Posts
Did Hampshire College Divest from Israel?
By Ben Cohen / February 17, 2009
This much we know. On February 7, Hampshire College, a small liberal arts college in Massachusetts, divested from a mutual fund which owned equity in companies that do business with Israel. What we don’t know is whether the decision to divest was specifically triggered by Israel-related concerns, or whether it was the consequence of general guidelines on ethical investment. A Palestine advocacy group on the Hampshire campus says, emphatically, that it was the former; in that, and in nothing else, they are in agreement with Alan Dershowitz. The college authorities, however, are insisting upon the latter interpretation.
It would appear that both parties are right. Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) can certainly make the case that it was their petition which triggered the review of the college’s investments and that, consequently, their divestment campaign has triumphed. Equally, the fact that 200 companies were found to be in violation of the college’s investment guidelines – SJP identified only six, because their sole concern is divestment from Israel – bolsters the case of Hampshire’s Board of Trustees that "the decision expressly did not pertain to a political movement or single out businesses active in a specific region or country."
The Trustees decree that "no other report or interpretation" of the divestment decision aside from their own is valid hasn’t exactly nixed SJP’s ardor. The group maintains that in the eight months prior to the February 7 decision, only the six Israel-related companies they fingered were in the frame. The other companies, SJP says, were hastily added in a bid to prevent the decision being described as divestment from Israel.
Hampshire’s Trustees have not directly responded to this particular charge. Yet this interesting morsel tucked into the middle of a JTA report, if correct, rather punctures the SJP’s spin on events: "Three of the six companies failed a screen for socially responsible investing based on their sales of military equipment, employee safety record and other violations, according to a spokesman. Two of the companies named by the student group – Motorola and Terex – passed the screen, the spokesman said. A sixth company, United Technologies, was unlisted."
One could spend days going through the inconsistencies in each side’s position. Why, for example, did the Trustees, in their statement of clarification, namecheck SJP and its antics if the group had nothing to do with the decision on the mutual fund? Why did they not just announce a review of the mutual fund in line with the ethical investment guidelines? What on earth does SJP mean when it calls for divestment to include "Palestinian organizations or groups" involved in targeting civilians? And why, then, does it only mention by name those companies with a stake in Israel? Come to think of it, when SJP talks about the goal of an "end of the occupation as defined by UN resolutions," without specifying which resolutions, are they not tempting even the most ardent advocate of student involvement in the design of higher education to scream, "get back in the f**king classroom!?"
And yet, what’s at issue here is not the detail of who said what. Nor is it really about whether a decision like this – or ten similar ones – will make a significant difference to either Israel’s economy or the willingness of companies to conduct business there; a great deal more punishment will be needed to dent an economy which, despite having been subjected to two wars in the last three years, still merits an ‘A’ credit rating from Standard and Poor’s.
Rather, it is about what boycotts have always been about: symbolism.
Not for nothing does SJP remind the world of Hampshire College’s record in divesting from South African apartheid. Now they can portray a seamless link between Afrikaner domination back then and Zionist occupation in our own time. A message of support from Archbishop Desmond Tutu certainly reinforces this, as does the applause of the usual suspects – among them Noam Chomsky, Cynthia McKinney, Naomi Klein and the unctuous anti-Zionist blogger Philip Weiss.
What we have here is an echo chamber, morally and sonically insulated from precisely those accusations about double standards – the treatment of student dissidents in Iran and Syria, for example – which Alan Dershowitz elucidates. Hence, I confess a certain sympathy with Dershowitz’s determination to show Hampshire’s faculty and student body that "bigotry has its cost." At the same time, I would point the Hampshire Trustees in the direction of another US college, and another project, which sets a much more productive example.
