On divestment:

1. The Israel/Palestine mess is not a far-away issue. Many of us have personal connections, family, and friends there. All of us suffer the reverberations at home of United States policy in the Arab and Muslim worlds—the threat of terror and the threat and costs of the "war against terror." The role of the United States' strategic alliance with Israel in defending and perpetuating our addiction to Middle East oil means there is a real link between the our government's support for expanding the Green Line (pre-1967 boundary) in Israel/Palestine and the dearth of resources to extend the Green Line in Somerville.
2. Three important things were apparent at the public meeting on November 8:
   • A. The great majority of Somerville residents who are actively concerned with this issue, whatever their view of the divestment proposal, want to see an end to the human rights crisis and the conflict on the basis of ending Israel's military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and creating a viable, independent Palestinian state on those territories.
   • B. This broad peace and justice camp, on either side of the divestment question, would like Somerville to make a real contribution, even if symbolic, to ending the occupation and United States tacit support for it.
   • C. This same anti-occupation camp was split down the middle by the divestment debate.
3. The movement to divest from South Africa rested on very broad anti-apartheid sentiment among Americans, but the movement against the Israeli occupation has not yet built anything remotely like that degree of consensus. Many Americans staunchly defend Israel's inhumane policies toward the Palestinians, and many who are critical of those policies see the episodic violence of "terrorism" as a greater cause of the conflict than the systematic violence of military occupation. Without a broad underlying consensus, campaigns to divest from Israel have generated tremendous backlash and polarization that only complicate the prospects for building a force that can effectively challenge our government's support for the occupation.
4. Again unlike South Africa, the Israel/Palestine conflict is not simply between right and wrong, but rather between the legitimate claims and needs of two traumatized peoples, in pursuit of which both have often resorted to illegitimate and heinous means as well as to mutual demonization and blame. That is what has made this mess seem not only intractable but also morally impenetrable - so much so that it has become polarizing even among people of good will who are sincerely concerned with peace, justice, and human rights.
5. For nearly two generations, Israel's military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza has been the central reality shaping lives and events in Israel/Palestine, generating grave human rights abuses, and itself violating Palestinian national and political rights: "Democratic" Israel rules over more than 3,000,000 people who have no say in the country's governance or in the conditions of military rule under which they live, and no citizenship in any state. The occupation is the main obstacle to a peaceful and reasonably just resolution of the conflict, and chief cause of Israelis' increasing insecurity and international isolation.
6. Another real impediment to a just peace is the current in the Palestinian national movement that sees the Jewish people in that land as interlopers, and rejects the idea that they have become a nation with any kind of legitimate national rights. Combine this attitude with the fact that armed Palestinian groups target any and all Jews there for attack, and many Israelis believe - mistakenly, but not without foundation - that this, not peaceful relations on the basis of equal national or civil rights, represents the true desire of most Palestinians.
7. Divestment campaigns have commonly had the objective of delegitimizing the targeted regime. In the case of Israel/Palestine the question is which regime does the campaign delegitimize: the military occupation, or the state of Israel? In other words, the campaign to divest from Israel has divided opponents of the occupation not because it is one-sided, but because it is double-edged.
8. As a result, some people who oppose the occupation found themselves in an uncomfortable anti-divestment alliance with apologists for the occupation (few of whom were from Somerville), while others found themselves in an equally uncomfortable pro-divestment alliance with those who actively seek to delegitimize and bring to an end not only the occupation, but the state of Israel. Ultimately, however, neither Israelis nor Palestinians will be able to achieve freedom, security, or peace by dominating and imposing their will on the other nation.

What to do?

One speaker on November 8 asked you to "stand by victims of violence on both sides by rejecting this resolution." I, too, hope you will reject the Somerville Divestment Project's resolution, but to stop there would be to stand by no one; it would merely abandon Israelis and Palestinians to their bloody fate. So I also hope you are moved by the shared concern of most divestment supporters and opponents to do what can be done to stop the horrendous violence, inhumanity, and suffering on both sides caused by the occupation. I urge you to do so in a manner that avoids the consequences of both splitting the anti-occupation forces and fueling the flames of mutual delegitimization that perpetuate the conflict and the injustice. Despite our disagreement about divestment, most of us are on the same team. Only those who reject either Palestinian or Israeli rights would further prolong the tragedy of this potentially genocidal war.

Regardless of what action you take on the Somerville Divestment Project's resolution, whether you pass or reject it, I ask you to take another step: Please grab this passing chance to reframe the citywide discussion in terms that bring together and empower your constants from both sides of the divestment debate who want to help bring peace and justice to Israel/Palestine, as I am confident you also want. Toward that end, I propose that the Committee on Legislative Matters recommend, and the full Board of Aldermen implement, the following:

• PROPOSAL:

1. Pass a non-binding resolution that says something to the effect that "the City of Somerville, appalled at the escalating bloodshed, hopelessness, hatreds, and denial of rights in Israel/Palestine, urges all concerned parties, including Somerville residents, to pursue vigorously a peaceful and just resolution of that conflict in accord with stated United States policy and the overwhelming international consensus, in which the State of Israel will end its military occupation of the Palestinian territories it acquired in the war of 1967, and a sovereign and viable democratic State of Palestine will be established on those territories, the two neighboring states to live at peace, accepting one another as full and legitimate members of the regional community of nations." This statement will set the parameters within which the Board of Aldermen would then:
2. Sponsor a "Somerville Conversations" program on the topic of Israel/Palestine for all interested people who live or work in Somerville, with outside funding to be sought by members of the community who want to encourage this process. The conversation should be structured to insure deep listening, open dialogue, and learning, and to permit participants to consider possible actions toward achieving a peaceful resolution of the conflict along the lines expressed above.
3. Participate in the Conversation yourselves, at least some of you.