holding york university accountable: saia's divestment report 2011

7/27/2019 Holding York University Accountable: SAIA's Divestment Report 2011

1/29

Holding York University Accountable:

Violations of Human Rights and InternationalHumanitarian Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Students Against Israeli Apartheid YorkMarch 2011

[email protected]


2/29

2

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................3

SECTION 1 How is YU invested in Israeli War Crimes? ............................................................... 5

SECTION 2The Israeli Occupation of Palestine ........................................................................... 6

SECTION 3YUs Investments: Obligations Under International Law.................................... 12

SECTION 4YUs Investment in BAE Systems .............................................................................16

SECTION 5YUs Investment in Northrop Grumman................................................................. 19

SECTION 6YUs Investment in Hewlett-Packard........................................................................ 21

SECTION 7 YUs Investment in Lockheed Martin....................................................................... 24

SECTION 8 Divestment Case Study: York University and South Africa .................................27

SECTION 9 Demands.........................................................................................................................29


3/29

3

3

Executive Summary

An examination of the current investments held by York University (YU) raises serious concerns regardingthe universitys stated commitment to human rights and social justice. This report focuses on four

companies whose shares are held in the Pension Fund and the Endowment Fund. Students Against IsraeliApartheid York has found serious concerns with the universitys holdings in the following fourcompanies: BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman Corp., Hewlett Packard Co., and Lockheed Martin Corp.

This report highlights the active involvement of these companies in significant violations of internationallaw in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and raises issues of complicity in the commission ofcrimes under international law. YUs own responsibilities under international law are examined andprecedents for taking action are detailed.

The breaches of international law in which the named companies are demonstrably involved comprise awide range of violations. The following is a brief summary of the most egregious instances of theirinvolvement:

BAE Systems Contributed to weaponry used in Israels 2008/09assault on Gaza, for which Israel has been accused ofcommitting war crimes and possible crimes againsthumanity.

Northrop Grumman Corp. Contributed to the production of variouscomponents and weapons used in the killing ofcivilians by Israel in its 2008/09 attack on Gaza,including the Longbow Hellfire 2 missile, the ApacheAH64D Longbow helicopter and the F-16 bomber

jet.

Hewlett Packard Co.

Lockheed Martin Corp.

Implicated in the ongoing collective punishment ofPalestinians through its involvement in checkpointtechnologies used in the West Bank and informationtechnology infrastructure used to facilitate theongoing naval blockade of Gaza.

Involved in the manufacture and supply of F-16bomber jets and Hellfire missiles to Israel, which

have together contributed to hundreds of civiliandeaths in both Gaza and Lebanon

On account of their involvement in these violations, these companies have all become central targets incampaigns that seek to call on institutions such as governments, universities, and churches to divest theirfunds from companies that profit from Israeli war crimes. A diverse range of institutions have alreadycommitted to divesting and/or calling for divestment from one or more of the named companies,including: the government of Norway, the British University and College Union, Cardiff University, andthe United Methodist Church.


4/29

4

4

This report is being sent to the YU Board of Governors to demand that it follow the noble lead of theseinstitutions and divest from companies that are complicit in Israeli war crimes. The report includes thefollowing sections, intended to provide a detailed background on the issues at hand:

SECTION 1: How is York University invested in Israeli War Crimes? describes the structure of YUsequity holdings, and provides details abut YUs investments in the four named companies.

SECTION 2: The Israeli Occupation of Palestine provides a detailed explanation of the characteristicsthat define the Israeli occupation of Palestine, including checkpoints and movement restrictions, the Wall,the blockade of Gaza and Operation Cast Lead, in addition to the broader issues of colonialism andapartheid.

SECTION 3: York Universitys Investments: Obligations Under International Lawdelves further bydescribing the legal and political basis upon which accusations of war crimes and possible crimes againsthumanity are based. Specifically highlighted are the 2004 Advisory Opinion of the International Court ofJustice, Articles 49 and 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, United Nations Security CouncilResolutions 446, 452, 465, and 471, Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and

the Report of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. YU's obligations under the NuremburgPrinciples as well as Canadian domestic law are subsequently outlined.

SECTIONS 4 through 7 detail the manner in which the four named companies contribute to Israeliviolations of international law. Each company profile includes a general background, how YU is invested,the violations of international law it is involved in, and a description of other divestment campaigns bywhich it has been and continues to be targeted.

SECTION 8: Divestment Case Study: York University and South Africa provides a case study of YU'sdivestment from South Africa, including an emphasis on the anti-apartheid movement that pushed itforward.

Finally SECTION 9: Demands details the following three specific demands for the YU Board ofGovernors.

Demands

Based on the findings of the report and in the spirit of democratic governance, we demand that:

1) The York University Board of Governors immediately divest from and refuse to reinvest instocks in BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, Hewlett Packard and Lockheed Martin.

2) York University refrain from investing in all companies involved in violations of internationallaw. With respect to Palestine, this entails following the guidelines put forth by Students forJustice in Palestine in the historic divestment by Hampshire College. (See Section 9: Demandsfor details.)

3) York University work with students, faculty, and staff to undergo a democratic andtransparent process to ensure accountability to principles of social and environmental justice.


5/29

5

5

SECTION 1

How is York University invested in War Crimes?

After an examination of the current equities held by YU in the Pension Fund and Endowment Fund, andin light of the universitys stated commitment to human rights, governance and social justice, 1 Students

Against Israeli Apartheid York has found serious concerns with the universitys holdings in the followingfour companies: BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman Corp., Hewlett Packard Co., Lockheed Martin Corp.

