D .

Divestiture means that they are trying to remove any investments or support that they have for something, in this case Israel.

This is a stupid idea that is being supported by palestinians and people who dont bother to do any research before they jump behind things.

I have really had it with the so called palestinians. I am tired of manufactured lies and double standards. I am at the point where given the option of shooting a palestinian or a rabid dog I would put the palestinian into the ground.

I also feel think it would be interesting to see what the reaction would be if some israeli fundamentalist strapped himself with explosive and walked into the arab market. I guarantee you that no one would be sympathetic to the israelis in that instance. Or if I took a sling shot and a pebble and aimed at a palestinians head, would the world complain if they shot at me, I think not.

I have always strived to give everyone a fair chance no matter of their heritage, I have friends of all creed and type, including arabs. I have never hidden my point of view and I try to give everyone a fair shake, including arab supporters. However, this crap is just really pissing me off.

:hmm: I think thats how the problem started.

I think it is a bad idea. If you don't like a group, whoever they might be, then don't buy product/services from them. That's fine. However, when you are managing money you have a fiducary responsibility to do the fiscally prudent thing. Investing needs to be objective to be effective.

I'm not a smoker and don't think anyone else should be, but I do own tobacco stocks. Why, because they make money. Whether or not I hold these stocks won't change that fact. I hold these for financial reasons rather than moral reasons. Buying and selling stocks needs to be about making money. If you want to be supportive then make a donation. And if you are trying to pressure a school to limit its investment opportunities then you should offer to make up the shortfall through additional donations/tuition.

A response to the Washington Post by my favorite columnist, Thomas Friedman . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/16/opinion/16FRIE.html

Campus Hypocrisy
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN


The Washington Post recently reported that students and faculty at a growing number of universities are pressuring their schools "into selling their holdings in companies that do business with Israel, prompting a counter-campaign among Jewish groups that consider the effort part of a creeping tide of anti-Semitism on campus." Here's what I would say to both sides on this issue:

Memo to professors and students leading the divestiture campaign: Your campaign for divestiture from Israel is deeply dishonest and hypocritical, and any university that goes along with it does not deserve the title of institution of higher learning.

You are dishonest because to single out Israel as the only party to blame for the current impasse is to perpetrate a lie. Historians can debate whether the Camp David and Clinton peace proposals for a Palestinian state were for 85, 90, or 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza. But what is not debatable is what the proper Palestinian response should have been. It should have been to tell Israel and America that their peace proposals were the first fair offer they had ever put forth, and although they still fell short of what Palestinians feel is a just two-state solution, Palestinians were now prepared to work with Israel and America to achieve that end. The proper response was not a Palestinian intifada and 100 suicide bombers, which are what brought Ariel Sharon to power.

It is shameful that at a time when some Palestinians are writing that they made a historic mistake in not nurturing the Clinton peace offer, pro-Palestinian professors and students in America and Europe pretend that the only reason the occupation persists is because of Israeli obstinacy. This approach will never gain the Palestinians a state, and those who dabble in it are simply prolonging Palestinian misery.

You are also hypocrites. How is it that Egypt imprisons the leading democracy advocate in the Arab world, after a phony trial, and not a single student group in America calls for divestiture from Egypt? (I'm not calling for it, but the silence is telling.) How is it that Syria occupies Lebanon for 25 years, chokes the life out of its democracy, and not a single student group calls for divestiture from Syria? How is it that Saudi Arabia denies its women the most basic human rights, and bans any other religion from being practiced publicly on its soil, and not a single student group calls for divestiture from Saudi Arabia?

Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction — out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East — is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest.

Memo to Israel's supporters: Just because there are anti-Semites who blame Israel for everything that is wrong does not mean that whatever Israel does is right, or in its self-interest, or just. The settlement policy Israel has been pursuing is going to lead to the demise of the Jewish state. No, settlements are not the reason for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but to think they do not exacerbate it, and are not locking Israel into a permanent occupation, is also dishonest.

