Among the more contested of the upcoming Student Senate referendum issues is that of divestment from the Israeli military. Students promoting this issue are calling upon the College to pull investments out of companies or organizations that hold contracts with the Israeli military, thereby making a statement against the ongoing territorial dispute occurring there.

In an effort to inform interested students about the means and aims of divestment, Students for a Free Palestine sponsored a forum Thursday afternoon. Three panelists spoke to a group of approximately 20 students regarding the fundamental issues of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and why they believe widespread institutional divestment, including Oberlin’s potential contribution to this movement, is necessary.

Kate Raphael (OC ’80) was the first to speak, relating her experience as a student promoting South African divestment as an outcry against apartheid. She stated that although the administration at the time was not receptive to protests regarding this issue, concerned students kept up the fight.

“[The administration] said we didn’t know what we were talking about, and they were right,” she said. “I want to say it didn’t matter. We didn’t have to know the geography and culture and language to know apartheid was wrong.”

Raphael stressed the contribution made through divestment from South African corporations practicing segregation as a large factor in apartheid’s eventual dissolution.

“It’s important to remember that divestment from South Africa didn’t come easily,” she said. “It was bitter and fraught with struggle. Divestment in this case, I think, will come easier. South African apartheid has proved it can work.”

Second to address the audience was solidarity activist of Ohio State University Wendy Ake. Ake, a member of OSU’s Committee for Justice in Palestine, spoke largely on international law and Israel’s alleged human rights violations.

“There is an absence of a global mechanism to enforce international laws,” she stated. “And Israel has placed itself outside the boundaries of international law.”

Ake also emphasized the power of individual involvement and the possible influential effects Americans can have on global policy. “The U.S. determines world policy and politics....As U.S. citizens we need to become active and make sure our voices are heard,” she stated. “[Divestment] is empowering for people on the local level, when one is wondering, ‘What can I do?’”

Last to speak at the forum was Gordon Shull, retired College of Wooster political science professor. Shull, also an elder in the Presbyterian Church since 1955, has been active in its incremental divestment throughout the years. He addressed positive relationships between Israelis and Palestinians, and their potential to amend the situation. “There are Jews in Israel deeply committed to Palestinian justice and dignity,” he stated. “I believe if we are to achieve a decent peace, we need to rally the support of those Jews.”

Shull also addressed the general turmoil within the Middle East. “One of my profound regrets of the past 30 years is that the U.S. did not insist Israelis move out of Gaza and the West Bank,” he stated.

Dialogue involving the panelists and audience following the speaker presentations was largely centered around the definition of apartheid and if the Israeli state can be called such. “A lot of people really hate to have that qualified,” said Ake.

“For me the real problem is the occupation,” added Shull. “I’m not sure it helps to speculate on whether or not the situation in Israel can be defined as apartheid.”

Also discussed was whether the divestment movement is racist in its implications.

“Israel is not the only human rights violator in the world...but focusing on one at a time is strategically effective,” stated Raphael. “We are singling out Israel, but not unfairly.”