how typical of people from both sides. you call for “balance” and proceed to blame the entire problem on the other side. what you want is a balance in your side yelling at the other. “If you want to affect real change…” stop calling the kettle black and actually think critically about the issues.

The reality is that Samir Jaber and friends go to one of the most liberal schools in the country and yet they have to spend years to even get the issue of divestment to ASM and eventually the Regents who will easily dismiss such propaganda.

Tells you something about the sorry state of the campus left at UW.

Your right, Hampshire didn’t divest from companies merely because they were associated with Israel. Hampshire divested from these companies because they didn’t meet their definition of “socially responsible divestment” because they profited from the occupation of Palestinian territories, which is precisely what Jaber called for in his article.

Quoting Alan Dershowitz, probably the preeminent Israeli propagandist in this country, completely destroys your contention that the debate needs to be “unbiased”.

And, btw, when it comes to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine (which Israeli historians are finally beginning to acknolwedge), there can be no reasonable person who can come to any conclusion which doesn’t acknowledge the brutality of the Israeli occupation as the primary cause behind the violence.

Did you even read Jaber’s article? It didn’t call for divestment from Israel, but from companies which profit from the military occupation. Can’t you see the clear difference between these two beliefs, or are you so bent on creating a straw man that you’d rather ignore facts in favor of bullshit?

One side plans, promotes and celebrates the murder of innocent women and children. How do you balance that?

in response to Anonymous 1 “how typical of people from both sides. you call for “balance” and proceed to blame the entire problem on the other side. what you want is a balance in your side yelling at the other. “If you want to affect real change…” stop calling the kettle black and actually think critically about the issues.”

If you truly read the article Jordan wrote in no way does he put the fault on one side. What this article does attempt to do is blame people like you who jump to any chance they can get to dehumanize Israel. This article try’s to get at an issue that is almost never discussed my pro-Palestinian communities, the almost anarchical state of the Palestinian people. How can a country like Israel even initiate true dialogue if not one major political organization in the Palestinian territories cares for their own people!!! Fatah was made worthless and corrupt by its great leader Arafat and Hamas cares nothing for Palestinians, only to establish a religious Muslim state and the destruction of Israel. Really doesn’t leave Israel with much options. Yet, most American pro-Palestine groups (in which the majority of its members have never stepped foot in the Middle East and have no understanding of culture in the region) will never hold a rally for true Palestinian leadership (one that actually cares for its own people) to work with a willing Israeli government to establish Palestinian Statehood.

Wouldn’t you say that the anti-Israel voices are still a minority in America? If you want balance, then you should encourage anti-Israel “bias” until the nays uqual the yays. Then, as you are hopeful for, America will have no opinion about the existance of Israel. Right?

Suggesting that UW-Madison or the Badger Herald represent the views of 300 Million Americans, is absurd.

To 12:27, You are wrong. The point that Hampshire made is exactly that this is not the reason they divested…please learn some damn facts

I know who’s Shai Agassi, but who the hell is EZKlein???

Curious Klein

Yeah right, because quoting Alan “I’m a White Supremacist” Dershowitz really shows you are committed to “balance.” And by the way, Hampshire DID divest from the Israeli occupation. They removed stock from companies that profit from it, and they were also the first university to divest from that other apartheid state, South Africa. The university had to issue the statement you quoted from to make it clear that it was consistently applying standards to all human rights profiteers, including those operating in the occupied territories. The only reason they had to issue it in the first place was due to intimidation from right-wing wackos like yourself. If Hampshire didn’t divest as you incorrectly claim, then why is Dershowitz and other pro-Israel racists now starting a campaign to divest from Hampshire? Maybe you should get your story straight with your other AIPAC buddies before writing such things.

Your right, Hampshire didn’t divest from companies merely because they >>were associated with Israel. Hampshire divested from these companies because they didn’t meet their definition of “socially responsible divestment” because they profited from the occupation of Palestinian territories, which is precisely what Jaber called for in his article.

Actually, Hampshire didn’t even do that. While they did specifically state that the Sudanese government sponsored genocide in Darfur was one of their measures for reviewing their investment portfolio, they SPECIFICALLY STATED that the Arab-Israeli conflict WAS NOT a consideration.

What you had at Hampshire was an example of a group of students unsuccessfully trying to hijack the name and reputation of the college in hope that Hampshire’s “example” would trigger similar activity at other schools (like UWM). One of the reasons your administration (like that of every other school in the country) has given divestment the heave ho is that they’ve leared from Hampshire what can happen if you buy into this type of snake oil.

I’ve been chronicaling the comings and goings on the divestment front this year at www.divestthis.com for anyone interested in learning more.

Wow, someone went on a Birthright (or Brainright) trip!

I completely agree. We should have had more unbiased discussion on slavery in the 1800s. Damn did we let all those abolitionists get too much face time. Keep fighting the good fight Jordan!

