Divestment petition flawed, misreads international law

By Matthew Knee

Recently, the Daily Bruin published a misinformed editorial
advocating the University of California Regents divest from all
corporations with investments in Israel. The Bruin put forth a
flawed argument to support an already indefensible petition
advocating one-sided economic warfare and ignoring the dualities of
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Bruin promotes this imbalanced divestment policy for the UC
system because they find it unfair to indirectly support Israel
without unanimous taxpayer consent. However, the only
near-unanimity to be found in this country is in votes by our
democratic institutions pledging full support for Israel.

In the past few months, resolutions in the House and Senate,
passed by 352-21 and 94-2 margins respectively, provided virtually
unqualified support for Israel. Also, the Homeland Security Bill in
the House allocates $200 million directly to Israel to defray the
costs of their recent anti-terrorist operations in the
territories.

Because only 11 percent of Americans sympathize primarily with
the Palestinians, these decisions are consistent with the
democratic mandate of our nation, where individual opinions do not
have veto power over governmental actions.

Even the Supreme Court has ruled students could not prevent
their student fees at state universities from being used to support
political organizations with which they do not agree. If the most
dedicated of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
activists are forced to fund and support medical experiments on
animals, why should we be denied the opportunity to invest
university funds in Israel?

The editorial board also advocates boycotting a Palestinian
state, if it existed, but fails to recognize the fact that other
Arab states do far more to promote terrorism than the virtually
bankrupt Palestinian Authority. Does the “neutral”
editorial board advocate boycotting those states, too? If so, where
will Californians get their petroleum?

The divestment petition selectively quotes and misrepresents
international law in order to exaggerate or even fabricate Israeli
culpability on three specific points.

Firstly, it accuses Israeli officials of “legal
torture” against Palestinians, but torture is in fact illegal
in Israel. However, occasional violations of police brutality laws,
while condemnable, do inevitably occur, as they do in democracies
worldwide, including the United States.

Secondly, it accuses Israel of violating United Nations Security
Council Resolution 194, which is now moot, having been replaced by
UNSCR 242.

Lastly, the petition accuses Israel of violating UNSCR 242,
which is often the cornerstone of arguments demanding Israeli
withdrawal from Palestinian land.

UNSCR 242 demands Israel return the “territories
seized” in the defensive Six Day War of 1967. This language,
proposed by the United States, was, after much debate, adopted over
a Soviet proposal suggesting “the territories” and an
Arab proposal suggesting “all the territories.”

Thus, UNSCR 242 was not intended to demand Israel return all
land captured, or to invalidate the acquisition of territory by
war, as the petition claims. Rather, it demands Israel withdraw
from some land captured. To date, Israel has withdrawn from 90
percent of such land.

UNSCR 242 also calls for “a just settlement of the refugee
problem.” This recognizes that a mutually beneficial
compromise should be arrived at between both parties regarding the
fate of both Arabs in captured lands and the 900,000 Jews in Arab
lands.

Significantly, the petition omits UNSCR 242’s demands that
the Arab states recognize Israel’s right to exist in
peace.

In addition to being unfair to Israel and based on flawed
conceptions of the conflict and international law, the divestment
petition will have many unintended consequences.

The supporters of this shortsighted petition fail to consider
the ultimate consequences of their actions. They do not understand
economic warfare against Israel would severely harm the
Palestinians. In 2000, 79.8 percent of all Palestinians’
financial transactions involved Israelis. Their economies are
deeply interconnected, and the Palestinians have little other means
of procuring capital or industrial capacity.

Those who favor divestment also fail to understand the problems
inherent to the tactic. If the divestment includes a boycott, it
will be nearly impossible to enact against a nation as deeply
enmeshed in the lattice of international commerce as Israel. If
divestment applies purely to stock holdings, it will be wholly
ineffective because purely ideological stock sales will have no
long term impact on stock values.

Also, divestment will not revoke investment capital from
corporations because companies only derive revenue from the initial
issuing of stock. Divestment will, however, preclude the regents
from influencing corporate behavior through stockholder voting.

Thus, divestment from Israel will be at least as harmful to the
Palestinian people and the UC system as it is to the Israelis and
is based on flawed assumptions and misinterpretations of
international law.