A review of recent human rights reporting indicates that each of these companies is implicated insignificant violations of international humanitarian law, including grave breaches of the Fourth GenevaConvention amounting to war crimes. The four companies contribute extensively to these violations by:

Manufacturing weapons and weapon components that are used to kill and maim Palestiniancivilians; or

Materially supporting and economically developing the illegal Israeli settlements in the occupiedWest Bank, thereby entrenching the occupation of Palestinian land; or

Perpetuating Israels illegal siege of Gaza and its discriminatory practices and policies againstPalestinians, both in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), and within Israel.

These companies reap profits from the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and violations ofPalestinian rights. By investing in these firms in spite of their actions, YU not only violates its stated ethicalprinciples, but becomes complicit in their breaches of international law and violations of human rights.Furthermore, within its Statement of Investment Policies and Procedures, YU explicitly states a commitment to theintegration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in the investment selection.2 Givenits mandate to establish the universitys policies governing its investments3, the Board of Governors has theauthority and obligation to ensure that these investments comply with ethical and legal standards.

Courtesy of S'ra DeSantis

1 York University Mission Statement. Retrieved from: http://www.yorku.ca/web/about_yorku/mission/2 Board of Governors. (January 1, 2010). Statement of Investment Policies and Procedures. York University. Retrieved

from: http://www.yorku.ca/univsec/board/committees/invest/Documents/SIPP%20January%202010.pdf3 Ibid.


6/29

6

6

SECTION 2

The Israeli Occupation of Palestine

Israeli government policy encompasses a range of violations of international law and human rights,including:

The post-1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza; The refusal to recognize the rights of Palestinian refugees and internally displaced Palestinians to

return or receive compensation; Systematic discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel; Arbitrary detention, torture, and collective punishment; The destruction of infrastructure and the economy of Palestinian people in occupied Palestine,

inside Israel and in southern Lebanon; The siege on the Gaza Strip; and Numerous alleged war crimes committed against the Palestinian people in the occupied West Bank,

in Lebanon, and especially during the bombardment of Gaza in 2008/09.

We will briefly define four key areas of concern that hold consequences for Palestinian rights: Israelisettlements, checkpoints, the Wall in the occupied West Bank, and the siege and military assaults againstthe people of Gaza. Following this, we will provide a brief legal analysis pertaining to Israel's practices ofcolonialism and apartheid.

Settlements

Since 1967, Israel has been transferring its population to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, establishing121 official settlements in the West Bank, along with 12 others in occupied East Jerusalem, and 102unrecognized settlements or outposts.4 Israel offers special incentives to encourage Israelis to settle inthe West Bank in order to turn the settlements into permanent facts on the ground. About 500,000

Israelis now live in these settlements.5 Settlers have virtual impunity in the West Bank. They regularlycommit violent attacks against Palestinians and their property, without fear of repercussions, often withsupport from the military itself.6

The settlements, in combination with the dozens of Israeli-only bypass roads that link them, as well as themilitary zones that surround them, have effectively annexed over 40 percent of West Bank land. 7 Manysettlements are built on prime agricultural land confiscated from Palestinians, or on land that sits above keywater resources such as the Western Aquifer basin, springs and wells. They have also severely anddisproportionately strained those resources: Israeli settlers consume 350 litres of water per person a day,while Palestinians consume just 76 litres per day.8 The World Health Organization defines 100 litres per

4 BTselem. The Israeli information centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories (2007). Land Expropriation andSettlements. Retrieved from: http://www.btselem.org/English/settlements

5 BTselem.By Hook and by Crook: Israels Settlement Policy in the West Bank(2010). Retrieved from

http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/201007_By_Hook_and_by_Crook.asp6 UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs occupied Palestine territories (Dec. 2008) Unprotected: Israeli

settler violence against Palestinian civilians and their property. Retrieved from:

www.palestinecampaign.org/files/ochasettlerreportdec08.pdf7 Factsheet (Mar. 15, 2008) Israeli SettlementsPalestine Monitor. Retrieved from:

www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article78 Palestine Hydrology Group. (2006). Water for Life: The Dilemma of Development Under Occupation. Retrieved from:

http://www.phg.org/wash-mp/index.asp?i=39


7/29

7

7

person as the minimum amount necessary for basic human health. Israel uses 83 percent of Palestinianwater in the West Bank, leaving only 17 percent for Palestinians, who make up the majority of theoccupied territory.9

Furthermore, it is now regular practice for untreated sewage from settlements to be dumped intoPalestinian wells and agricultural land.10 In addition to the obvious health consequences that stem fromsuch natural resource-related inequalities, this vast disparity has a devastating impact on the Palestinianeconomy.

On December 8, 2009, the Israeli government announced a 10-month freeze in settlementconstruction.11 However, Israel continues to reject international demands to dismantle settlements, andnew construction and expropriation continues. To begin, the freeze did not include East Jerusalem, andextensive construction continues both within previously approved and retroactively approved sites andoutposts. In January 2009, Israel announced it would allow settlement municipalities to issue buildingpermits in the West Bank. Even where the freeze remains officially in effect, it is not fully enforced on theground, resulting in a slower pace of construction rather than a full freeze.12 Israel still continues to rejectinternational demands to dismantle settlements, and new construction and expropriation continues.