Bard College, another upscale institution in the American northeast, has embarked on a joint venture with the Palestinian Al Quds university to bring the traditions of open thought and academic rigor to a region which desperately needs them. Liberals and leftists should appreciate that this initiative is not about petrodollars; Bard President Leon Botstein told the New York Times that "he was glad not to be following the example of larger universities building campuses in rich Persian Gulf emirates, a development that he said was ‘like investing in Monte Carlo or Liechtenstein to develop Europe.’" Supporters of Israel anxious about boycott and divestment initiatives gaining traction should be soothed by Sari Nusseibeh, the Palestinian philosopher who is President of Al Quds, readily stating that "we do a lot of projects with Israel."
It is, as Botstein would seem to be suggesting, an open market. Hampshire College could probably find itself a niche with both Israeli and Palestinian institutions. If only its Trustees would put their minds to it, this divestment spat, and all the infantile gestures around it, could be safely in the past.
POST A COMMENT
"Let’s try to breathe deeply and focus, shall we?"
This obsession of yours with my breathing, etc. keeps cropping up. Are you having trouble focusing? Or do you just instinctively reduce every compelling rejection of what you say into an opportunity to practice your own seductive and slippery rhetorical techniques? At some point you might either have to pay royalties or confess to copyright infringement on behalf of Mystery and other founding members of the seduction community for ripping off their approaches.Â
"Cohen made a disparaging remark about the effectiveness of the
boycott. I provided an Israeli source that suggested that, contrary to
his intuition, Israeli business has suffered due to the boycott. Do you
follow so far? Let me repeat; one guy says Israeli business laughs off
the boycott, citing nothing. I reply with an article from the Israeli
equivalent of the WSJ or Barron’s suggesting otherwise. Very discrete
point."
Funny. Except it isn’t. It had nothing to do with this:Â
"Bravo. A toast to the effectiveness of non-violent efforts to defeat injustice."
I don’t see much substance in that statement other than as an approval of the unethical practice of boycotting a business — simply for its nationality.Â
"You, of course, ignored the substance of that very brief and
specific comment and took the opportunity to go off on an unrelated
comparison of Israeli and Saudi GDP and similar impertinent harangues."
No, I didn’t, asshole. I took issue with the very statement of yours that I just quoted – even if you don’t want to admit that you made it. You stated your approval, on ethical grounds, of a patently unethical (not to mention stupid) practice. Try to focus. Your breathing patterns I will leave to your wife or whoever else to attend to.Â
"Standard operating procedure for Zionist hasbara mavens, as we all
know-if you can’t address the content of your opponent’s position,
disparage some aspect-any aspect-of an Arab country’s culture, economy,
whatever."
Again, you’re not focusing. Your cheerleading of efforts to cripple a business based on nothing other than the nationality of the business-owner shows your own ethical dwarfism. In fact, in going so far as to give you the opportunity to pretend that the nationality of the business owner need not be the salient issue — i.e. in documenting the lamentable fact that other (Arab) nations in the region could (but do not) provide a hospitable and tolerant environment for hosting these businesses — I am offering you the option of defending your own position on political and ethical grounds rather than on nationalistic grounds. The fact that you ignore this obvious challenge makes it likely that you don’t wish to defend your position on political or ethical grounds.
Ergo, you implicitly admit to the obvious conclusion that your reasons for supporting a boycott are not rooted in notions of justice, but rather rooted in jingoistic, chauvinistic (and cheap) Arab nationalism.Â
"Will you please stop stalking me and go find another human to adore?"Â
Narcissus himself couldn’t have come up with something so sleazy to say as this. But then, Narcissus never pretended to have a point to make about politics or ethics.
The reason that you stalk Jewcy’s comment boards is because pretending to have something valuable to say in public about political or ethical matters that concern Jews helps you feel that your own narcissism has any inherent worth to others. Â
Lad Isaac-
Let’s try to breathe deeply and focus, shall we?
Cohen made a disparaging remark about the effectiveness of the boycott. I provided an Israeli source that suggested that, contrary to his intuition, Israeli business has suffered due to the boycott. Do you follow so far? Let me repeat; one guy says Israeli business laughs off the boycott, citing nothing. I reply with an article from the Israeli equivalent of the WSJ or Barron’s suggesting otherwise. Very discrete point.
