Published March 24, 2024
A petition that demands the University divest its endowment from holdings in Israel had been signed by 683 Princeton community members as of early March, and students expressed dismay over President Christopher Eisgruber ’83’s remarks on the subject at the February meeting of the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC).
Princeton Israeli Apartheid Divest (PIAD) launched late last fall with a rally and the petition, which urges the University to “not participate in both the ongoing massacre in Gaza and the continued implementation of Israel’s apartheid regime, which has been enabled by investments in companies and institutions that have worked to enact and normalize Israel’s violence against Palestinians for decades.”
The petition demands that Princeton divest and dissociate from companies affiliated with Israel until a ceasefire is reached, and that Princeton work with Palestinian institutions.
PIAD has not received a formal response from the University. But at the Feb. 19 meeting of the CPUC, Eisgruber answered questions related to the petition, doxxing, and the University’s institutional restraint policy and divestment procedures. He said it is extremely rare for Princeton to take such a drastic measure as divestment, and it would only occur “after multiple years of engagement.”
“Under the standards of the University, there has to be consensus around [divestment], and there’s the opposite of that on issues involving politics in the Middle East,” Eisgruber said. “There’s a sharp disagreement.”
Students silently made their voices heard by holding up red thumbs-down signs.
“People should disagree with one another about things,” Eisgruber said, “and you’re disagreeing now. I’m OK with that. Your thumbs can be down — that’s fine. Disagreement is what we do.”
As the meeting concluded, students chanted “we will not rest until divest.”
According to PIAD organizers, who asked not to be named because of safety concerns, about 30 to 40 of the group’s student leaders are working with alumni who have led past divestment campaigns, students at other universities, and local groups to build support for the divestment campaign.
In 2014, a CPUC subcommittee announced there was not enough consensus or sustained interest to consider a petition calling for divestment from Israel, and the following year, undergraduates declined to vote in favor of a similar referendum.
The Latest
See all
Related News
Rally ’Round the Cannon: Mind the Gap
Winning takes talent, to repeat takes character. — John Wooden Halfway through the monumental eight…
Three Books: Gregory Berns ’86 on Relationships Between People and Animals (That Aren’t Dogs)
Gregory Berns ’86 is the distinguished professor of neuroeconomics at Emory University, but he is…
5 Responses
Steve Smith ’59
3 Months AgoI read the article “Students Launch Israel Divestment Campaign” in the April issue with concern and cautious optimism.
The surge of anti-Israeli sentiment that has impacted universities throughout the nation has not left Princeton untouched. We are experiencing a generational divide in which those born in this century have (through no fault of their own) insufficient understanding of horrors experienced by millions of Jews in the Holocaust, homelessness of the survivors, and the United Nations decision in 1947 to establish the State of Israel. The wisdom of that decision can be retrospectively questioned, but the U.S. commitment to defend it is deeply rooted.
President Eisgruber ’83 and the administration have managed the student divestment campaign successfully, allowing freedom of expression, but also insisting upon a comprehensive perspective. Princeton, with its long-established strength in Near Eastern studies, may have a novel opportunity to bridge the educational gap for the 21st century generation, at Princeton, and even elsewhere, by assisting universities in need of wise and empathetic instruction regarding the ongoing plight of Israel and its neighbors. The need is urgent and educational in nature. No doubt the bright minds of the younger generation are capable of understanding Israel’s dilemma, once provided with sufficient balanced expert guidance.
This potential initiative could constitute a tall order for a carefully selected faculty task force, but the potential benefit is major.
As in previous times, Princeton has an opportunity to reconfirm its leadership role in the nation’s service.
Michael Schewel ’75
5 Months AgoI see from your April 2024 issue that Princeton students have lobbied the University to disinvest in Israeli companies. Personally, I deplore the current Israeli government and vocally criticize many, but not all, of its actions in Gaza in response to the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre of Israelis and the kidnapping of Israeli citizens, many of whom are still being held captive.
But when it comes to disinvestment, I ask these questions. Did students organize a petition for disinvestment from Russia when Russia launched its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, killing tens of thousands of Ukrainians? No, they did not. Did students organize a petition for disinvestment from China when the Chinese, without provocation, killed, imprisoned, and sought to (and continually seek to) culturally eliminate non-Han Chinese, including Uyghurs and Tibetans? No, they did not. Did students organize a petition for disinvestment from Saudi Arabia for the role it has played in Yemen’s civil war, which has killed 150,000 Yemenis? No, they did not.
Why, then, are students lobbying for disinvestment from Israel rather than Russia, China, or Saudi Arabia? Is it because Israel was attacked by Hamas before it attacked Gaza? I don’t think so. Is it because Israel is a democracy and those other countries are autocracies. Again, I don’t think so. Sadly, the reason is obvious: Israel is a Jewish state and those other countries are not. This disinvestment campaign is a perfect example of why disproportionate criticism of Israel, even, as now when Israel deserves criticism, is really a form of thinly disguised antisemitism. And Princeton students should be ashamed for conducting this disinvestment campaign.
