Disinvestment from Israel

Such high-profile institutions, like Harvard University or the multimillion-member Presbyterian and Methodist Churches, provided divestment proponents a platform from which to spotlight their political activity.

Clifton Kirkpatrick, there is no plan for a "blanket divestment" from Israeli companies, but instead the Church will "target businesses that it believes bear particular responsibility for the suffering of Palestinians and will give them a chance to change their behavior before selling their shares.

"[5] Church officials, according to The Washington Post,[5] mentioned Caterpillar Inc. as a possible target of the selective divestment campaign because the company "manufactures bulldozers used by Israel to demolish Palestinian homes that are built without permits or belong to families of suicide bombers."

The Washington Post reported in September 2004 that "Jewish-Presbyterian relations have been in turmoil" and that "the heads of several major U.S. Jewish organizations condemned the Presbyterian Church's decision to begin selective divestiture in companies operating in Israel.

[6] Instead of using the word "divestment", the resolution calls for the Church to invest only in companies who are involved in "peaceful pursuits" in Israel and Palestinian territories.

"[11] "The unexpected resolution", according to a BeliefNet report,[11] "caught many American Jewish groups off guard and confirmed fears among some that the Presbyterians opened a Pandora's box last summer that now has the tacit approval of global Protestant and Orthodox leaders.

Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, interfaith director for the Anti-Defamation League, dismissed the WCC as 'irrelevant' but was nonetheless concerned that the divestment campaign has taken on a life of its own."

[13] In June 2005, the New England Conference of the United Methodist Church had voted to urge the divesting of funds from companies that support the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territories.

[17] In July 2012, the Episcopal Church adopted a resolution at its General Convention Assembly that supported "a negotiated two-state solution" and "positive investment" rather than divestment from Israel.

[19] On 17 March 2010, a UC Berkeley Student Senate resolution asked that the university divest itself of companies that conduct business with Israel, especially targeting General Electric and United Technologies which supplies arms and technology to Israel, but it was vetoed on 24 March by the Student Body President who called it "a symbolic attack on a specific community".

[20] In 2013, another UC Berkeley Student Senate resolution was passed as SB160, which proposed the university divest itself of companies complicit in Israel's abuse of human rights in Gaza.

[21] On February 8, 2015, the University of California Student Association passed a resolution calling on the UC Board of Regents to divest from companies violating Palestinian human rights in the West Bank and Gaza.

[26] On 27 May 2006, the Ontario section of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (which represents more than 200,000 workers) approved a resolution to "support the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel until that state recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination" and to protest the Israeli West Bank barrier.

Sid Ryan, president of CUPE Ontario, stated that "Israeli academics should not be on our campuses unless they explicitly condemn the university bombing and the assault on Gaza in general."

Ryan stated that the resolution was a reasonable response to Israel's attack on the Islamic University, which he likened to the torching of books by Nazis during the Second World War.

[33][34] Janice Folk-Dawson, chairwoman of the university workers committee, stated that resolution will protect the quality of education by preventing Israeli academics from professing biased views.

[33] However, some observers have questioned what practical effect the resolution could have since CUPE's 200,000 workers province-wide include some campus staff but almost no full-time faculty.

[38]On 9 July 2005, 171 Palestinian non-governmental organizations put out a call for an international economic campaign against Israel which has come to be referred to as Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) after the resolution's call "… for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel Until it Complies with International Law and Universal Principles of Human Rights.

[42] Noam Chomsky argues that for maximum impact, disinvestment campaigns should target the corporations participating in the perceived human rights abuses, with Caterpillar Inc. given as an example due to their role in the demolition of Palestinian homes.

The two British teaching unions merged and voted anew to consider suspending links with Israeli institutions only to provoke a huge counter-attack by American college presidents.The Economist[46] continues: Even fans of BDS do not fully agree on the best way forward.

While some call for broad boycotts, others think "smart sanctions", such as banning goods produced from settlements in the occupied territories, or from specific firms, will have more effect and sidestep claims of anti-Semitism.

"I don't think the boycotts will be as widespread as with South Africa," says Mr Hever, "but a small and specific economic impact can change many people's minds."