Please note that we are using apartheid to describe the situation in the Occupied Territories, not in Israel proper. For a defense of our criteria in response to the Stanford Israel Alliance's criticisms, please see our rationale.
Please click on a question below to jump to its answer. If you would like a question to be addressed publicly on this page, please email us. It is our belief that in lieu of any discussion over the indefensible charges in our petition, a lot of the questions posed to us are attempts to divert attention from the crux of our argument:
3) Are you calling for divestment from everything Israeli?
4) The situation seems complex, with both Israelis and Palestinians committing violence. Why are you only blaming israel and not placing any demands on the Palestinians?
5) Won't divestment from Israel hurt Palestinians, who depend on the Israeli economy?
8) Why should we divest from Israel, the sole democracy and America's only ally in the Middle East?
10) The Palestinians want to drive Israel into the sea - doesn't Israel have a right to exist?
11) Your group and the call to divest are nothing more than blatantly anti-Semitic propaganda.
12) Lots of countries flagrantly violate international human rights laws - what's the big deal?
There are definite differences between the practices of apartheid in Israel and in South Africa, and petty apartheid does not exist in Israel in the same way it existed in South Africa. However, like black South Africans, Palestinians are subject to a different system of law—one that denies them freedom of movement, equal access to resources like water, land, or electricity, and the right to establish residence in Israel, a right which is granted to Jews from anywhere in the world through the Law of Return.
Many people have forgotten that Israel was one of the staunchest allies of South Africa under apartheid; Desmond Tutu, a black South African has himself described the situation in the Occupied Territories as apartheid. Please see our more detailed discussion of apartheid in Israel here.
We recognize that Israel is not the only perpetrator of human rights violations in the region. However, the existence of other unjust regimes does not excuse the oppressive practices of the Israeli state. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu notes, “Divestment from apartheid South Africa was certainly no less justified because there was repression elsewhere on the African continent.” As students of an American university, we feel a responsibility to act as residents and taxpayers of this nation, given how vital the financial contributions of American companies and the American government are in sustaining human rights violations and oppression in the Occupied Territories. Further, the United States sends more foreign aid to Israel than any other nation, and thus we are in a position to push for change.
3)Are you calling for divestment from everything Israeli?
No. We are pushing for selective divestment from companies engaged in specific practices that violate human rights and support apartheid. We are not advocating the end of the state of Israel; rather, we are advocating an end to the state of apartheid in Israel.
While both sides have been violent towards each other, Israel is the occupier in this conflict and has used its advanced military and economy to inflict pain and desperation upon the stateless Palestinian people. There is no moral symmetry between the violence that the occupier commits and the violence that the occupied commit. We must remember that the ANC also used violence in its struggle against apartheid in South Africa. This recognition does not excuse violence, but its use by some Palestinians cannot invalidate their right to freedom or justify Israel’s brutal occupation and use of collective punishment. Furthermore, our criteria do not prevent us from divesting from Palestinian companies that are guilty of engaging in the same crimes. Please see F.A.Q. # 17 as well.
5) Won't divestment from Israel hurt Palestinians, who depend on the Israeli economy?
In 2005 a coalition of 171 Palestinian groups themselves put out a call asking for the world community to employ divestment from Israel in order to end their suffering. The divestment would not heavily impact local jobs as they are largely targed on foreign weapons manufacturers and companies engaged in very specific actions.
Norman Finkelstein's response to this question was: "It's as if to say to African Americans, 'if things were so bad under slavery, why don't you go back to Africa? It seems to me that the obvious moral response is to recognize the courage and the dignity of those who refuse to leave but prefer to remain and fight to improve their lives. That's honorable.'"
We regret any ill-sentiment our actions have caused, but this was not our intention. We are a humanitarian group, not a religious or political one. We believe that divestment is the right thing to do, and will continue to do what is necessary in order for it to prevail in a respectful and non-violent manner.
8) Why should we divest from Israel, the sole democracy and America's only ally in the Middle East?
We believe that a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a precursor to promoting democracy and reform in the Middle East, and divestment would be a step in that direction. In 2005, Prof. Steven Walt of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and Prof. John Mearsheimerat of the University of Chicago published a paper entitled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" which addressed these concerns. Also see Prof. Alan Dershowitz's response here.
9)Why have the Palestinians always rejected the peace proposals offered to them? Why did, as Bill Clinton claims, Arafat reject the "generous proposal" offered by Barak at Camp David? Israel wants peace, but has no partner.
We have no right to comment on a peace process we were not part of for a demographic that we do not represent. You can read more about the "generous offer" here and a history of the peace proccess here and a history of the peace proccess here. The conventional wisdom that the Palestinians are to blame for the stalemate in the peace proccess has been critisized by some historians, including Avi Shlaim of Oxford University.