If the settlers get their way, Israel will de facto or de jure annex the West Bank and Gaza. And if current Palestinian birth rates continue, by around the year 2010 there will be more Palestinians than Jews living in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza combined. When that happens, the demand of the college anti-Israel movements will change.

They won't bother anymore with divestiture. They will simply demand: "One Man, One Vote. Since Israel has de facto annexed the territories, and there is now just one political entity between Jordan and the Mediterranean, we want majority rule." If you think it is hard to defend Israel on campus today, imagine doing it in 2010, when the colonial settlers have so locked Israel into the territories it can rule them only by apartheid-like policies.

This is not a call for unilateral Israeli withdrawal. This is a call for everyone who wants Israel to remain a Jewish state — and not become a binational state — to urge President Bush to renew the U.S. push for a two-state solution. If you think the Bush team is doing Israel a favor with its diplomacy of benign neglect, if you think the only campaign Jews need to be involved in today is with hypocrites on U.S. college campuses — and not with extremists in their own camp — you too are telling yourselves a very big and dangerous lie.

excellent column from friedman, and it pretty well reflects my view.

i think that there are a lot larger issues to campaign for than for divestiture.

I don't support divestiture, its pointless and short sighted. However, I still see where the Palestinians are coming from. I don;t condone suicide bombings which are horrible and quite against the teachings of islam, but I do see their plight.

Life for Palestinains is far worse than anything you could imagine, so don't try to make it seem like Israel is totally in teh right here. Israel's handling of this whole episode from the 1940's has been totally irresponsible. They created the situation they are in.

And who is Friedman? Is he an expert on foreign affairs? Is he a middle eastern specialist? Allow me to point out very ignorant statements he makes...



I would hope that someone who portrays himself as womewhat knowledgable on this issue at least knows that Arabs are a semitic people too. This doesn't discredit what he trying to say, but it does show a bit of ognorance on the subject and should be a red flag to readers.



First, do you know how big the West Bank and Gaza is? Not very. And the land isn't very good. That offer was never meant to be taken seriously, and was a total joke. Also, he seems to believe that the Palestinians were the ones who rejected it. The Palestinians said it was a good start and that they should further negotiate. Check the facts: the deal was canceled on the Israeli side and Clinton had no interest in trying anymore.



Those things happened decades ago, thats why we don't have protests going on now genius...



Which rights? Name the right they are denied. Thats what I thought.



Wow, he got that right. Why can't israel see that when you kick people out of their homes with out paying for the land then settle your people in those homes that its going to create problems? And if they don'thave a family to settle in the newly opened home, they bulldoze it. Sounds like a plan for peace.

I agree with him that the only possible solution is a 2 nation resolution, but there is no way the Israelis are willing to do that with Sharon in control. Sharon's nickname is "The Bulldozer." Sharon was tried and found GUILTY of war crimes for the massacre of thousands of people when he was in the military. He is not the man who is going to settle this issue, he is the man who will make it worse.

Friedman is the Foreign Affairs Columnist for the NY Times, so yes, I would say he is an expert on foreign affairs . . . and in particular, the Middle East. He has focused the vast majority of his career and studies on the Middle East. Here is a link to his bio, along with some excerpts . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/FRIEDMAN-BIO.html

"Thomas L. Friedman won the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for commentary (his third Pulitzer for The New York Times)." (With the vast majority of the columns relating to the Middle East. His Post 9/11 columns, and some extra commentary, have been compiled into a book "Longitudes & Attitudes: Exploring the World After September 11th")

"Friedman joined The Times in 1981 and was appointed Beirut bureau chief in 1982. In 1984 Friedman was transferred from Beirut to Jerusalem, where he served as Israel bureau chief until 1988. Friedman was awarded the 1983 Pulitzer Prize for international reporting (from Lebanon) and the 1988 Pulitzer Prize for international reporting (from Israel). His book, "From Beirut to Jerusalem" (1989), won the National Book Award for non-fiction in 1989. His latest book, "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" (2000) won the 2000 Overseas Press Club award for best nonfiction book on foreign policy and has been published in 20 languages."

