Thank you for the article on Princeton Israeli Apartheid Divest (PIAD), “What You Need to Know About the Israeli Divestment Proposal” (September issue). In my view, the article is articulate and constructive, and this effort by the PIAD group is not.
First, the Israeli effort is a response to an action initiated by Hamas; had that action not been initiated, then the Israeli response would have had no basis for occurring. A fair analogy in my view is the U.S. response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941; that led to American entry into the war and led eventually to attacks on the Japanese homeland and people. So, in my view, had Hamas not initiated this conflict then Israel would have had no basis for responding. That being the case, if PIAD wishes to move forward, then it should move forward against Hamas — and perhaps also against those who have supported Hamas, including the Palestinians, Lebanon, Iran and perhaps others — at least to the same extent as it proposes to act against Israel. And perhaps it should move against any party initiating warlike conflict and any party responding. If it were to do so and to be so fair, then it would be asking for actions against most entities in the global economy.
Secondly, it has been clear that Hamas, in building its military capability, used residential areas as part of its defense establishment — in effect, giving the enemy a choice of deferring actions against its military facilities or attacking those facilities with the resulting attacks on the populace that Hamas controls, and exposes — being willing to see its populace suffer and to have PIAD-like responses result. Given that, the very least that PIAD should do is to initiate action against Hamas as the perpetrator and as a party willing to sacrifice its populace.
Third and finally, I believe strongly that Princeton University should deny this PIAD proposal because, as I argue above, it is biased and inconsistent with the facts surrounding this Hamas-Israel conflict.