Checkpoints and Movement Restrictions

Checkpoints and other obstacles to free movement now restrict many of the main routes in the occupiedWest Bank, making travel to school, work, places of trade, or medical care extremely difficult, time-consuming, humiliating, and dangerous for Palestinians.13

In June 2010, there were 505 closure obstacles throughout the West Bank. The obstacles include earthmounds, road gates, checkpoints, terminals, road barriers, roadblocks, partial checkpoints, trenches, andflying (surprise) checkpoints.14 The 65 permanent checkpoints form the most severe restriction onmovement of Palestinians, who are subjected to checks that often cause prolonged delays. At some

checkpoints, soldiers bar all Palestinians from crossing except for those who have special permits.15

The barriers have severely damaged the Palestinian economy, especially farming, tourism, and access tojobs.16 They also greatly impede Palestinians ability to obtain proper medical treatment in several ways. Forinstance, Palestinians, including pregnant women, must get permits (which are valid only for a few days) to

9 World Health Organization (May 17, 2005)Health conditions of, and assistance to, the Arab population in the Occupied

Arab Territories including Palestine . 58th World Health Assembly Agenda Item 15. Retrieved from:

http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA58/A58_ID5-en.pdf10 Ibid.11 Ravid, David (Dec. 8, 2009) Netanyahu declares 10 month freeze to restart peace talks. Haaretz. Retrieved from:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1130636.html

12 Peace Now. The Freeze: Fewer New Starts but Construction Continues (Jun. 2010), Retrieved fromhttp://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=61&docid=4698&pos=1

13 UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs occupied Palestine territories (Jun 2010) West Bank

Movement and Access Update. Retrieved from:

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/4694c27bf640414685257744004ace17?OpenDocument14 Ibid.15 BTselem (2009)Restrictions on Movement: Information on checkpoints and roadblocks. Retrieved from:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Freedom_of_Movement/Statistics.asp16 United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs occupied Palestinian Territory (July 2009) Five Years

after the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion: A Summary of the Humanitarian Impact of the Barrier.

Retrieved from: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/28D7DCBF88FAB7228525760E0062F46D


8/29

8

8

get to hospitals in East Jerusalem. In emergencies, this is often impossible. According to the Israeli humanrights organization Btselem:

In many cases, the way to the hospital is blocked, so the sick and injured have to travel onlong, winding, and worn roads. These alternate roads often lead to a staffed checkpoint,where they are forced to wait and undergo checks. In other cases, access to medicaltreatment is prevented, as ill and wounded persons are unable to receive emergency medicaltreatment when checkpoints are closed at night, and whole Palestinian communities areblocked from entering or leaving by vehicle, including by ambulance.17

The Palestinian Red Cross recorded 440 delays and denials of ambulances in 2009 alone.18

Although Israel claims these measures are necessary to bolster Israeli security, the vast majority of theobstacles are scattered within the West Bank and are not limited to the border itself. Most of the 39checkpoints leading to sovereign Israeli territory are located well inside the West Bank, up to severalkilometres from the Green Line.19 Furthermore, despite the fact that in late 2009 Israel eliminated somebarriers, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the Occupied

Palestinian Territories (OPT) concluded that this had not significantly improved Palestinian access to theirland.20

The Wall

In 2002, Israel began constructing a Separation Wall, ostensibly to prevent uncontrolled entry ofPalestinians into Israel.21 However, critics point out that once completed, approximately 86 percent of theWall will be inside the occupied West Bank, expropriating a further 11.8 percent of West Bank land anddirectly restricting the lives of almost half a million Palestinians.22 The Wall will be 723 km long, twice thelength of the Green Line, which is the internationally recognized border between the two territories. It isnow more than half completed.23

The Wall is a primary means of land theft, as it snakes through Palestinian territory, and cuts deep into theheart of the occupied West Bank to annex land and vital water resources. Together with the settlements,military zones, ditches and bypass roads, it will de facto annex nearly 50 percent of West Bank land, anddivide the territory into six ghettos. Moreover, if the Wall is completed as planned, 32.7 percent of West

17 BTeslem (2009)Infringement to the Right to Medical Treatment in the West Bank. Retrieved from:

http://www.btselem.org/english/Medical_Treatment/Index.asp18 Palestinian Red Crescent Society (2009) Humanitarian Duty Report 2009. Retrieved from:

http://reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/retrieveattachments?openagent&shortid=DNEO-84BCZK&file=Full_Report.pdf19 BTselem (2009)Restrictions on Movement: Information on checkpoints and roadblocks. Retrieved from:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Freedom_of_Movement/Statistics.asp20 United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs occupied Palestinian Territories (Nov. 2009) West

Bank Movement and Access Update. Retrieved from: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha opt barrier report july 2009

english low res.pdf21 BTselem (2009) Separation Barrier. Retrieved from: http://www.btselem.org/English/Separation_Barrier/22 BTselem (2009) Separation Barrier Statistics. Retrieved from: http://www.btselem.org/english/Separation_Barrier/Statistics.asp23 United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs occupied Palestinian Territory (July 2009) Five Years

after the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion: A Summary of the Humanitarian Impact of the Barrier.

