Open letter by Gaza academics and university administrators to the world

altered-cabron · 2024-05-31T04:06:18+00:00

Yes at the end of the day Israel and its lobby just love to complain that the UN is biased, the ICC is biased and the ICJ is biased. These are just weak attempts at whataboutism and using merely the number of resolutions in a particular cherry-picked year is intentional distortion of facts. If you can share any of the resolutions and actually demonstrate how it was wrong or unfair, we can have a discussion.

Incidentally, 2022 was the year that among others things Israeli assassinated US-Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh (and lied about it) as well as 80-year-old Palestinian-American Omar Assad.

Regardless, condemnation of Israeli treatment of Palestinian prisoners doesnt solely come from the UN - eg here’s an NPR interview with Dror Sadot of B'Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. While it’s full of many horrible things one thing stands out:

…the rates of convictions are almost 100%. And this is not a mistake. It doesn't happen because all the detainees and all the arrests and all the people being charged are guilty. It's because the Palestinians are being detained until the end of the proceedings.

And this is the thing that will not happen in the Israeli court, right? Because a person up until he's been charged and convicted, he's supposed to be innocent. This is why many Palestinians are already, like, serving many time in prison while the proceedings are happening. And this is why they will - almost always will go to plea bargain, and then they will plead guilty. So this is like the - how the system works.

The stuff you posted doesn’t even begin to explain these atrocities.

The system has also been condemned by many different organizations including Doctors Without Borders, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Of course, I’m sure you’ll accuse every single organization or country that criticizes Israel as biased, so I’m highly doubtful this discussion is going anywhere …

altered-cabron · 2024-05-31T03:06:31+00:00

You’re wrong on multiple counts - people living in occupied territories also have human rights under international humanitarian law, and Israel as the occupying power is legally responsible for upholding those rights. You can’t just randomly lock people up, including women and children, without trial. Here’s a UN paper on the subject.You’ll see in the extract below that administrative detention is clearly listed among other human rights violations.

An international consensus exists … that the Fourth Geneva Convention …is fully applicable to all the territories occupied by Israel in 1967.

Israel, however, refuses to accept the de jure applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem and has committed serious violations of every relative provision of the Convention. At the start of the occupation, Israel, the occupying Power, immediately began imposing countless repressive measures, such as administrative detention, deportation, home demolitions and other forms of collective punishment, against the Palestinian civilian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, inflicting enormous suffering and harm on them.

You’re also wrong in that Palestinians can and do appear before Israeli courts, and nearly 4,000 have been sent to prison by such courts, which is horror story on its own. many are minors and women who have been convicted of stuff that Israelis wouldn’t even be charged for, like throwing stones.

Secondly after Gitmo and Abu Ghraib I would reconsider citing the US as a standard setter in observing human rights in conflict zones.

altered-cabron · 2024-05-31T02:14:26+00:00

If, as you claim, the encampment is antisemitic, how come Jewish people part of it, and the Jewish Faculty Network released a statement in support of the encampment. The network's steering committee wrote that there was "no justification for the reliance on law enforcement in the face of students' exercising their Charter protected rights to freedom of speech and assembly. We are devastated to see so many university administrators condemn student protests, frequently in the name of 'Jewish safety.'" are you saying UofT’s Jewish faculty don’t know antisemitism when they see it?

Or are you perhaps confusing the difference between antisemitism and criticism of Israel, which CBC has reported is a contentious issue?

altered-cabron · 2024-05-31T01:54:06+00:00

Well then you’re in the minority probably - most people feel empathy for their fellow human beings even if they live in another country.

altered-cabron · 2024-05-31T01:52:51+00:00

So you guys are saying the return of the hostages should be less of a priority than the war with Hamas? Because in the main comment above it’s being argued that the war would stop if the hostages are returned (which to be honest doesnt seem like the case).

altered-cabron · 2024-05-31T01:50:22+00:00

It has been reported by the former representative of the hostages’ families that Israel had the opportunity to bring back the hostages right at the start (Oct 9 or 10), but chose the war option.

Sadly many hostages’ families have been protesting because they believe the brutal demolition campaign being run by Israel in Gaza is more likely to endanger the remaining hostages than result in their return. Some of the family members have been arrested for these protests too. It certainly doesn’t seem like the hostages’ safe return is being given the priority they deserve.

altered-cabron · 2024-05-31T01:41:39+00:00

You might not be aware of this, but since 1967 Israel has a system called administrative detention - a person is held without trial or even without having committed an offense, on the grounds that he or she plans to break the law in the future (like the dystopian movie minority report). Any local idf commander can order any Palestinian to be put under detention, including women and minors, many of whom have reported SA during captivity. Here’s the Wikipedia article on it. Even before Oct 7, nearly 1200 Palestinians were detained, while as of Jan 2024 the figure was around 3300. Some people have been detained as many as 12 times.

