Order about vendors’ human rights violations begs many questions and demands follow-up
Cambridge residents engaged in nearly a dozen hours of passionate testimony before the City Council on May 17 and May 24, as Israel was again wreaking massive destruction on the Gaza Strip.
Hundreds testified in support of a resolution that would terminate purchasing contracts with Hewlett Packard because of its role in providing computers used by Israel to biometrically track Palestinians and maintain Israel’s 54-year military occupation, and its involvement in the surveillance, detention and deportation of immigrants in the United States.
The resolution ordered the city manager “to review Cambridge’s corporate contracts and identify any companies that are in violation of Cambridge’s policy on discrimination, including (but not limited to) Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Hewlett Packard Inc. over their role in abetting apartheid in the Middle East.”
This resolution did not come to a vote. Instead, on May 25, the City Council voted 9-0 in favor of a substitute policy order that makes no mention of Hewlett Packard, but mandates that the city manager “review Cambridge’s corporate contracts and purchases to identify any vendors or manufacturers whose products are used to perpetuate violations of international human rights laws” and report back to the council. There is no action required beyond the city manager reporting. Would the council then recommend terminating contracts with groups complicit in human rights violations? Who knows? Apparently each report would require further action by the council to execute the boycott.
We write to follow up on the passage of the order. What steps is the city taking to review contracts in search of human rights violations? What are the criteria for defining violations of international law? Who is responsible for conducting the review? When and how often will the review be reported to the public?
Many of us have worked for years to find nonviolent ways to implement international human rights law in countries where violations are rampant. The constitutionally protected right to boycott is a powerful tool to accomplish such a goal, and we have seen its success in challenging abusive regimes such as South Africa’s during the battle to end apartheid. We welcome the passage of the order, but it will make a difference only if it is implemented. Transparency is essential in the process to implement the policy order, and we urge a process in which the policy order leads to decisive action beyond mere reporting and the public can monitor its implementation.
John Roberts, Nancy Murray, Denise Bergman, Kathy Roberts, Jude Glaubman, Chris Affleck and signed by more than 100 Cambridge residents
Like the letter writers, I am deeply disturbed by Israel’s occupation of Gaza, but I wonder why they stop at criticism of Israel.
I wonder why they do not mention Israel’s neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or other OPEC states where, by law, fully 50% of the population are often treated as children or possessions by their male relatives?
I wonder why they do not mention much larger US trading partners, such as China, whose oppression of the Uighurs is far more one-sided and on a far greater scale?
In a world where dozens of countries need to improve, and we single out only one–the Jewish one–we are behaving in an anti-semitic way.
@PeterG You are more than welcome to join efforts to hold countries other than Israel to account for their human rights violations. But I don’t see how it’s remotely antisemitic to focus on the human rights violations of a country that’s Jewish. In fact, many of the people doing so are Jewish.
Barry Abel–My efforts or your signers’ religions are not the issue here, and my letter noted my own criticism of Israel. The anti-semitic aspect of your behavior is that Israel is your ONLY “focus”, as you put it.
You criticize the City Council for not acting on all countries with an even hand. You criticize Hewlett Packard for supporting Israel, yet you are silent on Hewlett Packard doing business in countries with even greater violations. You likely are doing this from a laptop made in country with severe violations that are in the news every day.
Similar to your letter–it is not racist for a police officer to stop a suspicious vehicle or person for interrogation, and then to arrest that same person for a violation. But when the ONLY people pulled over are Black, we see that as racist behavior.
PeterG – I didn’t say that Israel was my only focus; it’s not. And I’m guessing that it’s not the only focus of the signers of the letter.
In my case, I’ve been more involved with Israel than with other foreign countries because I was raised as a Jew and a Zionist. My familiarity with Israel, plus my concern and personal motivation, make this an easy issue for me to be productive on. I like to pitch in where I know I can make a difference. Also, Jewish support for Palestinian rights actually helps to fight antisemitism, since people like me are countering the perception of monolithic Jewish support for Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians that Israel and the Zionist movement try to cultivate.
The charge of antisemitism against critics of Israel is just an attempt to silence people who expose the obvious falsehood that Israel is an unusually moral country. Wouldn’t it make more sense to question why people believe things that obviously aren’t true than to condemn the people who expose the truth and fight for justice?
I have not attempted to silence anyone. On the contrary, I made it clear that I find Israel’s policies toward Gaza deeply disturbing. Nor did I say that Israel is unusually moral. I only said more moral than the glaring examples of China and Saudi Arabia. But all three need to do better.
OTOH, you have criticized the City Council for asserting they they should consider the behaviors of all countries. You have beseeched them to look only at Israel while ignoring the larger examples. This uneven treatment is the very definition of anti-semitism.
PeterG – You seem to be jumping to conclusions about what my involvement in the Cambridge efforts on HP has been. You also seem to be misstating what other people have done, but I’ll leave it up to them to speak up on that. Finally, you have a strange definition of antisemitism.