Panel Defends Divestment

Five supporters of the Harvard-MIT petition to divest from Israel cited personal experience and historical precedent as they argued their position in front of a predominately pro-Israel audience at a Harvard Law School panel yesterday.

The speakers included Lamont Professor of Divinity and Winthrop House Master Paul D. Hanson, Professor of Psychology Elizabeth Spelke, Pierce Professor of Psychology Ken Nakayama, and Professors Molly Potter and Nancy Kanwisher from the Brain and Cognitive Sciences Department at MIT.

The divestment petition, which was first circulated last spring, calls for Harvard to cut off its investments in companies that do business in Israel until Israel ends its occupation of Palestinian territories.

The petition also urges Israel to comply with a number of United Nations resolutions and put a stop to alleged human rights abuses.

Some members of the Harvard community, including Harvard Students for Israel (HSI), have opposed the divestment petition. University President Lawrence H. Summers has said that Harvard will not divest from Israel. In a speech last month, Summers said that supporters of ideas including divestment are “anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent” in a speech last month.

Hanson, who has drawn the ire of Frankfurter Professor of Law Alan Dershowitz for declining to debate him in Winthrop House, said last night he believed that Harvard should pressure Israel to withdraw from occupied territories through withholding investments.

Nakayama quoted George Washington’s Farewell Address, which warns against “permanent antipathies or passionate attachments to any one country,” as he argued that the U.S. should not favor Israel in the current conflict.

Moderator Duncan Kennedy, who is Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence at Harvard Law School, instructed crowd members to remain silent as the panelists spoke.

But several audience members interjected various comments throughout the panel discussion, causing Hanson to say the petition was “missing nuances.”

“When citizens join together to be heard, they come up with imperfect statements,” Hanson said.

Students and community members opposed to divestment were given the chance to respond to speakers in a strictly-moderated, 30-minute questioning period.

Audience members representing both sides of the issue actively participated in questioning the panelists.

One student asked why Israel should risk its self-defense on the basis of purely academic theories.

Others took issue with the petition’s view of terrorism and the cycle of violence and retaliation currently plaguing the Middle East.

The crowd included many supporters of Israel, who donned Israeli flags and posters.

“I was ecstatic to see the pro-Israel turnout,” said HSI President David B. Adelman ’04. “It’s great to see the campus so galvanized over this issue.”

But he said that the one-sided nature of the panel did not allow for a truly equal debate.

“I was very disappointed to see that all the panelists represented only one side,” Adelman said.

Hanson also said that while he felt that last night’s panel was a very positive event, it was only a tiny step in the divestment debate.

“The next step is to continue this urgently needed educational dialogue in a panel with equal representation on both sides,” he said. “Putting together a balanced panel will allow for a more fruitful, useful, and civil discussion.”