Several weeks ago we began circulating a petition (see www.harvardmitdivest.org) calling on the US government, and on our universities, to make future arm sales and investments in Israel contingent on four conditions: that Israel end its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and return to its pre-1967 borders, that it vacate its settlements in these territories, that it end government-sanctioned torture and deportation of prisoners and suspects, and that it compensate Palestinian refugees who were forced to leave their homes when the state of Israel was founded. All of these conditions accord with UN Security Council Resolutions and the Fourth Geneva Convention. The idea that Israel should respect the human rights of all people and comply with international agreements is uncontroversial in most of the world. Here in the United States, and especially in our own universities, however, this petition has elicited a surprising amount of controversy and ill will. Here we comment on our reasons for advancing this petition and reply to our critics.

The Middle East is in crisis. Palestinian and Israeli civilians are killed daily, and that very troubled part of the world is experiencing a new escalation of fear, hatred, and mistrust. Nevertheless, a solution to this tragedy exists, and it has been accepted by nearly every country in the world, including the U. S. government: Two independent states, the state of Israel occupying its recognized borders, and a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza. We and many others in this country and the Middle East, including Israelis as well as Palestinians, are optimistic that this outcome is both possible and workable as a way to insure long-term stability and security for all parties in the region. The purpose of our petition is to mobilize the substantial power of the U.S. government and economy to bring about this outcome.

Although Israel and its supporters frequently claim that Israel favors this solution, Israeli government actions suggest otherwise. Since the signing of the first Oslo accord in 1993, Israeli settlement activity has increased dramatically, virtually doubling the Jewish population of the West Bank and Gaza to almost 400,000. Large tracts of Palestinian land have been expropriated, displacing many people and leading to the confiscation of homes, farms, and orchards. Even during the recent violence settlement activity has surged. Israeli human rights groups recently reported that 34 new settlements have been established in the past year alone, and that settlements now control 42% of the area of the West Bank. This growth is fueled by continued generous government grants to settlement regional councils. A network of roads for the exclusive use of Israelis has been built to connect the settlements--separating areas under the control of Palestinians into a patchwork of isolated enclaves. Settlements have also been strategically placed to exploit scarce water resources and to hem in the growth of nearby Palestinian communities. With the vast military and economic support of the United States, these actions place Israel on a course of permanent occupation. If this pattern is not soon reversed there can be no hope of territorial compromise, and the present state of violence will continue indefinitely.

Further reason to doubt that Israel will spontaneously end its occupation comes from the insistence that ending of the occupation be contingent on the complete end of individual acts of violence by Palestinians. Although we condemn acts of violence on both sides as the divest petition states, this is a condition that no government could ever meet, however effective and powerful it is. Even the U.S. government cannot guarantee that none of its citizens will engage in acts of violence -- that we will see no more Oklahoma bombings or Littleton school shoot-outs. As terrible as suicide bombings are, they do not justify continued occupation or abrogation of the human rights of Palestinians.

Many people fault the Palestinian Authority for being uninterested in peace, as evidenced by their alleged rejection of reasonable peace proposals. However, the offer that Arafat rejected at Camp David in July of 2000 would have resulted in the annexation by Israel of 10% of the West Bank, and would have left under Israeli control the largest settlement blocks, 80% of the settlers, and the grid of roads connecting them. Worse, the Israeli holdings would have cut the West bank into three noncontiguous Bantustans completely surrounded by Israeli territory, with the settler roads further dividing the Palestinian areas into 29 smaller pieces. Finally, Israel demanded that an additional 10% of the land (“green land”) would be under Israeli control for a period of 25 years. This land in the Jordan Valley would have given Israel total control over the relationship between the Palestinian entity and the outside world. Clearly this proposal is inconsistent with a viable Palestinian state. The talks in January 2001 at Taba -- which would have still left two thirds of the Israeli settlers living in 87 West bank settlements -- were a significant improvement. However, they were ended not by a walkout of the Palestinian Authority, but by the election of Ariel Sharon.

We are puzzled by the resistance of Israel's supporters to the conditions in the divest petition, because we think it is clear that Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is not only unjust and injurious to the Palestinians but also very harmful and strategically disastrous for the Israelis. Much of the danger that Israel now faces comes from the misery and hopelessness of three million people whose land Israel occupies in the West Bank and Gaza. The obvious first step toward increasing Israel's security is to end this occupation. But although an end to the occupation is in Israel's best interests, Israeli government actions (as well as tacit American encouragement) have made it increasingly unlikely that a peaceful resolution of the conflict can be reached. The main goal of our petition is to encourage the U. S. government and our universities to pressure Israel to make lasting peace possible, and to end its violations of Palestinian human rights.