My name is Andrew Stachiw and I go to Hamsphire College. At Hampshire College I am also a member of SJP or Students for Justice in Palestine, the group that pushed to school to divest from the illegal military occupation of Palestine. First, I would recommend that Jordan Soffer do some more research on the conflict itself, and second, I would suggest that he do some more reading on Hampshire College’s divestment; right now, this article is part of the problem, not the solution. Hampshire College DID divest from the illegal military occupation of Palestine, and it was the first college in the US to do so. I sincerely hope that the growing national (and most importantly, global) movement pushing for divestment will spread to your campus and our actions here at Hampshire College will provide a precedent by which to model. For further information feel free to email me at [email protected] Andrew Stachiw Signer, Students for Justice in Palestine

“I am pro-Israel because I am a civil libertarian, because I have devoted my life to fighting for human rights, because I am a feminist, because I am an environmentalist, because I am a gay rights supporter, and because I am a lover of peace.”

This is the functional equivalent of saying “I support the war in Iraq because America was correct to free the slaves, guarantee womens’ suffrage, defeat fascism in Japan and Germany, pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and elect our first black President in 2008.” Virtually everything good that America stands for is always trotted out as justification for policies which the world community rightly condemns as terrorist activity.

To mr. Hampshire, Soffer did his research bud…he jsut left out # The review of the State Street fund was undertaken at the request of a sub-committee of the investment committee, to address a petition from a student group, Students for Justice in Palestine. The investment committee�s decision, however, was based on the consultant�s finding that the State Street fund included 200-plus companies engaged in multiple violations of the college�s investment policy; it did not pertain to a political movement and it was not made in reference to Israel.

No other report or interpretation of the actions of February 7, 2009 by the Hampshire College board of trustees is accurate.

Too bad Soffer, you should have included the whole quote so these guys can see it really never happened… PS-Keep up the good work

Dear All, I just hoped to clarify for everyone where I got my correct information about Hampshire College.

http://www.hampshire.edu/news/11321.htm

Open Letter to Alan Dershowitz

An open letter to Alan Dershowitz from Hampshire College President Ralph Hexter and Chair of the Board of Trustees Sigmund Roos

Dear Alan,

We begin by affirming our high esteem for you, both as a legal scholar and a powerful voice against anti-Semitism. We also appreciate that as a parent of a Hampshire College alumnus, you are part of a community that we hold dear. Nonetheless, we are saddened and frustrated by your recent column in the Jerusalem Post and elsewhere and by your many comments in the press, which present information about the actions of the Hampshire College Board of Trustees that is simply not true. Hampshire College did not divest from Israel or take the action it did because of Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians or its presence on the West Bank. At no time did the college or the board take actions or make statements motivated by anti-Semitism, bigotry and anti-Israelism.

Your influence in the public sphere of ideas has the power to cause great harm to our � or, indeed, any � institution’s reputation. So our frustration stems from your decision to rely not on the official statements of the board of trustees and from us as individuals, but rather from the press releases of a student group, Students for Justice in Palestine.

Hampshire College has made a strenuous, good-faith effort to explain its decision to exit a problematic mutual fund. We make this effort again, without equivocation: Israel was not the cause for divestment from the State Street fund. As you know, last spring, the student group SJP, which is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, petitioned, as is its right, the community-based subcommittee (CHOIR) on responsible investing, which is a subcommittee of the investment committee, in turn itself a subcommittee of the finance committee of the board, asking that the college exit from one particular fund, State Street SSgA. The group claimed that six companies in the fund were supporting or profiting from Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories. The companies were said to be Caterpillar, General Electric, ITT, Motorola, Terex and United Technologies. CHOIR passed a recommendation concerning these companies to the investment committee, in accordance with the board’s procedures.

The investment committee, however, expressly rejected this narrow focus, and instead sought to apply our own socially responsible investment policies. This cursory review suggested multiple problems � none of them having to do with Israel � in the fund, and also revealed the implementation inadequacies of the policy. The committee then turned to an outside, independent reviewer, KLD Research & Analytics, the gold standard for socially responsible investment screening, to look closely into the fund’s components. KLD’s review vetted companies for several possible red flags, including employment discrimination, environmental abuse, military weapons manufacturing, unsafe workplace settings, and dealings with Burma or Sudan. Twenty-three equities were found to violate the military weapons screen; four dealt with Burma and three with Sudan; 70 were involved in significant employment discrimination controversies; 28 were found to exhibit poor environmental performance; and 197 were cited for employee safety issues. Some companies appeared in more than one screening category.