"In 1978 he received a Master of Philosophy degree in Modern Middle East studies from Oxford."

Then I'd say its remarkable that so qualified a man would mistake the meaning of semitic.

Nearly everyone misuses it, not just him.

I think most people will agree that "Semite" refers to Jews, just as "anti-Semitism" refers to prejudice against Jews. That's the common usage for the word. Thus it's wholly appropriate for Mr. Friedman to use it in reference specifically to Jews.

You stuck your foot in your mouth by questioning Friedman's credentials and were effectively shot down by Butch. Everyone sees this. Yet instead of retracting your criticism or at least simply shutting up, you try to argue semantics to prove that you're still smarter than Friedman. Sheesh. Please do us all a favor by getting off that pedistal you've build for yourself, you arrogant bastard.

You don't know what you are talking about. I am allowed to question people's qualifications. I honestly didn't know what his were so I asked and I was satisfied with the answer given by Butch. I find it odd that you use the SECOND definition given and tell me I'm wrong. I was right, I told you what a semite was and you proved me right according to the definition.

You also said "

I did nothing of the sort. I am clearly right. How can the Palestinians who are semitic themselves be anti-semites? I never said I was smarter than him, not even close. I will say that he was irresponsible in his word selection.

So if the N-word is used to refer to black people and we all understand that, is it the appropriate to use to describe them? Ofcourse not. Just because everyone incorrectly refers to someone as something doesn't mean he should continue to use an ignorant term.

No thanks. I have a right to question public figures, if you don't agree then stop reading. I haven't put myself on any pedistal, I simply call them like I see them. If you have a problem with the positions I take, point them out and counter with your own, but please refrain from using an explitive insult towards me, which is most uncalled for.

Human Rights Watch has a list that runs for about five pages. is that enough for you? :rolleyes:

Lets take another look at my handy dandy Critical Thinking book, shall we?

Saudi-American women don't generally feel they are oppressed over there. There is nothing inherently different between Saudi civil rights problems and China's.

i would imagine that if you're making such a broad statement, you must have talked to most of the women in saudi arabia so that you could share their feelings with the rest of us
did anyone say that china had a good human rights record? i know i didn't

How can you say this? They are comporting themselves in such a way to stay alive or avoid a stoning. Using your thinking, the Afgan women were happy living under Taliban rule (no education or self-determination). We know that is untrue as before the Taliban regime, Afgan women were doctors, teachers, etc. Since reform, they have returned to those endeavors.

I think you grossly underestimate women and what is important to them.

I'm basing that one on what I heard when this issue was brought up at the last MSA meeting I sat in on. The people there thought it was a joke that it would even be thought of as a problem.

I suppose we should just entirely remove "generally," "most," "all," and "many" from out vocabulary because no one is allowed to use them anymore.

I'm going to ignore everything written after the first post, because I don't have time to read them/comment on them yet. But... I will say what I think about this matter. Two wrongs do not make a right... just as it was not right to kick innocent people out of their homes and their land in order to give a land without people to a people without land :rolleyes: , it is not right to now--generations later--try and ruin a people for protecting their own rights, homes, etc.

Was it right that the Palestinians were pushed out of lands that had been in their family for thousands of years? I hope no one here says yes, but then again, I could see some people with rabid dogs in their yard that might think so. :hmm:

Anyway, my point is this: The Palestinians should never have had their homes taken away. Once that atrocity was committed, however, the people that are left in the wake shouldn't be chastised for defending their way of life. Should both parties be more openminded? Hell yes. Should they learn to compromise? Obviously. Will they? Probably not... mainly because both sides feel like they are entitled to more than they really are or should be.