Retrieved from: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/28D7DCBF88FAB7228525760E0062F46D;


9/29

9

9

Bank residents will be cut off from adequate health care.24

The Wall also destroys land and trees while isolating thousands of dunums25 for the use of settlements. In2007 alone, 3,143 dunums of land were confiscated, and over 2,480 olive trees were uprooted. 26 SinceOctober 2003, the land between the Wall and the Green Line in the northern part of the West Bank hasbeen declared a closed military area, and the people living there are now required to obtain permanentresident permits or leave, and others must get special permits to even enter the area.27 In January 2009,additional areas in the central and southern part of the West Bank were declared closed military zones, andfarmers have had to request visitor permits to access their own olive groves.28

The Wall also serves as a pretext for home demolitions. Demolition orders can be issued to any familywhose home is in the path of the Wall or is deemed to be too close to the Wall, regardless of the fact thatmost of these homes were built long before the Wall was constructed. Since 2002, some 3,270 militarydemolitions have been carried out, resulting in the arbitrary destruction of Palestinian homes by Israeliforces for purposes of clearing land for the Wall or its associated infrastructure.29

The Gaza Blockade and Operation Cast Lead

More than three-quarters of the 1.5 million people in Gaza are refugees as a result of the 1948 war, knownas the Nakba, or the Catastrophe, to Palestinians. Gaza has become one of the most densely populatedareas in the world. Prior to the blockade established by Israel in 2006, Gaza had a vibrant economy andmost Gazans were self-supporting30. Anger at escalating Israeli settlement construction and military controlculminated in the Second Intifada in September 2000.

On September 12, 2005, Israeli PM Ariel Sharon unilaterally removed Israeli settlements and troops fromGaza. However, Israel retained full military control over Gazas land borders, air space, and territorialwaters.

In an internationally monitored, democratic election in January 2006, the Change and Reform Party (largelycomposed of Hamas members) defeated the Fatah party by winning 74 of 134 seats in the PalestinianLegislative Council of the Palestinian Authority, a self-rule body created in 1994, and it formed the newPalestinian government. On March 12, 2006, Israel and its Canadian, US, and EU allies imposed a blockadeand boycott until the Hamas government agreed to recognize Israels right to exist [as a Jewish state],renounce violence, and accept agreements made under the previous Fatah-led administration. Israel

24 World Health Organization (May 17, 2005)Health conditions of, and assistance to, the Arab population in the Occupied

Arab Territories including Palestine. 58th World Health Assembly Agenda Item 15. Retrieved from:

http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA58/A58_ID5-en.pdf25 A dunum is a unit of measurement equalling 1,000 square metres.26Stop the Wall Campaign. (2008) 2007: Apartheid Wall and Colonial Settlements. Retrieved from:

http://www.stopthewall.org/downloads/pdf/FS07.pdf27 BTselem (2009) Separation Barrier. Retrieved from: http://www.btselem.org/English/Separation_Barrier/28 United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs occupied Palestinian Territory (Nov. 2009) West

Bank Movement and Access Update. Retrieved from: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha opt barrier report july 2009english low res.pdf

29 Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. (2008)ICAHD Statistics on House Demolitions (1967-2007).

Retrieved from: http://www.internal-

displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/(httpDocuments)/BB5153683B8162BBC12574E3002FD653/$file/House+demolit

ion+statistics+(2).doc30 Lendman, Stephen. (2009). A UN Special Focus on Gaza Under Siege. Global Research. Retrieved from:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15020


10/29

10

10

characterized Hamas as a terrorist organization and illegally withheld all Palestinian tax revenues, whichare paid by Palestinians but collected by Israel. On June 26, 2006, Israel launched Operation SummerRain, extensively bombing Gazan civilian infrastructure.

On September 19, 2007, Israel declared Gaza a hostile territory, (a term without meaning underinternational law),31 and severely tightened its blockade of Gaza, creating the worlds largest open-airprison. Immediately, the people of Gaza were plunged into a severe humanitarian crisis. More than 70percent of the population became dependent on food aid, while the economy, as well as the water andsanitation systems virtually collapsed.32 Mary Robinson, former UN High Commissioner for HumanRights, has voiced alarm that the situation in Gaza was far worse than in towns in the West Bank,suggesting, "Their whole civilisation has been destroyed."33 Then on December 27, 2008, Israel launchedOperation Cast Lead, an unprovoked 23-day massive military assault on the population of Gaza, whichleft 1,400 people dead, 5,300 injured (most of whom were civilians), and essential infrastructure, industry,and housing destroyed. 34

Since Cast Lead, Israel has continued its stranglehold blockade of Gaza, preventing reconstruction andcontinuing to impose severe collective punishment on the civilians of Gaza. According to a report released

in January 2010 by more than 80 humanitarian organizations, including the World Health Organization andUN agencies, the health of 1.4 million people is being put at risk by the continuing siege of Gaza.35

Palestinian teachers have been holding classes in the road outside an Israeli checkpoint in the West Bank city of Hebron in protest at intrusive searchesof children going to school. Source- news.bbc.co.uk-2-hi-in_pictures-4464332.stm

31 Al-Haq (2008)Legal Questions and Answers Related to Israeli Policy in the Gaza Strip. Retrieved from:

http://www.alhaq.org/pdfs/qa-gaza.pdf32 Butcher, Tim (Mar. 6, 2008)Human Crisis in Gaza is worst for 40 years.Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved from:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1580933/Human-crisis-in-Gaza-is-worst-for-40-years.html33 Gaza Residents terribly trapped (Nov. 4, 2008) BBC News. Retrieved from:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7708670.stm34Journal of Palestine Studies, 38(3), Special Focus: Operation Cast Lead.35 James Surcke (January 20, 2010). Gaza Blockade threatens health of 1.4 million, aid agencies warn. The Guardian.

