Divestment campaign not best way to end Israeli occupation

To the Editors:

As someone who cares deeply about a just and lasting peace in Israel-Palestine, I strongly oppose the divestment campaign. Why? Because it is counterproductive and can never work to achieve the peace and security that both peoples want and deserve.

1. The divestment movement raises existential fears for many Israelis and supporters of Israel.
(a)These fears are not entirely delusional: Israel is surrounded by nations hostile to it. Whether or not these fears are justified is beside the point, what is important is the perception.
(b)Divestment shifts the conversation from the occupation to Israel’s vulnerability and right to exist: this helps the right both here and in Israel. We need to address how to end the occupation while supporting Israel’s right to exist.
(c)More than 70 percent of Israelis want an end to the occupation, but this support is eroded the less secure they feel. When people feel threatened, they cling more tightly to the status quo, they become more
entrenched, more hopeless. For Israelis to support an end to the occupation they need hope that it will bring real peace. They need to be helped to feel less threatened so that they can have this hope.

2. No Israeli government can act to end the occupation from a position of weakness.
(a)The realities of coalition government mean that the right wing in Israel, including the settler movement, can bring down the government at any time.
(b)The more threatened and isolated Israelis feel, the more power the right gains (witness the last elections).
(c)The stronger the right, the less the government will be able to move towards peace.

3. The fact that divestment worked in South Africa does not mean it will work in Israel-Palestine.
(a) The apartheid system was supported by white South Africans because they benefited from it. The occupation does not benefit Israelis: it exacts enormous security, economic and psychological costs. If the costs of occupation where going to end it, they already would have. They have not because neither side can now extricate itself from the cycle of violence without international help.
(b) Although ending the occupation offers the only hope of bringing Israel real security in the long term, in the short term it will decrease Israel’s security. Israel needs international security help on the ground in order to safely pull out of the occupied territories. What is needed is not divestment, but a redirection of American funds and efforts towards this task.

Want a productive initiative that recognizes the humanity and security needs of both Israelis and Palestinians? Go to www.tikkun.org and sign the National Tikkun Community’s Resolution for Middle East Peace, which will be introduced into Congress by Ohio’s own Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

—Hannah R. Snyder
College junior