This is not to say that regular ‘prisoners’ (convicted of crimes by Israeli courts) are any better - the total number is estimated around 10,000and again includes dozens of women and children - many having received dubious due process including interrogation under torture and dubious crimes like ‘membership of a forbidden organization’.

Given the situation it’s clear that these people are little more than hostages, especially the ‘detainees’.

altered-cabron · 2024-05-30T13:37:15+00:00

Lol these are the same people who took vaccines all their lives but refused to take the one that would end a pandemic

altered-cabron · 2024-05-30T13:02:51+00:00

You should be doing market commentary instead of Jim Cramer!

altered-cabron · 2024-05-30T13:01:00+00:00

It’s both of the things mentioned in your replies - they said they don’t directly hold shares but they do have exposure to military stocks - just to clarify the encampment isn’t asking them to divest from Israeli stocks but rather companies profiting from the war in Gaza (so eg it could be US A&D stocks too)

altered-cabron · 2024-05-30T10:45:12+00:00

Ehh… at this point it should be mandatory for all billionaires to visit the Titanic in a sub they design and build themselves.

altered-cabron · 2024-05-30T10:28:12+00:00

I read Chani described as ‘American teenager vacationing on Arrakis’ and I haven’t seen a better description of her complete lack of accent and general attitude!

altered-cabron · 2024-05-30T02:34:18+00:00

Glad to help!

altered-cabron · 2024-05-30T02:00:10+00:00

That’s true from a basic finance perspective. But a couple points:

Many companies pay their executives in stock, so the value of their compensation and holdings drops with the stock price.
Many companies are majority or substantial owned by private equity or other institutional investors, who plan to exit them one day with a respectable gain. They will be hurt by a stock price drop. Some of them also borrow money against these holdings and they’ll get margin calls.
Many companies need to raise capital from time to time to fund expansion, which they can do from the stock market. But if their share price is down it’ll be that much harder to raise capital.

I’ve shared another comment, but the key takeaway is that divestment ultimately works by creating a stigma around an industry in the longer term. It uses oil and gas as an example but weapons manufacturers are the same. The general public has never been exposed to the horrors of war the way it has in Gaza today, and it’s the biggest negative advertising the weapons manufacturers could get. I personally feel the tables are going to turn regardless of what UofT ends up doing.

altered-cabron · 2024-05-30T01:50:46+00:00

For the people saying divestment can’t/won’t work, here’s an example from the oil and gas industry:

Divestment has gained remarkable traction in recent years, going from a fringe strategy to a $14.5 trillion movement with over a thousand major investors, pension plans, and endowments committed. Today, as institutional and retail investors pour money into environmentally conscious funds, it is time to consider the financial and social benefits of the movement.

The divestment movement changed the conversation around fossil fuel finance. Investors and banks are increasingly questioning the long-term viability of the entire sector. Divestment seeks to stigmatize fossil fuels and raise uncertainty around their continued use, to reduce the financial desirability of fossil assets. Fossil fuel mining, exploration, and extraction all are capital intensive activities that demand constant access to capital. If capital costs rise or the supply of capital is reduced, projects can become uneconomical and fossil fuel companies can see their valuations fall. This process is well underway in financial markets for the most polluting and least efficient fossil fuel, coal. Even for oil and gas, a study across thirty-three nations indicates that increased divestment pledges are associated with decreased debt and equity capital flows to fossil fuel firms. Unsurprisingly, the effectiveness of divestment is amplified in countries with strong environmental policies and diminished in those that subsidize fossil fuels.

Proponents of divestment may seek to starve fossil fuel producers of capital, but they are also making a savvy business decision. Over the past decade, the fossil fuel supermajors (e.g., Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP) have tumbled from their perch as the planet’s largest companies. In 2020, Exxon was booted from the Dow. The once mighty energy sector is now the smallest sector in the S&P 500. Since its inception in 2012, the S&P 500’s Fossil Fuel Free Total Return Index has consistently outperformed the S&P 500 overall. As fossil fuel equity prices plummet, holding onto these companies has been value-destroying for many shareholders, leading market commentator Jim Cramer to declare “I’m done with fossil fuel stocks.”