Retrieved from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/20/gaza-blockade-health-risk-report


11/29

11

11

Colonialism and Apartheid

In addition to occupation, there is strong evidence that Israel practices colonialism and apartheid withrespect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This position was given further credence in a report by theHuman Sciences Research Council of South Africa released in May 2009. The study, conducted by a teamof international legal scholars and practitioners from South Africa, the United Kingdom, Israel and theWest Bank, found that Israel, since 1967, is the belligerent Occupying Power in occupied Palestinianterritory, and that its occupation of these territories has become a colonial enterprise which implements asystem of apartheid.36 Notably, Israel has been described as an apartheid state by former U.S PresidentJimmy Carter, and prominent South Africa leaders, including Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, and thecurrent president of the Congress of South African Trade Unions, Sidumo Dlamini. The term apartheidis also commonly used within public discourse by Israeli politicians, including Yossi Sarid, Shulamit Alonand Ehud Barak, Israel's defence minister.37

On the subject of colonialism, the study determined that Israel is in violation of the internationalprohibition on colonialism, enshrined in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to ColonialCountries and Peoples of 1960. Examples of Israel's colonial policies and practices as cited in the report

include land annexation and fragmentation, the appropriation of water and other natural resources, and theestablishment of a system of subjugation and domination.

As for apartheid, the study concludes that Israel's laws and policies in the OPT are congruent with thosewhich are expressly prohibited by the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of theCrime of Apartheid (1973). The Convention defines the crime of apartheid as inhuman acts committedfor the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any otherracial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.38 It also affirms that such a crime is notnecessarily a distinctly South African phenomenon, but includes similar policies and practices of racialsegregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa (emphasis added).

In this regard, the report indicates that Israel's practices in the OPT can be defined by the same threepillars of apartheid instituted by the South African regime: (1) an institutionalized system of benefits anddiscrimination based on preferred and non-preferred identities, (2) geographical segregation of thepopulation according to these identities, and (3) a matrix of draconian security laws and policiesemployed to maintain domination and suppress dissent.39 Israel's incarnation of apartheid affordspreferential legal status and material benefit to Jews over non-Jews; it has isolated the Gaza Strip andfragmented the West Bank into a well-serviced network of connected settlements for Jewish-Israelis andan archipelago of besieged and non-contiguous enclaves for Palestinians"; and it frequently invokessecurity to excuse gross violations of Palestinian human rights and to suppress dissent.

36 Human Science Research Council. (May 2009). Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid?: A re-assessment of Israel's

practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law. Retrieved from:

http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Media_Release-378.phtml37 Corrigan, Edward. (2010). Israel and apartheid: A fair comparison?Rabble. Retrieved from:

http://www.rabble.ca/news/2010/03/israel-and-apartheid-fair-comparison38 John Dugard. (2008) The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. UN

Audiovisual Library of International Law. Retrieved from: http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/cspca/cspca.html39 Human Science Research Council. (May 2009). Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid?: A re-assessment of Israel's

practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law. Retrieved from:

http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Media_Release-378.phtml


12/29

12

12

SECTION 3

The Legal and Political Context of Israeli Occupation

All people and organizationsincluding York Universityare bound by the principles of internationallaw. This report demonstrates the ways in which BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, Hewlett Packard and

Lockheed Martin, all companies that are part of YUs investments, are complicit in violations ofinternational law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). The following is an overview of thespecific laws and legal principles that are at issue and their violation by Israel. Following this explanation ofthe political-legal context, a further section of the report outlines YUs obligations under international anddomestic law. Finally, the report turns to a discussion of the ways in which the above-mentionedcompanies are implicated in those violations.

2004 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice

The 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the construction of the Wall inthe OPT confirmed that the Wall and its associated regime is contrary to international law. The ICJ ruledthat Israel should immediately terminate its construction of the Wall, dismantle those parts that havealready been built, and make reparations for all damages caused by its construction.40

The ICJ specifically ruled that:

[a]ll States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from theconstruction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created bysuch construction. The Court further finds that it is for all States, while respecting the UnitedNations Charter and international law, to see to it that any impediment, resulting from theconstruction of the wall, in the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determinationis brought to an end. In addition, all State parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention are under anobligation, while respecting the Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with

international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention.41

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention stipulates that the occupying power is not permitted tochange the demographic composition of the occupied territory and must not interfere, in an arbitrarymanner, in the lives of the occupied civilian population.42 The construction and development ofsettlements in the OPT is a clear violation of this provision, as the settlements involve the illegalconfiscation of Palestinian land as well as a transfer of the Israeli civilian population onto those occupiedlands.

Israels settlement enterprise entails not only the settlements themselves (built on confiscated Palestinianland), but also the creation of military zones, buffer zones, checkpoints and permit systems. Together they

40 International Court of Justice. (July 9, 2004)Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied

Palestinian Territory. Retrieved from:

http://www.icjcij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6&case=131&k=5a41Ibid.42 International Committee of the Red Cross. (August 12, 1949). Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian

Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention). Retrieved from:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument


13/29

13

13

seriously infringe upon the human rights of the Palestinian population, and contribute to the de-development of the Palestinian economy as a whole, thus creating, in certain instances, humanitariancrises.43

Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention

Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines acts that are considered to be grave breaches ofinternational law. These include the extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified bymilitary necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.44 Israels construction of the Wall and itssettlements clearly violates this Article, as they involve both extensive destruction of Palestinian property,as well as the appropriation of vast swaths of Palestinian land.45

In applying Article 147 to the construction of the Wall, it is important to note that:

i) The Walls path does not follow the internationally recognized border between Israel and the OPT.