You, of course, ignored the substance of that very brief and specific comment and took the opportunity to go off on an unrelated comparison of Israeli and Saudi GDP and similar impertinent harangues. Standard operating procedure for Zionist hasbara mavens, as we all know-if you can’t address the content of your opponent’s position, disparage some aspect-any aspect-of an Arab country’s culture, economy, whatever.
Besides your ethical dwarfism, lapses of logic and emotional volatility, you also show such impoverished aesthetic discernment as to find Lisa Lampanelli funny. Unforgivable.
Will you please stop stalking me and go find another human to adore? Â
"Just so. According to the Israeli business journal The Marker, the
Israeli Union of Industrialists conducted a poll of ninety exporters
involved in a wide range of products (chemicals, high tech, textiles et
al). Twenty-one percent complained that boycott, divestment and
sanctions efforts were affecting their bottom lines.
Bravo. A toast to the effectiveness of non-violent efforts to defeat injustice."
Right. Well, they could always decide to charter their companies in Arab countries – which do so well economically regardless of whether or not they have oil and really appreciate Jewish labor and human capital, or any human capital for that matter. Oh wait, no they don’t. And remind me of which Arab countries have been hospitable to the idea of regional Jewish-owned businesses relocating to or incorporating within their borders?
More stuff that Ismail, Jewcy’s master bullshit artist, will not address. To acknowledge any of this would demolish his claim to a Middle East that is so tolerant of Jews and their legitimate endeavors as to obviate the need for a nation to protect those interests. Meanwhile, The Arab League wallows in a per capita GDP of 13,000 USD – even with the oil-rich powerhouses of Qatar, the sheikhdoms, and the Saudis thrown in the mix. Israel, by comparison, has more than twice that figure – which is more than Saudi Arabia in fact, while the U.S. stands at a per capita GDP of roughly 48,000 USD. But who cares about any of that when there are windmills to tilt at?
Misery loves company. The only way Ismail and his friends will ever tolerate Jews in the Middle East is if they give the impression of being as miserable and unproductive as the Arabs have decided to be. The "injustice" Ismail imagines is the same sort of "injustice" that was prevented by decreeing that Jews couldn’t build any structures taller than the local mosque.Â
"Yes, all you divestment advocates really have Israel’s captains of industry quaking in their boots."
Just so. According to the Israeli business journal The Marker, the Israeli Union of Industrialists conducted a poll of ninety exporters involved in a wide range of products (chemicals, high tech, textiles et al). Twenty-one percent complained that boycott, divestment and sanctions efforts were affecting their bottom lines.
Bravo. A toast to the effectiveness of non-violent efforts to defeat injustice.
The Board of Trustees said it was not targeting Israel. The student group said the college was in fact targeting Israel. Somebody’s fibbing. Can you see that? Given what you just wrote, then it is the students ( Exploratory Essay ). They deserve suspension or expulsion. Since you’re a student, you probably don’t know that administrators are meeting this morning to discuss exactly those options in relation to the students. And rightly so. You want to make adult decisions? Then act like adults. Don’t lie to score more hits on the college (unacceptable anywhere in the adult world). The students ( Expository Essay ) lied, on your post’s logic, so here come the consequences. Hope they enjoy returning to a large, anonymous state school where no one cares about their weird quirks and fetishes.
Hampshire College’s Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) brought six companies to the attention of the board of trustees in which Hampshire College ( essay writing ) was invested, and which provide military assistance to Israel’s illegal military occupation of the West Bank. We use the word "illegal" to refer specifically to continued settlement expansions, otherwise known as population transfer, and the construction of a separation wall deemed illegal by the International Criminal Court. Of course, restricted access of Palestinians in the forms of racialized checkpoints, unequal road access compared to Jewish settlers, and the daily brutalities of living under foreign military occupation were also strong factors in SJP’s decision to bring these investments to scrutiny. ( Literature Essay ) The six companies are Caterpillar, Terex, Motorola, GE, United Technologies, and ITT, each who assist the occupation in unique and profitable ways.
