Queen’s divestment debate persists as committee evaluates community .
Although the public consultation period closed on Nov. 20, the debate over the University’s potential divestment from “its pooled endowment and investment funds from companies that do business in or with the State of Israel” continues to stir reactions from the broader community. Some student leaders, students, and alumni argue granting the divestment request would undermine the University’s principles.
The divestment request was made by Queen’s University Apartheid Divestment (QUAD) following a 12-day encampment on campus in May, which drove the Principal and Vice-Chancellor Patrick Deane to establish a Review Committee under the University’s Responsible Investing Policy.
READ MORE: Community rallies for divestment and solidarity at campus event
As stated in the Queen’s Gazette, the public consultation ran from August to mid-October, providing community with opportunities to share their perspectives through written reports and in-person presentations. Over 320 written submissions, representing 550 individuals and organizations, were received, and 44 in-person consultations were held across four days.
While the letters and submissions weren’t made publicly available, The Journal obtained several letters from individuals opposing divestment.
Yos Tarshish, director of Hillel Queen’s expressed concerns over the effectiveness of divestment in fostering meaningful change, particularly in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
“To be honest, I object to divestment primarily because it’s not an effective means of making change in the Middle East. Divesting from one side doesn’t meaningfully help the seven million Israelis and seven million Palestinians that live between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River,” Tarshish said in an interview with The Journal. “The only way to see change is to be pro-solution, not pro-one side or the other.”
Tarshish proposed different ways to promote understanding and cohesion at Queen’s, including efforts to bridge the divide between Jewish, Muslim, Israeli, and Palestinian communities on campus.
“A lot of the disconnect comes from the fact that we don’t know or see each other or understand each other as communities,” he explained. “The discourse on campus isn’t just about the conflict in the Middle East; it’s about the way we walk past one another.”
Tarshish also suggested utilizing experts at Queen’s, such as Professor Oded Haklai, to foster a deeper understanding of the issues at play. Tarshish criticized the University’s reluctance to engage with experts, particularly in addressing concerns of antisemitism.
READ MORE: Professors call for action against antisemitism at Queen’s
In addition to fostering dialogue, Tarshish proposed more proactive measures, such as creating an investment policy that includes Israeli and Palestinian leadership or sponsoring an annual delegation of peacebuilders from both communities.
“What does it look like for Queen’s to sponsor an annual delegation that brings Israeli and Palestinian peacebuilders to Queen’s?” he asked. “What does it look like to create courses that create a generation of leaders that can look for different ways to solve the world’s most enduring conflicts?”
Among the alumni contributing to the consultation was Karen Levine, Sci ’85, who travelled from Vancouver to Kingston to ensure her voice was heard by the committee throughout the open consultation session—sharing both positive and challenging experiences. She recalled how a conversation with a first-year engineering classmate about Rosh Hashanah led to a lasting friendship but also detailed her encounter with antisemitism when a roommate made a derogatory remark.
“Not all was perfect on other fronts, but Queen’s grew as an institution and of the Kingston Community, making great strides with gender equality and cultural diversity,” Levine wrote in her letter.
Levine, who remains involved with Queen’s through her service on the University Council and as a member of the Sci ’85 Homecoming Committee, emphasized the importance of objective criteria in resolving such divisive issues.
“Any decision by this committee to divest, isolate, or boycott Israel provides a clear and unmistakable signal that the University is siding with terrorist organizations, opening wider its gates to the most vicious antisemitism anyone has seen in generations,” she said.
Additionally, several of the University have voiced their opposition to the divestment proposed by QUAD, arguing the policy creates a harmful double standard and singles out Israel while ignoring other nations with significant human rights abuses, according to Zev Winegust, second-year JD candidate.
According to Winegust, QUAD’s proposed divestment policy would create a double standard harmful to Jewish students saying, “Divestment is especially egregious given Canada’s history of antisemitism and the current surge in antisemitic incidents.”
Additionally, with the historical context of Jewish persecution, including Canada’s refusal to it Jewish refugees during the Holocaust, Winegust stressed the proposed divestment would legitimize antisemitism on campus and exacerbate the already precarious situation for Jewish students, especially as antisemitic incidents have surged across the country, including on university campuses.
READ MORE: Antisemitic incidents occur on and off Queen’s campus
Queen’s Chancellor Emeritus and Committee Chair, Jim Leech, explained in the Queen’s Gazette the committee would carefully review these contributions as it works towards a recommendation for Principal and Vice-Chancellor Patrick Deane—which will ultimately be presented to the University’s Board of Trustees.
Tags
Responsible Investing Committee
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].
Wolfe Erlichman
The headline of this article is not accurate. The article is not about “peacebuilding. All three people interviewed are Jewish and pro Israel while no ers of divestment were interviewed. The first person interviewed is the director of Hillel, Queen’s who begins by giving lip service to “discourse” but ends by recommending a hardline er of Israel who is not trusted by Palestinians to help with the discourse. I had my own taste of the Hillel’s director’s attempt at “fostering dialogue” when I tried to talk to him about the situation. I am Jewish and a er of Palestinian human rights. Although the director was friendly initially, he quickly became combative and maybe even hateful. There was very little attempt made to foster dialogue The second person interviewed doesn’t even pretend to want “discourse” as she quickly accuses proponents of divesting from Israel as belonging to, or ing, “terrorist organizations. Calling people terrorists does not lead to dialogue The third person interviewed basically repeats Israel’s propaganda tropes of Israel being singled out and whataboutism.
It seems to me that the people interviewed were not interested in “peacebuilding” or “discourse” despite the headline and the writer’s framing. Instead, in my opinion, they want to maintain the status quo in order for Israel to remain as an apartheid state.
Molly
The argument Zev makes, itself, acknowledges that Israel is a country that has committed significant human rights abuses. Maybe instead of worrying about setting a double-standard by only divesting from Israel, did Zev consider that maybe divestment activists *do* want divestment from bad actors broadly? They are focusing on Israel right now because, at the moment, it is committing the most live-streamed genocide in history. There is a clear intention in this article to not acknowledge the reality of the situation- every day 100s of new videos come out of Israeli massacres- dead women, children, and babies. Two days ago I saw an image of a dead 2-year old girl who had been shot in the skull by an Israeli sniper, alongside the 2-inch bullet that had been removed from her head. Her little body could not handle the removal of the bullet. On that same day, I saw video of a 10-year old girl shot in the chest while standing outside of the UN office. 4 humanitarian aid workers were also killed by Israel on that day. I mention only two pieces out of the countless evidence that has been shared from Gaza and attested to by international bodies as well as our Canadian doctors who bravely volunteered on the ground.
This article mentions “antisemitism” but does not clarify what they mean by that- do critiques of Israel count as antisemitism, even when they are in reference to Israel’s policy choices that are leading Palestinians to their premature deaths? The subliminal message seems to be that pro-Palestinian activism is inherently anti-semitic or terrorist-adjacent. The article completely ignores the significant Jewish presence that has been consistent through all pro-Palestine activism, and I find it interesting that while this vague notion of rising anti-semitism is mentioned many times, there’s no mention of anti-Palestinian racism, or comments from those who called for divestment. How can this article claim to be about peace-building and fostering dialogue between communities when it has completely neglected the perspective of one “side”? The “side” which contains Jewish allies AND Palestinian students who have literally had to watch as Israel massacres their homeland, and their loved ones. Do better QJ, your bias is showing.