ii) The Wall has not been proven to improve the security of Israelis. (The Israeli security service Shin Bet

itself attributed the main cause for reduced Palestinian attacks in 2006 to the ceasefire unilaterallyimplemented by the Palestinians.46)

iii) The Walls main designer confirmed in 2007 that the most important criteria were including as manyIsraelis inside it and as many Palestinians outside it as possible.47

Other examples of grave breaches of international law include willful killing, torture or inhumantreatment and willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.48 During the 2008/09bombardment of Gaza, multiple organizations including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, anda UN fact-finding mission accused Israel of targeting civilians and committing war crimes.49

United Nations Security Council Resolutions 446, 452, 465, and 471

All the above-noted UN Security Council resolutions condemn Israels settlement activity in the OccupiedPalestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem. They confirm that the settlements have no legal validityand constitute a serious impediment to achieving a just and lasting peace. They also affirm that settlementconstruction is indeed a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and they call upon Israel, as

43 Stop the Wall Campaign. (n.d.)Development or Normalization? A Critique of West Bank Development Approaches and

Projects. Retrieved from: http://www.stopthewall.org/downloads/PRDPcritique.pdf; Stop the Wall Campaign(n.d.)Rights

Without Remedy. Retrieved from: http://www.stopthewall.org/downloads/pdf/ICJReport.pdf44 International Committee of the Red Cross. (August 12, 1949). Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian


http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument45 International Court of Justice. (July 9, 2004)Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied

Palestinian Territory. Retrieved from:

http://www.icjcij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6&case=131&k=5a46 Harel, Amos (January 2, 2006). Shin Bet: Palestinian truce main cause for reduced terror.Haaretz.47 Wilson, Scott (August 7, 2007). Touring Israels barrier with its main designer. Washington Post. Retrieved

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601661.html48 International Committee of the Red Cross. (August 12, 1949). Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian


http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument49Ibid.


14/29

14

14

the Occupying Power, to comply with the Convention by refraining from changing the demographiccomposition of the OPT by transferring parts of its population into the Territories.

Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

In addition to Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the prohibition of the transfer of settlers tooccupied territory was confirmed as an international crime in 1998 by its inclusion as Article 8(2)(b)(viii) ofthe Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Article 8(2)(b)(viii) defines [t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of itsown civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of thepopulation of the occupied territory within or outside this territory50 as a war crime.

Israels settlement project explicitly involves encouraging the transfer of a significant portion of its civilianpopulation into the occupied West Bank, thus violating Article 8.

Report of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict: The Goldstone Report

The recently published Goldstone Report concluded that the attack on Gaza was a deliberatelydisproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminishits local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasingsense of dependency and vulnerability.51 It found clear evidence that Israel had committed major warcrimes in its siege of Gaza and even more during its assault on Gaza, known as Operation Cast Lead, fromDecember 27, 2008, to January 18, 2009. These crimes include:

Attacks by Israeli forces on civilian government buildings and members of the Gazanauthorities, including police non-combatants;

Attacks on schools and universities, including the Islamic University of Gaza; Indiscriminate attacks by Israeli forces resulting in the loss of life and injury to civilians; Deprivation of liberty: Gazans detained during the Israeli operation; Deliberate attacks against the civilian population; The use of certain prohibited weapons; Attacks on the foundations of civilian life in Gaza: destruction of industrial infrastructure,

food production, water installations, sewage treatment and housing; and The use of Palestinian civilians as human shields.

The Nuremberg Principles

The Nuremberg Principles I and II emphasize that individuals and organizations are responsible forcomplying with the principles of international law. Furthermore, Principle VII states that complicity in thecommission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity. . . is a crime underinternational law.52

50Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. (July 2002) Retrieved from:

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/english/rome_statute(e).pdf51 Goldstone, Richard. (September 2009)Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.

Retrieved from: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf52 International Committee of the Red Cross. (2005).Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the

Nremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 1950. Retrieved from: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/390


15/29

15

15

Since YU has a responsibility to comply with the principles of international law, it has a legal obligation notto invest in companies or organizations that may be complicit in the commission of these crimes. Indeed,the current investments held in the four companies listed here strongly suggest that YU is in violation ofthe Nuremberg Principles, thus rendering it potentially complicit in crimes under international law.

Canadian Domestic Law

In June 2000, Canada passed the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, which officiallyincorporated the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court into its domestic laws. The Actexplicitly states that war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are crimes under domestic law, andthat a person in Canada may be prosecuted for these crimes even if they were committed outside thecountry. The Act asserts that its definition of a war crime is the same as Article 8(2) of the Rome Statute,53which, as discussed above, renders Israels Jewish-only settlements illegal.

Similarly, the 1985 Geneva Conventions Act incorporated the Geneva Conventions into Canadiandomestic law.54 Thus, not only are violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention including Articles 49 and

147 breaches of international law, but they are also crimes under Canadian law as well.

Detailed in the subsequent section, all of these crimes were aided and abetted by the weapons andequipment produced by BAE Systems, Northup Grumman, Hewlett Packard, and Lockheed Martin,companies in which the YU Pension Fund and Endowment Fund are currently invested.

It is therefore incumbent upon YU to end its investments in these four companies, as well as all companiesimplicated in these violations. This includes any company that explicitly supports the illegal occupation ofPalestinian land and directly benefits from the Wall and Israeli settlements through the exploitation of theland and labour of Palestinians living in the OPT. YU is under a legal and, arguably, a moral obligation todivest from these companies.

