Recently, the Student Government Association (SGA) allowed a referendum to proceed from Northeastern University’s Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) that called on Northeastern to divest from several corporations due to their commerce with the Israel Defense Forces. The SGA had previously rejected this referendum, and, in response, its proponents claimed that the negative vote had denied students a “true educational experience” and free speech, and that this rejection constituted “institutional oppression of SJP.” These claims were patently false.
No one at NU was denied an education because of this now-overturned SGA decision. Anybody who wanted to learn about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could attend a variety of events on campus, hosted both by SJP and pro-Israel groups. The fact that SJP loudly and successfully protested SGA’s original decisions contradicts the claim of free speech abridgment, which is especially ridiculous in light of SJP’s history of obstructing and disrupting pro-Israel students’ and their guests’ free expression. As for “institutional oppression,” not getting your way simply does not qualify as oppression. As George Deek, an Arab-Christian and Israeli diplomat, recently remarked at NU in reference to the Palestinians, “The narrative of victimhood is a narrative that paralyzes us and corrupts us…when a group defines itself as a victim, it no longer takes responsibility.”
The SGA originally rejected the proposal, citing well-founded concerns about students’ comfort. I can speak for many Jews, who comprise a minority on campus, when I say that I would be deeply offended if a student government referendum called for divestment as a means of attacking Israeli policies while giving countries with far worse human rights records a free pass. The “discomfort” felt by Jewish students, and mocked by SJP’s petition, contradicts NU’s core value of “foster[ing] a culture of respect that affirms inter-group relations and builds community.”
Why has Israel been so targeted? SJP provides a facile explanation in its referendum for why Israel is the subject of this divestment campaign. It argues that more international business is conducted there than in countries with worse human rights records, a lacking rationale. Firstly, it is false by any measurable standard: as of 2013, Nigeria, the United Arab Emirates, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Thailand, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Singapore were all recipients of more foreign investment than Israel despite having worse human rights records. Secondly, even if it were true that more international business is conducted in Israel, perhaps it would be because Israel has an educated, liberal society that is conducive to such commerce.
Furthermore, when it comes to claims that the investment of the university’s endowment in Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard, Raytheon and Motorola Solutions is financing Israeli control of the Palestinian territories, proponents of these allegations should do some simple math. NU’s endowment was $713 million in 2014. Even if every last dollar were invested in those companies, this would represent less than one-half of one percent of those companies’ combined $170 billion market value.
So what is to be gained by divesting from companies that do business in Israel? In actuality, the referendum does not intend to make a difference, but it intends to indict Israel as the most significant human rights violator despite the fact that it is not. Is Israel perfect? No. And despite the allegedly moderate Palestinian Authority having been found liable for lethal terrorism in federal court, I would still argue in favor of its evolution into a full-fledged state, as all people, including both the Jews and Palestinians, deserve self-determination. But unless you have ulterior motives in targeting the Jewish State, there is simply no reason to support SJP’s petition.
– Zach Ramsfelder is a sophomore political science major.