The signers of this petition have faced a number of criticisms. Here we consider some of the most frequent ones: (1) that we are one-sided in proposing action against Israelis but not Palestinians, (2) that we are insensitive to Israel's security needs, (3) that we single out the human rights abuses of the Israeli government but ignore human rights infringements elsewhere, and (4) that all the above problems stem from a pervasive pattern of anti-Semitism. We consider each point in turn.

Why do we call on the U.S. government, MIT, and Harvard to cease military aid and investments in Israel but not Palestine? First, we believe that a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, coupled with a commitment to respect international conventions on human rights, are the most important steps that could be taken to bring peace to the region. Although violence has come from both sides of this conflict, the positions of Israelis and Palestinians are not symmetrical. Millions of Palestinians are living under Israeli occupation, but no Israelis are living under Palestinian rule. Palestinian homes are demolished by Israeli bulldozers but not vice versa. Israel imposes curfews and checkpoints on Palestinians, not the reverse. The Israeli government has explicitly endorsed torture, assassination, and deportation as acceptable actions against those it suspects have engaged in acts of violence. And in the last few months, Israel has systematically destroyed Palestinian schools, hospitals, businesses, and civic institutions. Moreover, the United States government and economic institutions have not played symmetrical roles in the conflict. Israel is the recipient of enormous U.S. military aid and investment, whereas Palestine is the recipient of very little. Were we providing the arms for both sides of this conflict, then it might be reasonable to demand a halt to all our funding of both sides. In fact, however, both U.S. military aid and corporate military investments are directed almost entirely toward Israel. This is the most striking, and dangerous, asymmetry in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The second major criticism of the divest petition is that it fails to consider Israel's security needs. Some of our critics have gone so far as to imply that our action puts Israel's existence at risk. We have already stated that most governments throughout the world, including ours, have endorsed a two-state outcome to the conflict, reasoning as we do that this outcome is not only a just solution, but is also the best step toward Israel's long-term security. Until the horror of recent suicide attacks, most Israelis agreed, and many still do. Suicide attacks are likely to continue until Palestinians have a real stake in peace and are convinced that Israel will leave the territories permanently. Until the occupation ends and Palestinian refugees are recognized and compensated for their losses, Israel will not be able to normalize relations with her neighbors. Such normalization will be the best and only long-term guarantee of Israel's future security. While we believe that Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories is the most important step toward ensuring the security needs of both Israelis and Palestinians, we recognize that many further steps may be needed to ensure a lasting peace, such as the stationing of an international peacekeeping force along the border. Our hope is that these measures will ensure a secure, democratic Israel beside a secure, democratic Palestine.

Third, why do we single out Israel and ignore violations of human rights committed by other countries? This is a strange sort of criticism: Social, political, and human rights problems are normally tackled one by one, as they arise. No one asked the protesters against the Vietnam War why they singled out that U.S. action rather than others; no one asked protesters against South Africa in the apartheid era why they were choosing to protest that issue. Protests are initiated when some threshold of concern is reached; in our case, it was the combination of the suicide bombings, the massive invasion of the West Bank, and the increase of settlement activity that propelled us to take action.Raising the question, Why Israel? appears to be linked to the question of anti-Semitism, with which we close.

Some of our critics have claimed or implied that our focus on Israel's policies is the result of anti-Semitism. Accusations of anti-Semitism have been used for decades to stifle criticism of Israeli policy, and they have been extremely effective. The world has been astonishingly silent during decades of Israeli occupation, and much of America still does not dare to raise any criticism of Israel. When criticisms of Israel are expressed, the charge of anti-Semitism serves to deflect attention away from the Israeli governmental actions that prompted the criticisms. We want the petition to open up discussion of these issues in our academic communities and beyond. We hope that Israel's supporters will join us in an open debate, not try to stifle discussion by questioning our motives. We firmly believe that an open exchange of ideas, free from personal attacks, offers the best hope of progress in breaking the current deadlock and moving toward a resolution of the conflict that respects the human rights of Palestinians and Israelis alike.

John Assad
Patrick Cavanagh
Danny Fox
Nancy Kanwisher
Ken Nakayama
Molly Potter
Elizabeth Spelke