Gaza jail break. Photo- PalestineRemembered.com

53Minister of Justice. (2000). Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Retrieved from:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Statute/C/C-45.9.pdf54 Minister of Justice. (1985) Geneva Conventions Act. Retrieved from:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Statute/G/G-3.pdf


16/29

16

16

SECTION 4

York Universitys Investment in BAE Systems

1. The Company

British Aerospace Electronic Systems (BAE) is registered in the UK but is global in scope. According to itsown website, it is the premier global defense, security and aerospace company.55 It is the worlds thirdlargest arms producer, with its 2008 annual report showing 106,400 employees, 18.5 billion in sales and1.9 billion in profits. One of BAEs subsidiaries in Israel, BAE Rokar International, is located inJerusalem. All of BAEs products are geared towards military use, including combat aircraft (such as F-15sand F-16s), seacraft, landcraft and associated components, as well as precision targeting systems. Throughits affiliated company, MBDA, BAE has been involved in manufacturing both cluster bombs and nuclearweapons.56 The UKs Serious Fraud Office is currently prosecuting BAE for corruption.57

2. How York University is Invested

As of September 2010, the York University Pension Fund holds $1,742,000 and the York UniversityEndowment Fund holds $544,486.30 worth of shares in BAE Systems.

3. BAEs violations of human rights and international law

On April 21, 2009, UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband admitted that Israeli equipment used in the2008/09 attack on Gaza almost certainly contained UK-supplied components. He cited F-16 combataircraft, Apache attack helicopters, Saar-Class corvettes and armoured personnel carriers.58 This statementimplicates BAE and its Jerusalem subsidiary Rokar, as they both contribute components to Israels F-16sand other weaponry59 used in the 2008/09 attacks on Gaza.60

It is well documented that F-16s and cluster bombs were used in what the UN has labelled war crimes.The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict determined that more than 1,400Palestinians were killed during Operation Cast Lead, more than 1,000 of whom were civilian non-combatants, and about 340 of whom were children. It also cited wide scale destruction of schools,hospitals, houses, mosques, wells and other public buildings in the Gaza Strip. Many of these attacks aredeemed to have been the product of deliberate targeting.61 The missions report concludes that Israelcommitted actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity. 62 Both BAE in theUK and Rokar contributed to Israels weaponry used in these internationally condemned crimes againstPalestinian civilians in the OPT.

This is not the first time F-16s have been implicated in Israeli violations of international law in the OPT.

For instance, on May 20, 2007, an Israeli F-16 jet plane fired a missile towards a family gathered in GazaCity, killing eight peoplenone of them combatants.63 F-16s were also widely used by Israel in its war on

55 BAE Systems.BAE Systems Homepage . Retrieved from: http://www.baesystems.com/56 Human Rights Watch. (June 2007).A Dirty Doxen Cluster Muniations. Retrieved from:

http://www.mineaction.org/downloads/1/HRW_Dirty percent20dozen percent20CM.pdf; and Norwegian Ministry of

Finance. (March 2006.)Press Release: Exclusions from the Government Pension Fund Global. Retrieved from:

http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fin/press-center/Press-releases/2006/Exclusions-from-the-Government-Pension-

F.html?id=419804&epslanguage=EN-GB57 Leigh, David and Rob Evans. (October 1, 2009) Fraud office seeks BAEs prosecution over bribery. The

Guardian. Retrieved from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/01/bae-serious-fraud-office1


17/29

17

17

Lebanon in 2006, including in its attack against Qana on July 30, 2006, which resulted in at least 28confirmed civilian deaths. Many of Israels air attacks on Lebanon were also directed at areas where nocombatant activity was to be found, and seemed to deliberately target civiliansa violation of theinternational laws of war.64

4. Ongoing Divestment Actions

BAE is a prominent target of international divestment movements.65 For example, the Norwegian Ministryof Finance has barred the State Pension Fund from investing in BAE since December 31, 2005. Thisdecision was made in objection to BAEs production of offensive military technology.66

The British University and College Union (UCU), representing approximately 120,000 teaching and relatedstaff in UK colleges and universities, passed a motion in May 2009 specifically supporting disinvestmentfrom arms companies such as BAE.67 In February 2009, after a major student sit-in demonstration,Strathclyde University Student Union passed a motion calling on the university to sever its ties to BAE.68

58 Watt, Nicholas. (April 22, 2009). Military exports to Israel reviewed following Gaza Conflict. The Guardian.

Retrieved from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/22/israel-gaza-military-exports59 Israel Aerospace Industries. (n.d)F-16. Retrieved from: http://www.iai.co.il/17866-23270-

en/Business_Areas_Military_Aircraft_Upgrades.aspx; Dewitte, Lieven. (February 19, 2004).First F-16I 'Sufa' jets

arrived in Israel. F-16.net. Retrieved from: http://www.f-16.net/news_article1002.html; State of Israel: Ministry of

Industry, Trade & Labor. (n.d)BAE Systems Rokar International Ltd. Retrieved from:

http://www.moit.gov.il/CmsTamat/CompanyProfile.aspx?CompanyType=1&Companyid=1360; Airforce-

Technology.Com. (2009) F-16 Fighting Falcon Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft, USA. Retrieved from:

http://www.airforcetechnology.com/projects/f16/; Defense Update: International Online Defense Magazine. (2004).Israel

Air Force F-16I Soufa . Retrieved from: http://defense-update.com/products/f/f-16I-details.htm60 BBC News. (Dec 27, 2008). Massive Israeli air raids on Gaza.BBC News. Retrieved from:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7800985.stm61Ibid; Amnesty International. (July 2009). Israel/Gaza: Operation Cast Lead: 22 Days of Death and Destruction.