So according to your thinking anyone who is living on an Indian reservation is wrong? If you were to check your history, you would find that the land that became Israel was first inhabited by Jews long before any so called Palestinians were there. After being enslaved by the egyptians and then later the romans, the Jews were forced to leave their lands. So just because after Jews were forced off their land Arabs moved in, you are sayng that they have a better claim to the land? When the US government took the land of the Indians, we ended up having to give them reservations and make other reparations. According to your arguments, any settlers who were on the land that was given to the indians was pushed out and should be able to kill any indians they find? This may seem very different, but its really very similar.

And to Cantacuzune, I have one question....Have you ever been to Israel or the so called occupied territories? Have you experienced any of the things you are arguing about or are you just talking about something you know nothing about? I have no problem with people who make informed statements or question things they disagree with. I do have a problem with people who dont know what they are talking about and sit there making an argument.

This debate/discussion/argument has been held many times here at Got Apex. There is no reason for me to rehash it, nor do I feel like it...but if you really want me to, I will be more than happy to go through it.

And yes, Hapoo, if everything started at this point (shoot them over dog) then that would be the cause of the problem...but reaching this point after a prolonged time is a result of the problem, rather than the cause. I should also clarify that it would have to be a militant palestinian ot just someone who isnt causing trouble.

I don't agree with the whole, we were there before you arguement. If every country got to base their boarders on what they were at the height of their political success we would be in for some serious warfare. They are already testing that strategy in the Balkans. Just because the Jews controlled that land 3000 years ago is irrelevent. There is a statue of limitations in the United States to land claims. After you've been gone for 1500 years, you've lost your claim in my book, whether you were forced out or not.

I haven't been to the middle east, but its a subject I take great interest in and I read everything I can on it, and attend every event that deals with it. I am friends with a lot of people in the Muslim Students Association and I have a friend in the Isreali army right now who is seeing combat. I don't just watch the news for two days then make up my mind on the issue. I'm basing my opinion on lots of inquiry into the subject.

First of all, there has never been a Palestinian people, religion, culture, economy, or language. The press and the Arabs will try to tell you there was a nation called Palestine which people lived in for thousands of years. This is a lie. There was a nation called Canaan, which became Israel.
The Palestinians today are Arabs, by birth, by religion, by culture and language. The word Palestine comes from the Philistines, Israel's ancient enemies.
In 130 AD, the Romans rebuilt Jerusalem as a pagan city with a temple to the god Jupiter, where the Jewish temple had stood. Provoked to rebellion, about 500,000 Jews were massacred and thousands sold into slavery.
The Romans angrily renamed the land of Israel Syria Palestina.This is where the name Palestine originated.
From that time, Jews living there became known as Palestinians. During WWII, the British army had a brigade made up of entirely Jewish volunteers. This group was called the Palestinian brigade. The Palestinian Symphony Orchestra was entirely Jewish. The Palestine Post was a Jewish newspaper.
in 1948, Arabs who fled Israel claimed that they were the true Palestinians. They claimed that Israel had always belonged to themselves.
However, in 1948, the Arabs owned only a mere 3% of so-called Palestine.
For over 50 years, the world has had to face the problem of so-called Palestinians refugees from the 1948 war of independence. Typical of the lies , the media consistently accuses the Jews of ruthlessly dispossessing the native population.
In fact, the Arab high command urgently warned Arabs by radio to get out of Palestine while they slaughtered the Jews. Approximately 350,000 fled. Those who remained are called Palestinians and comprise about 15% of Israel's voters.
It is interesting to note that none of the Arab nations are willing to absorb any of the people called Palestinians.
After the 1967 6 Day War, 1 Million Palestinian refugees came under Israel's control. Israel offers them state land, electricity. sanitaion, streets and schools. It has built housing projects. Arab nations, incredibly oppose Israel helping the refugees. Even more incredible, the United Nations adopts the following resolutions annually:
1) The General Assembly demands that Israel desist from the resettlement of Palestinian refugees in the Gaza strip.
2) The General Asembly calls once again upon Israel to refrain from any action that leads to the resettlement of Palestinian refugees in the West Bank.`

You are confused on your ancient history. Canaan was not a nation in the modern sense. The modern nation state is a new western european idea which came into being in the 16th century or a bit earlier. Canaan was a kingdom. Arabs who controlled the territory from about 635 onward, were Caliphates which are essentially kingdoms. There is no difference between the political structure of the Canaanites and the Arabs. To suggest otherwise is completely unfounded.

