When I saw the topic of divestment from companies tied to Israeli actions in Gaza cross my desk, I was sure we’d had the debate before, at the same time last year. Turns out, we did, in Somerville. Let’s look at an essay by Cambridge city councillors Patty Nolan and E. Denise E. Simmons (“Cambridge and its residents need one standard for human rights,” Oct. 27) about orders seeking divestment and a boycott.
Their first argument is against a comparison of Israel with South Africa.
“Supporters of these two orders point to Cambridge’s divestment from apartheid South Africa. We were both part of that movement … The South African struggle Cambridge supported did not celebrate the deliberate killing of civilians. Hamas did exactly that.”
As far as I know, Hamas has not been accused of creating a legal system of systemic discrimination and segregation. There are other terrible things it has done that can be criticized. If it is propping up a Manhattan-sized ghetto, I condemn it.
“None of that excuses the suffering being visited upon Gaza.”
“Visited upon” by whom? Who’s to say? The bombs just appeared in the sky one day, and nobody can figure out where they came from.
“Many Israelis and American Jews are among [Israel’s] fiercest critics … When Cambridge declares that, of all the governments implicated in abuses, this is the one whose business partners we will shun, it sends a message about who stands outside the circle of acceptable company.”
Again, who? Why not be specific? In the previous sentence, Nolan and Simmons said that Israelis are among Israel’s fiercest critics. Are they excluded as well?
“Who decides which vendors are ‘tied’ to Israeli government actions, and by what test?”
By asking the question, Nolan and Simmons imply it hasn’t been answered: The American Friends Service Committee shortlist is five companies that, using a public formula, it claims are directly assisting some of the Israeli government’s worst actions. I see most people, including the writers of that essay, condemning at least some of Israel’s actions, especially its conduct in Gaza. If we condemn it, it follows that we should not support businesses that help them accomplish these negative things. This is one of the few questions asked of the left and right that has a genuinely principled answer – an analysis that they are free to disagree with, but why misrepresent things?
“Cambridge should not target one country and call it principle. A real standard is simple to state: No city dollar goes to a company complicit in war crimes or serious human rights abuses, whatever flag the abuser flies, and that includes our own.”
It would be awesome if such a law could be passed. A general divestment bill would still see the same opposition. Were these five companies included on a more general divestment bill, I could make these arguments: That boycotting any company that backs Israel amounts to discrimination; that it takes the focus off Cambridge; that even a general boycott of businesses that profit from human rights abuses will cause our neighbors to feel “angry, scared and afraid.” We know this because that is the compromise that Somerville passed and those objections were made (in the linked article).
It is fine to take a principled stand against this divestment package. We are all entitled to our opinion, and no one should feel unsafe or unwelcome in our community. If it’s your earnest belief it’s a bad bill, oppose it – but arguments that rely on deflection and obfuscation won’t convince me.
This bill was not asking the people of Cambridge to treat their neighbors with suspicion or hatred, nor to take up the mantle of activism for a cause they don’t care about. I agree that it blows for normally issue-focused councillors to be made to pick a side, but that’s politics for ya, and ultimately, it’s about values. My advice? Unless you own Palantir stock, ease up on divestment. Focus on making our community safe and inclusive. Nobody is going to talk about this in a month.
It must be alienating to begin adulthood on the “right side of history” and, at the end of history, find yourself fighting the cause the kids care most about. I mean this sincerely. Anger and fear are the roots of conservatism, and we must find ways to resist them. I’m not saying that if you disagree with me on this issue, you must have a certain political alignment – only that turning against compassion in service of fear is the tool that, more than any other, is used to convince Americans to support bad things. And the more time you spend living, the more horrible things you see and the more likely you are to feel this way. So I have great sympathy for these councillors and everyone else. I just might not be there yet.