The BoT, after stalling our proposal for over a year, agreed to sell its stock in these companies, and subsequently looked into the State Street Fund in which these investments were located and saw over 200 other companies which similarly ( Term Paper ) violated Hampshire’s responsible investment policy. It thus sold the fund and all these investments in the process. SJP is thus glad that our anti-occupation campaign could have broader implications. However, it is clear that the administration would not and did not sell these stocks without SJP’s behest.
Whatever the ins and outs of the "disinvestment" (or not) by Hampshire, it remains true that Hampshire is a very hostile, and often frightening campus for many Jewish students. Jewish students should not apply, and Jewish donors should not give to a school that uses "activist" politics as an excuse to allow students and faculty to intimidate other students in and out of the classroom.
The
campus and climate MANY faculty, administrators and students remain hostile
to, and allow students to harass and intimidate, identifying Jews who
support Israel. Backtracking because of bad PR doesn’t change this.
Today Dean of Faculty and VP Aaron Berman (who belonged to a party that OPPOSED the State during his short time in Israel) posted a letter on the Hampshire Intranet in which he notes that the "outside pressure" of the "Israel lobby" will soon die down because "
world is full of crises and attention spans are
short." VP Jaime Davila, who is supposed to ensure that all points of view are
heard, is a strong supporter of SOURCE, the student group that has made
anti-Israel stands key components in their “anti-racist” work on
campus.
65 faculty and administrators also signed a letter (see below) on President Hexter’s site. The content of the letters from other students is hardly supportive of the State of Israel or the right of students to disagree. Posters on this site have also calledother students who supported Israel "racist","genocidal" and "repulsive."
Letter from Faculty and Administrators
http://ralphhexter.blog.hampshire.edu/?p=7
January 13, 2009
Over the last few weeks we have watched with horror the Israeli
military attack on the Gaza Strip. The loss of life on both sides is
tragic, but we must acknowledge the large number of innocent
Palestinian civilians, including children, who have been killed by
Israeli fire. We have been impressed by the response of many of our
students who have organized vigils and demonstrations to protest the
military action and call for an end to the carnage. In a recent
statement, Rabbi Danny Rich, a leader of Liberal Judaism in Great
Britain, explained why he would not participate in Israeli solidarity
rallies. Citing Jewish teaching and humanitarian instinct, Rabbi Rich
called, “for an immediate ceasefire which may prevent further tragedy
engulfing the Palestinian civilian population and save injury and worse
to both Israelis in uniform and their fellow citizens in their homes.”
As concerned individual members of the Hampshire College faculty
and instructional staff, we express our support for our students’ and
Rabbi Rich’s call for an end to the violence, access for journalists,
an end to the economic blockade, and the immediate opening of Gaza to a
free flow of human, medical and material resources.
Aaron Berman, Professor of History (vice president and dean of faculty)
Nathalie Arnold
Polina Barskova
Carollee Bengelsdorf
Michelle Bigenho
Djola Branner
Myrna Breitbart
L. Brown Kennedy
Margaret Cerullo
Elizabeth Conlisk
Rachel Conrad
Jane W. Couperus
Christoph Cox
Sue Darlington
Jaime Davila (Special Presidential Assistant for Diversity and Multicultural Education)
Ellen Donkin
John Drabinski
Simin Farkhondeh
Marlene G. Fried
Fatemeh Giahi
Peter Gilford
Alan Goodman
Deb Gorlin
Hampshire Parents have noted the following in the Jerusalem Post:
Hampshire Parent NY, Sunday Feb 22, 2009
The Hampshire campus climate – including many faculty – is hostile to
students who support Israel. As the mother and friend of Hampshire
students, I have seen first hand that students who do not characterize
Israel as a “colonialist power” are harassed, intimidated and afraid to
speak out. Even the students who “identify” by going to Shabbat dinners
are also members of Students for Justice in Palestine – the group that
pressured H. College to disinvest. The administration strongly supports
their politics & only gives lip service to, but does not support,
truly diverse viewpoints or dialog.
