Letter to the Editor
The SG's preoccupation with Israel makes perfect sense
Posted: 12/5/06
As a faculty member, let me offer a few words in support of the SG's position on Palestine.No one seems to disagree with the SG that there is a grave injustice in Palestine, that Israel is primarily to blame, that the university is complicit (through our stockholdings in U.S. companies that support the occupation), and that some tangible action should be taken immediately.
The point of contention seems to focus on two issues: (1) That the SG has given undue emphasis to this issue, and (2) that they have not promoted "open and honest debate".
Regarding the first point: certainly there are many pressing issues in the world today, but one can make a good case that the conflict in Palestine is of greatest urgency. No other conflict is directly sustained by U.S. corporations - corporations of which the university is a part-owner. It has affected millions of people (3.8 million Palestinians in the occupied territories, plus millions of Jews and Palestinians worldwide), for nearly 60 years.
And it is globally recognized as a matter of utmost importance. Furthermore, this problem has far-reaching consequences: It was a major factor in both Gulf wars, it was at the root of the 9/11 attacks and the rise of al-Qaeda, and it is a source of great Muslim antipathy toward the U.S. and the West.
The situation in Palestine is, as President Jimmy Carter has recently emphasized, a new apartheid. But it is more insidious and more barbaric than the South African original. Unchecked, it leads to the kind of atrocities we saw this past summer in southern Lebanon: wanton destruction, killing of innocents, phosphorus and cluster bombs dropped on civilian areas.
Apart from issues related to environmental catastrophe, such as global warming, it would be hard to make the case that any conflict is more pressing than this one. And even granting that other issues are of 'equal' importance, there is likely little that students or the university can do to effect change. Take the crisis in Darfur: What, really, can we do to help that problem? The situation in Palestine is unique because we can take a simple and direct action - selling of stock - that will put financial and moral pressure on Israel to end its apartheid and seek a just peace.
Regarding the second point: To my knowledge the students have been fully open to debating this issue. The problem is that no one is willing to publicly defend our investment in Israeli apartheid. Letters from the odd alumnus are about all we see. On the faculty side, I have published op-eds in the University Record (most recently, 11/20), and they draw no rebuttals. I am also working to set up a "Difficult Dialogue" on divestment, but the campus opponents of divestment will not even respond to e-mail requests, let alone speak in public! I think they know that they have no real moral standing. There is simply no excuse for continuing to invest in, and profit from, oppression.
If there are some willing to publicly defend the status quo, let them come forth. Then we will have an "open and honest debate." Until then, divestment has the moral high ground. It is the right thing to do. The administration needs to hear this, from all of us, if there is to be any hope of positive change.
Regards,
David Skrbina
Philosophy
© Copyright 2006 Michigan Journal
No comments:
Post a Comment