In divestment debate, human rights must be a single standard

The City Council is currently weighing policy orders to divest City funds from, and restrict purchases involving, companies tied to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. The debate has caused undeniable anguish among our neighbors. The two of us have worked together on some issues and opposed each other on many others. On the question of whether these policy orders as written are appropriate for the city, though, we agree that the answer is a clear and unqualified No.  

Supporters of these two orders point to Cambridge’s divestment from apartheid South Africa. We were both part of that movement in the early 1980s, and we are proud of it. But the comparison breaks down in ways that deserve to be named honestly. The South African struggle Cambridge supported did not celebrate the deliberate killing of civilians. Hamas did exactly that on October 7, murdering families, children and young people dancing at a music festival. It also filmed and broadcast its own atrocities. And apartheid was a codified system of racial rule that nearly the whole world condemned. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict involves competing claims over sovereignty, land, refugees and security that are among the hardest in the world to resolve.

None of that excuses the suffering being visited upon Gaza. The toll on Palestinian civilians in Gaza has been devastating, and the Israeli government’s conduct warrants scrutiny and condemnation where it is earned. Our point is narrower: complexity calls for a standard, not a double standard.

If the goal is to keep Cambridge dollars from supporting war crimes or serious human rights abuses, why would that standard apply to only one country? A principled policy would examine our investments and purchasing for ties to companies directly complicit in abuses anywhere: Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Iran, Syria, South Sudan and others. It should have impact closer to home, too. Are we doing business with companies that support unlawful immigration enforcement or military action by our own government? A human rights policy should turn on the conduct, not the nationality of the government. 

Federal aid to Israel is a matter for Congress, not our municipal budget. Our job is to set a fair, workable standard for the money we actually control.

There is a second concern we cannot ignore. Antisemitism, though down by some measures from its peak in 2023, remains sharply higher since 2022 in our country and our city, and across Massachusetts reached record levels last year.  In such a moment, the Council has a responsibility to be careful about the words we use to describe what is happening abroad and the policies we enact in response, so that we do not help foster a climate in which Jews are made to feel unsafe.

Criticizing the Israeli government is legitimate, and many Israelis and American Jews are among its fiercest critics. But a City Council policy is not a protest sign. It is an official act that speaks for every resident. When Cambridge declares that, of all the governments implicated in abuses, this is the one whose business partners we will shun, it sends a message about who stands outside the circle of acceptable company. Our Jewish neighbors will hear that message, and so will those looking for permission to act on their hatred.

The orders also raise a practical question their authors have not answered. Who decides which vendors are “tied” to Israeli government actions, and by what test? In practice, a screen like that falls on companies by national origin, and on the people who own and work in them. That is not how a Welcoming City treats its businesses or its residents.

We have seen where this leads. A man drove an explosives-laden truck into a synagogue with a preschool in Michigan. An arsonist set fire to the Pennsylvania governor’s residence. Hatred of this kind does not stop to ask what its targets think of Israeli policy, and neither should a policy meant to serve all of Cambridge.

We have heard direct testimony from Jewish residents who fear for their safety and from families whose children have been harassed at school. When an Israeli-owned business is marked with antisemitic graffiti while its neighbors are passed over, that owner is entitled to wonder what comes next. Ethnic hatred starts small, and a Welcoming City cannot wait until it is large.

We owe our Palestinian neighbors the same compassion we owe our Jewish neighbors, and the two should not compete. Acknowledging Palestinian suffering does not minimize Jewish fear, and confronting antisemitism does not diminish Palestinian humanity. Cambridge cannot let its policy become a zero-sum game in which empathy for one people must be proved by pointing a finger at another. Some will call this a simple question of right and wrong. It is not. This conflict runs centuries deep, and a municipal government should respect that complexity rather than impose a policy that deepens the harm.

Cambridge should not target one country and call it principle. A real standard is simple to state: no City dollar goes to a company complicit in war crimes or serious human rights abuses, whatever flag the abuser flies, and that includes our own. It is a harder standard than the one before us, and a better one. It honors Palestinian suffering without excusing Hamas. It protects Jewish residents without silencing critics of Israel. And it shows that our values do not change with the headlines. We urge our colleagues to vote for that policy, and to reject one that asks Cambridge to condemn some abuses while ignoring the rest.

The writers are Cambridge City Councillors.

A stronger

Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.

We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.

Please consider a recurring contribution.

Donate now