|
CounterPunch
October
25, 2002
Israel's Singles
Night Out:
Critics Charge that Divestment "Singles Out" Israel.
They Are Right.
by WILL YOUMANS
A little more than a week ago several hundred
college students from all over the United States met in Michigan
to further the growing campaign to divest American universities
of companies with holdings in Israel. The students gathered because
they share recognition of the importance of severing the US-Israeli
umbilical cord that feeds Israel's destructive military occupation
of the Palestinian people. They argue that Israel's discriminatory
legal and political structure vis-à-vis the non-citizen
Palestinians of the Occupied Territories is at the very least
a variant of Apartheid--the rights and security of Jews are prioritized
while Israel refers to the Palestinians as a collective "problem"--thus,
devoid of rights or the need for security.
Reactions to this nascent movement from
American opinion leaders have been nothing short of contemptuous.
The president of Harvard, and former Treasury Secretary under
Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, decried it as "anti-Semitic
in effect, if not in intent." A New York Times columnist,
or memoist rather, wrote that divestment's advocates were "dishonest"
and "hypocrites" because they "single out"
Israel. This past week, the original singling out that inspired
the divestment campaign in the first place shined its ugly head.
Ha'aretz reported that Israeli officials are asking for as much
as $10 billion in pure aid from the United States. This "proposal"
supposedly "stems from the United States' expected campaign
against Iraq coupled with the American desire that Israel not
interfere with Washington's plans or use IDF troops against Iraq."
That Israel could issue and reasonably
expect such an absurd request shows that it already enjoys a
special singled out status. Why would they need more money for
the less costly course of action? Intervening or using "IDF
troops against Iraq" would seem to merit the required aid,
but Israel does the opposite and charges the United States. If
the aid is granted, it will be time to send in the auditors to
review this fishy financial transaction.
What bewilders me is that so many critics
attack viciously the critical singling out of Israel by the divestment
campaign, but are actively supportive of singling out Israel
as a special ally and worthy recipient of disproportionately
high arms, aid, and trade. This is a contradiction because clearly
one's biggest ally and paraded model "light among nations"
should be held to an extent of scrutiny commensurate with the
favoritism bestowed upon it. Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz
is one of the most avid purveyors of this contradiction. In a
piece he published in the Harvard Crimson (9/23/2002), he charges
divestment supporters with singling out Israel, then goes on
to start three paragraphs with sentences that start with "Israel
is the only" to demonstrate its benevolence.
Clearly, it is not about "singling
out," it is about criticism, and Israel's supporters have
proven again to be intolerant of it. The interesting thing is
that the end goal of lifting US Aid to Israel is not really anti-Israel,
it is really merely seeking American neutrality. Divestment seeks
to transform the United States from being overtly pro-Israeli,
to just being impartial. No one is saying re-direct US aid to
the PA or invest all that money in Palestine!
A fantastic mystical aspect to this "singling
out" criticism of divestment is the principle it establishes:
no one should focus activism on one area or issue unless they
address every other one of equal or greater detriment. Only big-shot
columnists and prestigious university administrators could have
such an idiotically unworkable conception of activism.
Thomas Friedman's suggestion that divestment
activists should target Syria first is also laughable. According
to him, divestment activists should target a country that American
companies do not invest in, which is sort of like boycotting
a business that went bankrupt.
His other counter-examples, Egypt and
Saudi Arabia, admittedly make more sense. Their human rights
records are deplorable and they receive American aid and investment.
Israel is still more justified to target since it has a rights-based
democratic structure in place for one portion of those living
under its jurisdiction already. Divestment activists simply demand
that Israel extend it to everyone under its jurisdiction. No
such rights-based structure exists in Egypt, which gets its aid
for making peace with Israel, or Saudi Arabia, which functions
as the institutionalized guardian of western oil corporations.
Democratizing these will be easier once
Israel goes from being what Israeli professor Oren Yiftachel
calls an "ethnocracy" to a sincere democracy. The Arab
regimes will no longer be able to use Israel's treatment of the
Palestinians to divert its people from their own repression and
keep the perpetual police state the threat of Israel is used
to justify. After all, these countries will argue that American
calls for democracy are hypocritical so long as our biggest ally
gets away with Apartheid.
There is another important consideration.
Israel is much more dependent on trade with American corporations
than most other countries are. It is also much more reliant on
US foreign aid, which Israel receives the largest share of. Therefore,
it social responsibility obligation to US taxpayers, investors,
and consumers is the highest.
Noble Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu
and Ian Urbina explained it perfectly: "Divestment from
apartheid South Africa was certainly no less justified because
there was repression elsewhere on the African continent."
Should we really lower our standards for Israel because there
are other countries with poor records?
There is a purely pragmatic reason why
American patriots should support divestment. Uncritical support
of Israel damages America's international stature. Nearly every
decent position the United States takes on human rights, refugees,
militarism, nuclear proliferation, and minority rights is easily
deemed an agenda-driven farce due to its contradictory support
for Israel. For example, the international community instantly
recognized the emptiness of President George Bush's citation
of UN resolution violations by Iraq as a justification for war.
