Politics should not influence UC portfolio
Your July 8 editorial, “UC must respect human rights,
divest,” was so childish I am surprised you published it.
Maybe you were so desperate for something anti-Israel, you went
with it. But where is the intelligence?
Your editorial says “the University of California has no
business associating itself with either side of the conflict in any
way.” Then the editorial board slips off of its soapbox
and writes, “When the university invests in Israeli
corporations, the profits, in turn, are taxed by the Israeli
government and help support the occupation of the West Bank, as
well as other militaristic ventures.” So on the one hand you
don’t want the UC to take sides and should therefore divest
from Israeli corporations. But on the other hand, you advocate the
UC take actions that will curb “the occupation … (and)
other militaristic ventures.”
You can’t have it both ways. Either you advocate the UC
take a strong, anti-Israel policy and therefore divest its
investments or you advocate the UC divest its investment decisions
from political concerns.
As a Bruin alumnus, I strongly advocate a separation of
investments from politics. Just as I would disagree with
investments in any country’s economy in order to support it,
I would disagree with divestments from Israel for political
considerations. I do not believe the UC has any business
measuring or regulating its internal decisions by external
political concerns not undermining U.S. foreign policy.
To let a rebellious, leftist fascist run around the Daily Bruin
offices, spouting off anti-Israel diatribes is irresponsible of the
paper and should get the UC’s attention more than the matter
of divestment. Mark Alan Class of 1983
There’s no ambiguity: divestment
misguided
As much as I love my alma mater for the great four years I spent
as an undergraduate there, I am appalled the Daily Bruin could be
so misinformed as to the situation happening in the Middle East.
The July 8 editorial, “UC must respect human rights,
divest,” claims “there should be no ambiguity”
about the situation in the Middle East. I agree. There should be no
ambiguity: Israel handed over almost the entire Gaza Strip and over
90 percent of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority during the
Oslo peace process.
There should be no ambiguity about former Israeli Prime Minister
Ehud Barak offering the Palestinians their own state comprised of
nearly all of the territories in question (including parts of
Jerusalem). There should be no ambiguity about Arafat walking away
from this generous offer. There should be no ambiguity that,
despite pledges to the contrary, Arafat and his Authority never
revoked the use of violence as a means of achieving political ends.
There should be no ambiguity that terrorist attacks, which target
5-year-old babies, medical volunteers and every other civilian,
occur almost daily against Israelis and are supported by a majority
of the Palestinian population.
There should be no ambiguity that Israel acts only in its own
defense by targeting the murderers before they can strike, while at
the same time attempting to limit innocent Palestinian casualties.
There should be no ambiguity that the UC should support
Israel’s right-to-exist and support their defense of
democracy (as they are the only democracy in the entire region).
There should be no ambiguity that the drive for divestment is
misguided at best, malicious at worst and that all reasonable
members of the faculty and of the student body should oppose
it.Joshua Atlas Class of 2001
Divestment no longer efficient tool
I read with interest the editorial on July 8 about divestment in
Israel (“UC must respect human rights, divest”). Since
Jewish immigration began in 1880 into the land now called Israel,
many Jews believed the proverb, “With peace comes
prosperity.” Globalization has taught us the proverb is
indeed wise, and we now know the more people we do business with,
the wealthier we become.
Divestment, which threatens wealth, therefore, has proven to be
a formidable weapon, as in South Africa in the 1980s. The threat of
divestment has motivated wealthy Israelis in the past, so they
pushed their government to negotiate a peace with Egypt, Jordan and
Lebanon. The resulting peace brought wealth and a feeling of
safety.
Now the weapon of divestment is again being pointed. Just as
divestment helped bring peace in the past, logic tells us that it
should bring about peace now. But unfortunately things have
changed. The bombings by martyrs since the breakdown in the
Arafat-Barak negotiations two years ago has led many to believe
negotiations do not bring safety.
Without a feeling of safety, wealthy Israelis will not pressure
the government to negotiate. For divestment to work, Israelis would
have to believe in safety like the good old days. In their present
psychological condition, divestment will scare Israelis even more.
Divestment will bring about feelings of isolation, misunderstanding
and fear. Using divestment may wound Israel, but it will not bring
about the needed feeling of safety. Therefore, the weapon of
divestment will not have the desired effect. I hope the thoughtful
minds of UCLA can come up with an idea that promotes safety and not
alienation.
Stephen Silberman Los Angeles