AND
Jenny in Ann Arbor, MI, Monday Feb 23, 2009
I’m also a Hampshire mom and want to echo the sentiments expressed
above. The atmosphere at Hampshire around this issue (and unfortunately
others as well) stifles debate and silences all dissent. have seen
myself how SJP bullies and intimidates, calling anyone with alternative
viewpoints “repulsive,” “racist,” “oppressors,” “genocidal,” etc. I am
gravely concerned that Hampshire fails to educate students to consider
opposing viewpoints respectfully and to keep complex issues complex and
polyvocal. Where is the faculty leadership? These are core issues for a
liberal arts education.
The fact is that Hampshire continues to invest with companies in Israel, and these students misrepresented the facts, and should be disciplined for sending out misinformation.
The good is that this may start a conversation about Jew-hating at Hampshire.
 But the news media needs to get the whole story out, because people are flying off the handle.
Hampshire, while it has coddled these types (an we know for certain that this will change) isn’t to blame here.
Well there *is* a greener pasture for Jews to go to, all of us. It’s called "Israel".
…we’d be where, exactly?
Having gone to Hampshire in the early ’90s, the story doesn’t surprise me.Having said that, I’m not exactly sure what the solution is, but I’m sure that it ISN’T that all the Jews should leave the college for allegedly greener pastures.
I go to UMass Amherst in the same area as Hampshire, and YES, Hampshire College is leftist, pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel to the point of being anti-Semitic. Jewish students at Hampshire College are, en masse, seeking transfers to other colleges in the Five-College Area — especially the solidly Jewish and pro-Israel UMass.
I assume Hampshire "college" wants to boycott Israel, but wants to appear to Jewish supporters that it is not boycotting Israel. Lets help this "college" by alerting all parents of prospective students that Hampshire is not a Jew friendly place. Lets make Hampshire a Jew free zone. Jewish faculty at this "college" should consider moving elsewhere. Then Hampshire could proudly proclaim to the world that it is the first "Judenfrei" campus in America.
Um, how often have you written about Zimbabwe?
Facts are stubborn things
Yes, all you divestment advocates really have Israel’s captains of industry quaking in their boots. Take Teva Pharmaceuticals for example. They’ve been the subject of the resistance’s heoric boycott call. And Teva has, er, reported record quarterly revenue.
Re S+P, most economists will tell you that their ratings of countries and companies have much more credibility than the ratings of complex financial instruments like the toxic assets you refer to.
So I’ll be happy to play poker with you any day. I’ll make sure you have enough change for your bus ride home. And while you’re waiting, have a think about why your pour such opprobrium upon Israel, but the only time you’d demonstrate over Zimbabwe is if western troops intervened to unseat Mugabe.
"a great deal more punishment will be needed to dent an economy which, despite having been
subjected to two wars in the last three years, still merits an ‘A’ credit rating from Standard and Poor’s."
You are kidding, right? I mean, with all those toxic assets and securities that almost brought down the whole world economy getting AAA (triple A) ratings, is this an argument you really want to make?
And you probably never played poker, because your bluff is of the kind that makes real players smirk and envision exotic beaches, strong martinis and playful bikini models while they call your bluff. There wouldn’t really be a reason for you to write this article if Israel were not afraid of boycotts and divestments, would there? And we certainly wouldn’t be seeing AIPAC’s pit bull, aka Dershowitz call almost every student involved and threaten them, would we?
Just the fact that having to rely on someone like Dershowitz – of all people - for Israel’s defense never gives pause to geniuses like you proves how desperate you are.
I rest my case.
Facts are stubborn things
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!