Money

Those responsible for asking Somerville to divest in Israel have worked very hard to portray divestment as an issue of even-handedness. Somerville does not invest in the Palestinian side of the dispute, so why should it invest in Israel. Fair is fair, after all.

What this argument cleverly avoids is that the Middle East dispute is actually the Arab-Israeli conflict, one which pits the one Jewish nation (Israel) against 23 Arab states, all of which support the Palestinians with diplomacy, money and - frequently - guns.

Using the Somerville Divestment Group's own formula for calculating responsibility, one in which investment in a company doing business with a nation equals responsibility for the actions of that nation, a portion of nearly every dollar invested by the town's retirement board in energy stocks and funds represents Somerville's support for the Arab side in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Taking things further (and, again, using the Divestment Group's moral arithmetic, not mine), by investing in companies that in any way help develop, distribute or profit from Middle East oil makes Somerville a partner in the stoning of women, persecution and murder of homosexuals, and enslavement of black Africans, all of which take place in an Arab Middle East that profits from Somerville's retirement investments, indeed, profits each and every time a Somerville resident fills up his or her gas tank.

This endless chain of potential accusation is why many towns and organizations approach the issue of social investment with extreme caution. Is a share of Caterpillar a safe (if not boring) investment in an equipment manufacturer, or Somerville's way of announcing support for house demolitions (or the destruction of weapons tunnels - depending on who you ask) in Gaza? Does a share of Mobil mean Somerville is all in favor of the stoning to death of Saudi brides? For supporters of Israel, the issue is complex enough that we have never asked the town to make a statement by stopping its investment in companies that benefit Israel's Arab foes. Would it were so that the supports of boycotting Israel could be so responsible.

As with so many tactics, the portrayal of divestment as solely an issue of fairness is simply a ruse to appeal to someone's (in this case, our alderman's) better nature. A similar argument comes up whenever Israel's critics are asked why they don't battle human rights abuses in Arab countries with one one-hundredth the venom they have for Israel. "Israel is the largest recipient of US aid," they reply, "and as an American, I have a moral say in where my tax dollar goes."

Indeed they do. Yet the fact that Egypt receives nearly the same amount of foreign aid as Israel never seems to make them equally vocal about the abuse of women, homosexuals and religious minorities in that country. America's heavy investment in the UN, which in turn pays most of the bills of the Palestinians, never seems to prick their conscience as American taxpayers for the corruption, violence and murderousness of the Palestinians they spend so much time talking about.

This confusion can be cleared if one realizes that the goal of the worldwide Israel boycott movement is not raising up the Palestinians, but in running down the Israelis. Somerville's branch of the movement is not fighting for an equitable distribution of funds between different players in the Middle East conflict, but to get the town of Somerville to declare that Israel is a racist, apartheid state, alone in the world at deserving economic punishment. That is the message they will deliver to the world if this resolution passes, so it is only fair to alert the Somerville alderman that this is what they are being asked to vote on, not a harmless proposition to create a level playing field.