In sum, what KLD found was that of the fund’s 455 holdings, well over 200 raised significant concerns relative to Hampshire College’s socially responsible investment policy and were in violation of values of socially responsible investing. It was on this basis that the investment committee voted as it did to exit from the fund when an alternative fund has been identified. The decision was entirely unrelated to Israel or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In fact, two of the six companies originally cited by students as problematic were given a clean bill of health on Hampshire’s policy by the KLD screeners (and a third, it turned out, was not even listed as a constituent of the fund). As a consequence, stocks in these two companies (Motorola and Terex) � we speak unequivocally � remain among our holdings and will remain on our potential buy-list in accordance with KLD standards.

At the risk of repetition, let us emphasize again that this review did not include Israel, its interaction with the Palestinians, nor its presence on the West Bank as tests for the stocks in this fund. Moreover, Hampshire currently holds investments in funds that include many hundreds of companies that do business in Israel and in at least three actual Israeli companies: Amdocs, Teva Pharmaceuticals and Check Point Software. No other college or university should use Hampshire as a precedent for divesting from Israel, since Hampshire has refused to divest from Israel. Anyone who claims otherwise is deliberately misrepresenting Hampshire�s decision and has no right to speak for the college.

We understand that socially responsible investing is a very powerful tool and must be used prudently. The investment committee and now the full board have recognized during this process that the college’s policy on socially responsible investment, last revised in 1994, has become outdated and much too awkward to implement. We are now at work developing a new college policy on socially responsible investing, one that is up-to-date and provides clear guidance for our investment advisors.

Sadly, though, there have been students and some members of our faculty who have mischaracterized what happened here, claiming that the board did something that it did not do. None is a member of the investment committee. We have great respect for our students and encourage their endeavors � academic, social, political. We very much want our campus to be a place for learning and for healthy debate from all points of view. But we are also clear, and urge you to understand us clearly, when we say that students do not speak for the college and may not willfully misrepresent the school. It will be, and must be, the college’s task to undertake any disciplinary action, according to its established rules and procedures. Discipline is an internal process that is not shared with the public.

We understand that this is an emotional issue for all involved. We simply want to state the facts plainly, separating them from the rhetoric, which, while very public, remains all too often untrue. Your good opinion matters to us; it matters, yes, because you are an influential public figure, but it matters even more because we count you as one of the Hampshire family, and hope that you will think of yourself that way, too.

Sincerely,

Ralph Hexter, president Sigmund Roos, chair of the Board of Trustees Hampshire College

Thanks to all who read my article and took the time to post. Sincerely, Jordan Soffer

Jordan,

Regardless of the contents of Mr. Hexter’s disingenuous letter above, the fact remains that Students for Justice in Palestine got everything they wanted from the Board of Trustees. The six companies from which they divested were targeted by the student group because of their complicity in the illegal occupation of Palestinian land - not for any of the reasons Mr. Hexter listed in his letter. Hampshire would still have a relationship with these companies if it were not for the pro-Palestinian activists - this much is not controversial.

At the time that Hampshire - also the first university to end financial ties with apartheid South Africa in 1977 - divested from the occupation in February, the only justifications for their decision was related to the situation in Palestine. Mr. Hexter and the administration later had to back-peddle due to pressure from members of the Israel lobby, most notably Alan Dershowitz, who has called the university “anti-Semitic” and (as the commenter noted above) urged a “divestment” campaign from Hampshire due to the February decision. The tiny liberal arts college simply couldn’t stand up to the pressure and had to amend their justifications for the divestment, even though they are still in practice the first university in the country to have divested from companies that profit from Israel’s expropriation of Palestinian land.

The bottom line: Hampshire’s courageous decision is still a monumental victory for the Palestinian struggle in the United States.

And on a somewhat related note, I would urge you to rethink many of the positions stated in your article, including your rather hypocritical call for “balance,” even as you continue to serve as an apologist for Israeli war crimes. I can assure that in no other country in the world (save Israel itself) would Lowenstein’s views against racism and violence be considered controversial. In no other country in the world do humane and rational people not have sympathy for a people that have endured decades of occupation and oppression, and by extension, criticism of Israeli foreign and domestic policy as it relates to Arabs.

Finally, whatever merit this article may have had was lost when you invoked Alan Dershowitz, one of the most obscene and racist mainstream commentators on the national Israel-Palestine debate, as justification for your views. Mr. Dershowitz is most certainly not a “civil libertarian” or “lover of peace,” unless he means this in an ironical way. He has made a career out of justifying torture, violence and white supremacy as it relates to Israel/Palestine. Whenever Israel massacres, imprisons and/or tortures Palestinians, Dershowitz is always the loudest and most reliable apologist for such actions in the United States. As countless Palestinian and pro-Palestinian commenters have stated, Dershowitz is a truly “evil” man and, frankly, you should be ashamed for crediting this disgusting person with anything other than supporting bigotry and bloodshed.

Best, Fellow columnist Kyle Szarzynski [email protected]