Israel undermines far more.
This is not just about ending Israel's
Apartheidesque oppression of the Palestinians, it is about importing
respectability and consistency into American foreign policy.
To do that, we must change it where it is needed the most. The
United States will never be an honest broker for peace between
Israel and the Palestinians so long as its public and private
sectors have so much invested in Israel. Israel must be isolated
to be vulnerable to international pressure. George W. Bush is
not interested in peace beyond its expedience for other policy
priorities. American support for Israel shields it from international
criticism.
Divestment is not a knee-jerk, anti-Israel
reaction as critics maintain. The goal for divestment is an objective,
non-partisan American policy to replace its destructive, pro-Israeli
bias that ultimately furthers the wasting of lives on both sides.
Divestment advocates seek to disconnect Israel from America's
womb. This does what the United States has failed to do: treat
Israel as another country in the world's community of nations.
It is time Israel face the responsibilities and expectations
codified in international law and necessary for a peaceful resolution
to its conflict with the land's natives.
Divestment is fundamentally a strategy
for peace. It is a healthy, morally-sound and practical singling
out of Israel.
Will Youmans
is a third year law student at UC-Berkeley. You can e-mail him
at youmans@boalthall.berkeley.edu
Yesterday's
Features
Jo Freeman
How the
Christian Coalition Boosts Israel
Ben Tripp
George
W.: Caught Between Iraq and a Hard Place
Harry Browne
Ireland's Dreary Yes to Nice
Anis Shivani
A Guide
for the Perplexed:
the Major Countries of the World as Defined by the Office of
Strategic Influence
T.W. Croft
America's
New Improved War
William Hughes
A Free
Press, But for Whom?
Alan Farago
Jeb Bush and the Environment
New
Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- The Shafts of Death: Bush, Coal Mines, and Death
in the Tunnels;
- Speak Memory!: Carter and the Draft;
- Daniel Pipes' World: Smearing Pro-Arab Academics;
- Ashcroft's Gays: the War on Free Speech;
- Saddam's Amnesty: Could It Happen Here?
- Criminalizing Dissent: a history and preview;
- Iraq 1987: When the Going Was Good;
- Egypt in Turmoil: an Anthropologist's Account;
- Green and Grounded: Profiled at the Gate.
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
October 14,
2002
Harry Browne
Ireland:
No to War; No to Nice
Don Atapattu
The Tragedy of Alan Dershowitz
Linda Heard
So You
Think You Live in a Democracy?
Bob Feldman
Flashback: Inspecting Nuclear Israel
Adam Engel
The Anger
of Achilles
Anthony Gancarski
The
Washington Post and the Wal-Mart Way
Philip Farruggio
Sleepers
Harold Gould
Islamic
West Asia and US Foreign Policy:
A Tale of Strategic Self-Delusion
Dan Brook
An Open Letter to Barbara Lee
October 12
/ 13, 2002
Alexander
Cockburn
Vindication
Through Violence:
Jimmy Carter and the DC Sniper
Robert Jensen
The American
Political Paradox:
More Freedom, Less Democracy
Ben Tripp
Congratulations! It's a War!
Susan Davis
Proverbial
Wisdom:
Red!
David Krieger
A Bleak Day for America
Anis Shivani
George W. in Therapy
Ken Paff
Where Do Hoffa's Tactics Belong in a Mob-Free Teamsters?
Carol Norris
The Politics of Fear
Elaine Cassel
The Lynne Stewart Case:
When Representing an Accused Terrorist Can Land a Lawyer in Jail
Musa AlShaer
Scenes
from an Occupied Wedding
Anthony Gancarski
Concerned Citizen: a serialized
novel (Episode 3)
M. Shahid
Alam
I Will Fight Your Enemies
October 11,
2002
Jeffrey St.
Clair
Montana
Fusion
Steve Kelly's Wild Ride for Congress
Ralph Nader
Whirlwind
Wheelchair Intl.
Anthony Gancarski
Stayin'
Alive: Notes on Facials and Saving Face
Romi Mahajan
What
War Means to the Iraqi People
Uri Avnery
Israel:
the Jewish Demographic State?
Francis Boyle
Bush's
Banana Republic
Lee Sustar
Taft-Hartley,
Bush and the Dock Workers
Katherine
van Wormer
Dry Drunk
Syndrome and George W. Bush
Jerre Skog
The Blessings
of Growth:
The Greatest Deception of All Time
October 10,
2002
Elson E. Boles
Iraq and
Chemical Weapons:
The US Connection
Senator Russ Feingold
"Confused Justifications and
Vague Proposals": Why I Oppose Bush's War Resolution
William A.
Cook
What Bush
Didn't Tell the UN:
The Case Against Israel
Jorge Mariscal
Chicanos
and Chicanas Say:
"No a la Guerra"
Norman Madarasz
Rio's
Holiest View:
Brazilian Elections 2002
Amir Boroomand
Just
Nod, Please
Fedwa Wazwaz
Falwell,
Graham & Friedman:
Religious Extremism in America
Kurt Nimmo
Condoleezza
Rice at the Waldorf Astoria
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|