The growing popularity of the Call to Boycott, Divestment, and place Sanctions on Israel (BDS), a movement which in their words is “Palestinian civil society calling upon their counterparts and people of conscience all over the world to launch broad boycotts, implement divestment initiatives, and to demand sanctions against Israel, until Palestinian rights are recognized in full compliance with international law” invites the perception that divestment is among a few effective ways to react to Israeli violations. While it may be true, divestment remains the subject of highly polarized debates. In April of 2012 Pastor Thomas Prinz and Assistant to Bishop Karl-John Stone articulated why the Episcopal Church in America opted to positively invest rather than divest from Israel, which the United Methodist Church would similarly vote to do the next month. They argued that “boycott and divestment are focused on tearing down and punishing one side in a complex conflict rather than on promoting constructive solutions to the conflict and improving lives.”
Four years earlier, Cisco Israel had outsourced IT jobs to Palestinians and invested $15 million in Palestinian entrepreneurs and startups. As Palestinian development consultant Sam Bahour explains, “every job we create is really a means to nonviolently resist this occupation and give hope to a Palestinian family in order for that family to remain in Palestine and not emigrate.”
Also in April of 2012 the Quaker Friends Fiduciary Corporation divested $900,000 from Caterpillar. A major target of the BDS movement, Caterpillar sells bulldozers to the Israeli military that are used to demolish Palestinian homes, land and property. Caterpillar bulldozers have also killed Palestinians and internationals such as US activist Rachel Corrie in 2003, who was attempting to defend a Palestinian family’s home in Gaza from demolition when she was killed.
So why not change directions entirely? Abandoning BDS and pursuing positive investments seem like the answer –the easy one.
The confounded nature of the situation is explicit in the most recent World Bank report on Palestine. “Donors do need to act urgently in the face of a serious fiscal crisis facing the PA in the short term,” said Mariam Sherman, World Bank Country Director for the West Bank and Gaza. “But even with this financial support, sustainable economic growth cannot be achieved without a removal of the barriers preventing private sector development, particularly in Area C.” Essentially, the status quo holds that Palestine can grow its economy as large as Israel allows. However, the 2012 World Bank Report also gave promise for the future of the Palestinian territories: “The main constraints to private sector development are the restrictions imposed by the Government of Israel. Barring a political solution to the conflict, there is little that can be done about these constraints…It is important that the PA continue to take what steps it can to improve the business environment. This will not only prepare the ground for a possible future state, but will lead to increased investment today.”
Yet, when the question of positive investment or divestment is put to Palestinians living in Palestine the response is swift and certain. Palestinian Baptist pastor, Dr. Alex Awad, told Methodists when they were debating their divestment resolution: “We are asking for divestment for our freedom, not investment to improve our lives in prison.” Choosing to invest improves conditions of those living under occupation, but by making these conditions tolerable only prolongs the occupation.
The reality on the ground is that positive investment, while it may be harmful to Palestinian autonomy in the long term, it has created quantifiable improvements in quality of life for Palestinians living under occupation. Meanwhile, the call to divest as a form of non-violent resistance that has garnered sufficient attention from the international community in recognizing the daily human rights abuses against Palestinians. Ultimately both methodologies must be more thoroughly researched so that they can be simultaneously applied to stop companies profiting from Israeli abuse and reward those companies that are helping Palestinians resist.
The idea of divestment versus investment could then be replaced with the idea of divestment from companies that profit from the daily suffering of Palestinians and investment in companies that improve and sustain standards of living thus creating a true Palestinian economy.…