10)The Palestinians want to drive Israel into the sea - doesn't Israel have a right to exist?
We are not questioning the right of Israel to exist; we simply wish for Israel to end its practice of apartheid. For more on what the Israel's "right to exist" means to Palestinians, please see here. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1988 did recognize Israel's "right to exist," and Hamas is now seriously considering following suit. In 2002, all 22 member states of the Arab League voted for a proposal to recognize Israel in exchange for, among other things, an end to the occupation; however, it was rejected by Israel.
11)Your group and the call to divest are nothing more than blatantly anti-Semitic propaganda.
Our only aim is to end apartheid in Israel and the Occupied Territories. In order to do this, we have engaged in criticism of Israeli policies, not of Israelis or Jews - we do not consider this to be anti-Semitic. We have taken pains to accomodate opposing viewpoints throughout this site. Please refrain from ad-hominem attacks and focus instead on our criteria.
12)Lots of countries flagrantly violate international human rights laws - what's the big deal?
Israel is quite literally in a class of its own. Please see the reports on this topic by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
Far from it - U.N. General Assembly resolutions have consistently had overwhelming support, with the vast majority backing resolutions calling for an end to the Israeli occupation. In the Security Council (the only U.N. body with enforcement rights), the United States has time and time again vetoed any resolutions against Israel. Please see this State Department site, especially "Resolutions Related to Israel Opposed by the U.S" and "General Assembly - Overall Votes" to view the countries that most often vote aligned with the U.S. Official voting records of the UN can be accessed here (search for keyword Israel or Palestine).
We're not quite sure which nursery rhyme that quote is from, but we don't think your neighbors would appreciate it when you build a fence in their backyard. There is nothing wrong with self-defense, but if that were the case, the wall would logically be built along Israel's de-facto border (the Green Line). However, as Prof. Noam Chomsky states in his New York Times op-ed of February 23, 2004, "What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian lands. It is also... helping turn Palestinian communities into dungeons, next to which the bantustans of South Africa look like symbols of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination... The wall has already claimed some of the most fertile lands of the West Bank. And, crucially, it extends Israel's control of critical water resources." While Israel has claimed that the 'separation barrier' is integral to its self-defense and has led to a decrease in the number of suicide bombings, these findings do not account for the decline in attempted suicide bombings that accompanied Hamas's ceasefire of 2005. Furthermore, correlation does not amount to causation, and making such an argument constitutes a post-hoc logical fallacy. Please see our future rationale here.
Since 1993, USAID has given $1.7 billion dollars to the Palestinians through humanitarian programs; in the same period, however, it has given an estimated $28 billion dollars ($2 billion a year) in mostly military funding to Israel. Israel takes in 30% of all American foreign aid - a disproportionately large amount for its population, more than all of Africa and South America combined. America has essentially given Israel a blank check and free reign - please see the Federation of American Scientists report here and the official numbers from the State Department here. U.S. aid to Egypt is pegged at 2/3 of the aid to Israel in recognition of the signing of the Camp David peace accords in 1979, which were hailed as a diplomatic coup at the time as it took Egypt "off the block" of Soviet influence. While the money has done little besides serve as an incentive for ensuring peace between Egypt and Israel, the difference between the aid to Egypt and Israel is that the former does not use its military aid to suppress the Palestinians under an occupation.
While we regret all loss of life, including terrorist organizations in our divestment criteria would accomplish nothing. We do not feel the need to mention Iran's funding of Hezbollah and Hamas, as Iran has been under U.S. sanctions since the revolution in 1979, as have the aforementioned organizations under these guidelines. Accordingly, we do not believe Stanford University is invested in nor supporting these governments or organizations.
Israeli companies have made significant contributions to science and technology. These companies would not be the target of the divestment campaign, which only calls on the university to divest from companies that violate our five criteria by violating international law and human rights. Our research targets multinational corporations and has yet to find a single Israeli company that meets any of our five criteria. Stanford, like other large institutional investors, diversifies its investments across the board so as to minimize risk. Therefore, divesting from these companies is not likely to greatly impact Stanford's financial returns.
Both companies and the end-users of their products bear the responsibility for any misuse of them. Self-defense would be construed as a legitimate use of military weapons, but not offense. Israel has every right to defend herself, but only within the confines of international law.
Prof. Salem Aweiss is a former Professor of Education and Applied Linguistics at Beir Zeit University in Palestine, and is currently teaching at Stanford. In 2001, he penned an article in the Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture detailing the Palestinian education system as it portrays Israel.
News
'Hope Under Siege', a photo exhibit of Palestinian life under Israeli apartheid, has returned to Old Union. Details and
Press Coverage
Why should you care?
$2 billion of American taxpayer money goes to Israel every year, funding their military occupation. Stanford, in particular, potentially invests in companies that are involved in the violation of human rights and international law.
Quotes