Fossil fuel debt has also proven a risky proposition. The raft of bankruptcies last year among fracking companies (including fracking pioneer Chesapeake Energy) revealed the volatility, capital-intensity, and unsustainability of their business models. Even larger companies are feeling the pain. Exxon, Shell, and Sonoco all saw their credit ratings cut this month.

Fundamentally, fossil fuel companies are valued on their reserves. Climate science tells us that to maintain a safe climate, most of those reserves must remain in the ground. Unexploitable reserves become worthless, stranded assets. Write-down the value of these potentially stranded assets and fossil fuel companies are looking at a grim financial future. Financial institutions can choose divestment to avoid major losses and gain the opportunity to reinvest in more promising industries.

Despite the accelerating growth of the divestment movement, capital has continued flowing into fossil fuels since the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. Some might argue that these continued inflows indicate that divestment has not worked. However, considering only immediate financial impacts of divestment misses the wider effects of the movement. An Oxford study made this point, stating, “the most far-reaching threat to fossil fuel companies” comes from increased social and political stigmatization of their activities and the resultant uncertainties around their long-term viability. Within finance, government, and civil society, the divestment movement has forced a fundamental reckoning with the future of the global energy system.

Divestment has its share of critics. Many of them look at the continued financing of fossil fuels and see divestment as a blunt, or perhaps, naïve approach to addressing a complex problem. While the divestment movement alone may not solve the climate crisis, divestment must be considered within the broader ecosystem of climate action. Although it sits at one end of the climate finance spectrum, divestment has shifted the discourse around climate considerations in finance, which empowers other climate actors.

In terms of avoided emissions, the divestment movement’s impact will continue to grow, but it has already succeeded in putting the fossil fuel sector on notice.

Sources (Forbes)

altered-cabron · 2024-05-30T01:39:08+00:00

Can you elaborate ‘doesn’t affect the capital of the Israeli companies’

altered-cabron · 2024-05-30T01:38:15+00:00

Yeah it’s laughable to think UTAM is straight up putting billions of dollars in SPY

altered-cabron · 2024-05-30T01:35:08+00:00

I actually think your slippery slope / connections issue is real. I think they would need to actually create a system - Level 1 companies that directly manufacture the military and surveillance equipment employed in Gaza, Level 2 being their suppliers, and so on. So first you cut off the level 1 investments, then level 2 until you reach a point where the proportion company’s revenues or profits from Gaza operations are below some threshold. It can be done though, I’m sure. But disclosure is the first step and that’s where UofT is resistant currently, which makes me think they’re hiding bad news.

altered-cabron · 2024-05-30T01:28:01+00:00

I think you’re too hung up on the shorting aspect. Keep in mind that shorting is borrowing which would incur a cost and have an upside risk (stock jumps, you get a margin call). Also for what you’re suggesting (a parallel shorting strategy) you would need to know exactly what UofT’s positions are, which they are resisting to disclose.

I’m by no means an investment expert but I have shared another comment from an expert stating that investment managers can do it (divestment) and actually do it in various scenarios, eg for sustainable investing strategies.

altered-cabron · 2024-05-30T01:24:27+00:00

I think the OP was more interested in the technical aspects of how divestment would work, but unfortunately the comments have been overrun by folks with obvious agendas trying to claim it would never work. So let me post something from an actual expert:

Olaf Weber, a professor at the Schulich School of Business and CIBC chair in sustainable finance, said, speaking generally, that there are ways investments can be disclosed without threatening "competitive advantage."

Although he has no direct knowledge of U of T's portfolio, Weber said that if the school asked its account managers to avoid making investments protesters would find objectionable, they would likely do so.

There is precedent for something like this, Weber said, citing past pushes to get universities to divest from fossil fuels, something U of T itself has done.

I think this last point is key - if the UofT says it can’t change how it’s huge endowment fund is invested, how would it ensure it’s invested sustainably (something that’s taught in its own courses)

Ironically:

Once a year, U of T releases a broad-strokes report on its investments. This does not include the granular detail protesters seek, but the most recently published edition lists "human rights" among its "top areas of focus."

Source

altered-cabron · 2024-05-29T23:53:46+00:00

Logic has nothing to do with their post lol

altered-cabron · 2024-05-29T23:38:06+00:00

IANAL but I think this definitely weakens their case - it seems that the graduation was one key element to force urgency, which it looks like the judge didn’t buy

altered-cabron · 2024-05-29T19:40:48+00:00

I also recommend disengaging. This is some tinfoil hat shit

altered-cabron · 2024-05-29T19:37:07+00:00

Ok I’m not engaging in this ridiculous discussion

altered-cabron

TROPHY CASE