David Schechter ’80, Michael Goldstein ’78, Ted Goldstein ’20, Gary Gruber ’80
5 Months AgoAn article in PAW, April 2024, reported on students who launched an Israel divestment campaign. It is noted that at the CPUC meeting Feb. 19, President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 opposed this effort.
While we applaud President Eisgruber for opposing this unconscionable boycott, perhaps he should have used the opportunity to educate the students about the false claims in their petition (“ongoing massacre in Gaza and … Israel’s apartheid regime”). It is time for faculty and adults to teach our young people the truth and not just tolerate the false narratives and historical distortions they have learned on social media and in classrooms.
It’s also worth noting that 38 states have passed bills or executive orders designed to discourage boycotts of Israel, including New Jersey.
We have not seen articles about divestment of very troubling countries. Where is the petition to divest from Iran, which funds the radical terrorist groups throughout the Mideast (Hezbollah, Houthis, Hamas, Palestine Islamic Jihad)? This tyrannical misogynistic regime that hangs gay people from cranes deserves ostracism from the international community. Meanwhile, China has put an estimated million Muslim Uyghurs in concentration/reeducation camps, where they reportedly face forced rape and sterilization.
Perhaps China, Russia, and Venezuela deserve University divestment. Israel, in contrast, is a democratic, multicultural state that respects both religious and LGBT rights.
Six months ago, Israel was attacked by Hamas. Jihadis massacred Israelis and non-Israelis in savage attacks, burning people alive, raping women, and kidnapping children and the elderly and holding them hostage.
Israel, where Arabs serve in parliament, the supreme court, and are doctors, pharmacists, and soldiers, is not an apartheid nation. Indeed, the 2 million Arabs who live in Israel, who have many more rights than their counterparts elsewhere in the Muslim world, would be among the first victims of such a discriminatory boycott.
Don Tocher ’59
5 Months AgoThe calls by PIAD and others for a cease fire by the IDF usually cite the 28,000 or more casualties suffered by those in Gaza. These numbers come from the Gaza Health Ministry, which operates under Hamas. Whatever the real casualty rate is, it must include Hamas fighters as well as civilians. Do you remember Orwell’s Ministry of Truth or the Nazis’ Big Lie about Jews?
Civilian casualties are a shame, but immoral? The U.S. and its allies killed millions of Japanese and German civilians in World War II. Why? Because they were harboring and generally supporting fanatical warriors.
The New York Times editorialized on March 22: “… that pro-Palestinian skew is much greater among the young. According to a November Quinnipiac University poll, Democrats under the age of 35 sympathize more with Palestinians than with Israelis by 58 points.”
It seems that with maturity, there’s a shift to the rational.
Many Palestinian supporters cry for a two-state solution. Netanyahu is understandably against this. In the 75 years in which the Palestinians have been juxtaposed with Israel, they have harbored or have been led by terrorists. Thus, they have demonstrated no ability to be responsible members of world community.
Ann Herendeen ’77
5 Months AgoI was saddened but not surprised to read about the launch of the Israel Divestment Campaign. Causes and activism inevitably follow the fashion; even Princeton cannot stand against the tide. If everyone is doing it, it must be right.
I don’t like Israel’s right-wing government either. But I would ask students, faculty and administrators to consider what they hope to achieve by disinvesting. When Jewish businesses around the world are defaced with swastikas; when Jewish students on American campuses feel it necessary to hide their skullcaps and Stars of David for fears of personal safety; when rape and acts of terror are celebrated as “resistance”: What are you really protesting — or saying? From my distance of over 45 years from campus life, and lifetime residence in New York City with its large Jewish population, I don’t see meaningful criticism of a democratic ally in a dangerous part of the world. Instead, I see growing waves of the chronic and universal antisemitism that looks for any excuse to erupt.
As a popular meme on social media has it: A Zionist Jew and an Anti-Zionist Jew walk into a bar. The bartender says, “We don’t serve Jews.”
And as British Jewish comedian and author (“Jews Don’t Count”) David Baddiel has said, the fact that he is an atheist would have made no difference to the Nazis. He’d be shot or sent to the gas chamber regardless of his personal beliefs, simply for the fact of being ethnically Jewish. The past months, if they have taught us anything, have shown that anti-Zionism is often simply the acceptable face of antisemitism.
Here in the U.S., we see how hard it is to elect reasonable leaders, how difficult to change our Constitution with its antiquated Electoral College and activist Supreme Court. Israel is fighting the same kind of internal battle. Rather than divest, why not invest more political and cooperative energy into working for a long-term solution for peace?