Palestine wasn't the name of the nation, it was the name of the land. But whether you call it Palestine or Israel isn't important to the current problem, because in the middle ages they didn't attach the current meaning of those names to them then.

Because Palestine was a part of Syria. The Romans named Cicilia Armenia Minor even though there were no Armenians there. Its just a name.

The biggest fallacy in your "timeline" is that you skip from the year 70ad to the year 1936. What about the intervening 1800+ years? You can't pick and choose which historical events youw ant to shape the issue, you have to use them all. Please address this.

Where did I call Palestine a state? Even if I had, that is what people call "grasping for straws" when discussing a matter.
And what part of the history between 130 AD and 1948 would you like me to comment on? You claimed that I mentioned 70 AD and 1936. Where did those dates come from?
You claim that I can't pick and choose. Oh Really? You seem to have the uncanny ability to jump on and exaggerate minor details and to disregard the discussion at hand.
And YOU please address this matter!

I'll be the first to admit i don't know much at all about the history, but this is how i see it. The Jews were pushed out thousands of years ago, then in recent history they kick the people who lived there out of the land just like it was done to them and pretty much say afterwards that kicking people out of their country is wrong so they should have the right to stay. But whatever.

If we're basing this on who was on the land before whom heres what i have to say... HUMANS where on the land. Before Palestinians and before Jews, people of all creed and color lived on the land.



I believe that there is a pretty large number of them in Jordan and some other countries.

Johnny, you went from discussing The Roman era to World War 2. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70ad so that is where I got that number. WW2 essentially began as an era in 1936, so that is where I got that number.

You used the Pre-Roman period and the post ww2 period to justify your position, I would wonder why you failed to include the intervening 1800 years. Maybe, just maybe, something relevent to the situation happened during those years.



Where did I say you called it that? You said Canaan was a state. I said it was as much a state as the Abbassid Empire, Fatamid Empire, Seljuk Sutanate, Mongol Khanate and Ottoman Sultanate and any others that ruled the land. Just because Palestine was never an independent muslim country DOES NOT mean that muslims have no claims to the land.

Also, funny you bring up the Canaanites. They werent the first people to live in the area. The area was originally inhabitted by many various semitic and near eastern peoples of whom the jews were one. They certainly were not the first homosapiens to live there. They were one of many of the various conquering peoples that have moved in and out of the area.

Yeah, because they already HAVE THEIR OWN LAND TO LIVE ON.

Put it another way. The economy of Egpyt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon etc is not that good. They already have millions in poverty. What are they going to do with a few million more citizens dumped on them with absolutely no money or food? They can't feed the people they have and you expect them to take in millions more totally destitute people.

Why couldnt the palestinians just live in their old houses? Why couldnt they just continue living in their old neighborhoods and work at their old businesses? OH YEAH! THEY HAD ALL THOSE THINGS TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM AND GIVEN TO ISRAELI COLONISTS!

I think you completely misunderstood and misconstrued what I was trying to say. I simply said that two wrongs don't make a right. Adding a third and a fourth and a fifth doesn't help matters either. Sure, Jewish people might have lived there originally, but then they left. Palestinians filled the gaps, and for generations, they it was their home. All of the sudden, the major European powers and the U.S. felt guilty for the parts they played in the atrocities against the Jews. What do they do about it? They kick families off of their lands and out of their homes, and give that land to Jewish people to create a Jewish country with a Jewish government. I don't think what I'm saying is that hard to grasp.

Oh, and johnnymk: the terms Palestine and Palestinian might have been made up by a bunch of Arabs, but the terms American and United States were just made up by a bunch of white Christians. :shrug:

And if anyone summed up my point in a post, it was hapoo:


Can we all say hypocrites?