In recent months, students and professors at many Boston-area universities, have called for divestment from companies that do business in Israel. Divestment is the policy of ending investments in a given country, due to a government's unfavorable actions on issues, including human rights violations. Comparing the situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories to the apartheid-era policies in South Africa , these academics feel divestment may do for the Israeli government what it did for the South African one: Get them to end unjust policies.The government of Israel, however -- while certainly guilty of some human rights violations, including demolition of homes, expulsion of suspected terrorists, restriction of civilian movement and expropriation of foreign territory -- has not committed the egregious acts South Africa did when many institutions, including Brandeis, chose to divest in the 1980s.

The white-controlled South African government employed a policy of organized racial discrimination and segregation against the country's black majority. For the past nine years, the Israeli government has negotiated with the minority Palestinian population it controls to find a just settlement to end the conflict. Israel has also been faced with a serious terrorist onslaught that many blame for fueling the conflict. Comparison of Israel to South Africa is academically irresponsible and inherently false.

Additionally, faculty and students who support divestment should consider why they seek to isolate Israel in a region of undemocratic regimes and human rights violators. Despite obvious human rights violations, Israel remains the only democracy in the Middle East and has fewer violations than its neighbors. For example, according the New York Times Egypt recently locked up one of its most active pro-democracy figures without charge. Similarly, the previous Syrian regime was responsible for the mass murder of civilians in the town of Hama, where a few villagers had been suspected of anti-government activities.

An extreme extension of this logic would lead to divestment from every country in the Middle East; however, this tactic is mostly harmful. Divestment serves no purpose greater than winning media attention, and universities should be applauded for not permitting a few students and professors to equate Israel with apartheid-era South Africa.

Divestment may also isolate and lionize a government to the point that foreign intervention will have little influence. By taking money away from Israeli companies, universities will effectively destroy any influence they had on the actions of those corporations. Indeed, those universities may be taking money away from liberal Israeli businessmen who are working for a peaceful solution to the conflict, in addition to the staunch right-wing supporters they are attempting to harm through divestment.

A more effective policy might be to invest in companies with positive track records. Showing support of these businesses, particularly in countries where human rights violations are the norm, would put pressure on less ethical companies, but would not hurt the entire economy indiscriminately.

Brandeis students should actively discuss divestment as their peers are both in Boston and across the nation if only to force the University administration to examine Brandeis' relationship, in general, with Israel.

Reinharz said the University does not advocate any political ideology; however, the recent anti-intimidation pledge that he co-authored reminds us that Brandeis is deeply rooted in Zionism. We must ensure Brandeis maintains the same relationship with Israel it has with other countries. We should not divest from Israel -- the idea has not even been voiced at Brandeis -- but we should not be its advocate either.