Retrieved from: from: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/015/2009/en/8f299083-9a74-4853-860f-0563725e633a/mde150152009en.pdf

62 Goldstone, Richard. (September 2009)Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.

Retrieved from: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf63 Defence for Children International: Palestine Section. (2007).Israeli Violations of the Right to Life: Palestinian child

fatalities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory during the First Half of the Year 2007. Retrieved from:

http://www.crin.org/docs/DCInov10.pdf; BTselem. (January 2008).Annual Report 2007. Retrieved from:http://www.btselem.org/Download/200712_Annual_Report_eng.pdf

64 Brookes, Andrew. (August 8, 2006).Air War Over Lebanon. The International Institute for Strategic Studies. Retrieved

from: http://www.iiss.org/programmes/defence-analysis-programme/analysis-archive/air-war-over-lebanon/; Human

Rights Watch. (August 2, 2006).Lebanon/Israel: IDF fails to explain Qana Bombing. Retrieved from:

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/08/02/lebanonisrael-idf-fails-explain-qana-bombing; Human Rights Watch. (August

2006).Fatal Strikes: Israels Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon. Retrieved from:

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/lebanon0806webwcover.pdf65 Boycott Israeli Good Campaign. (n.d).Arms Trade Campaign. Retrieved from:

http://www.bigcampaign.org/index.php?page=arms-trade-campaign; US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural

Boycott of Israel. (n.d)ABCs of Divestment. Retrieved from: http://usacbi.wordpress.com/abcs-of-divestment/66 Norges Bank. (2007)NBIM Annual Report 2007. Retrieved from: http://www.norges- bank.no/upload/nbim/reports/2007

percent20part4.pdf67 Action Palestine. (May 28, 2009). UCU congress endorses boycotts, divestments, and sanctions against Israel. Retrieved

from: http://www.actionpalestine.org/from-the movement/ucu-congress-endorses-boycotts-divestment-and-sanctions-

against-israel/68 Bizarri Kim. (February 21, 2009) Victory for Student Movement: Strathclyde University to end complicity with Gaza

Conflict.Pulse Media. Retrieved from: http://pulsemedia.org/2009/02/21/strathvictory/


18/29

18

18

The British Columbia Teachers Federation Executive Committee submitted a resolution for its 2010annual general meeting calling for its pension plan to divest from BAE stocks by 2011.69

In February 2009, Cardiff University declared that it would fully divest from the arms trade, includingdivestment from the shares it held in BAE. The decision to divest came after three days of student sit-indemonstrations and demands. At many other UK universities, including the London School of Economics,Plymouth, Nottingham, Glasgow, and Oxford, students have staged demonstrations and taken action todemand divestment from BAE.70

Posters for Israeli Apartheid Week 2010 and 2011. Credit: Nidal El-Khair

69 The Global Educator. (2010). The Journal of the B.C. Teachers for Peace and Global Education (pp. 12). Retrieved from:

http://pagebc.ca/documents/Summer_2010_Journal.pdf70 Occupied Cardiff. (February 26,2009). Victory for Cardiff Student Occupiers! Retrieved from:

http://occupiedcardiff.blogspot.com/2009/02/victory-for-cardiff-student-occupiers.html


19/29

19

19

SECTION 5York Universitys Investment in Northrop Grumman

1. The Company

Northrop Grumman is one of the largest weapons manufacturers in the world, employing 120,000 peoplein 25 countries. The net sales of this US corporation, based out of Los Angeles, California, were $33.8billion in the 2009 fiscal year.71 The company has five business sectors: aerospace, electronics, informationsystems, shipbuilding and technical service.

2. How York University is invested

As of September 2010, the York University Pension Fund holds $672,000 and the York UniversityEndowment Fund holds $360,744.26 worth of shares in Northrop Grumman.

3. Northrop Grummans Violations of Human Rights and International Law

Northrop Grumman provides technology used by the Israeli military against Palestinian civilians, includingtechnology that was used in Israels 2008/09 Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip, when, as discussedabove, international agencies have concluded war crimes and possible crimes against humanity were carriedout.

Northrop Grumman produces the fuselage, wings, tail, engine cowlings, canopies and avionics containers,as well as the optional Longbow mast-mounted 360o radar for the Apache AH64D Longbow Helicopter.72Amnesty International has described the Apache AH64 Helicopters as a piece of key equipment used bythe IDF [Israeli military] in the Gaza bombing campaign.73

Northrop Grumman also produces the Longbow Hellfire 2 missiles, in a joint venture with Lockheed

Martin.74

The wide use of Hellfire 2 missiles by the Israeli military against Palestinian civilians duringOperation Cast Lead has been clearly documented.75

Northrop Grumman is also the sole provider of radars for the F-16 combat aircraft.76 The Israeli AirForces (IAF) has the largest fleet of F-16s outside of the US.77 According to Amnesty International,

71 Northrop Grumman. (4 February 2010) Northrop Grumman Reports Fourth Quarter and 2009 Financial Results.

Retrieved from: http://investor.northropgrumman.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=112386&p=irol-

newsArticle_Print&ID=1383066&highlight=72 IHS Janes. (October 13, 2000).Boeing AH-64 Apache. Retrieved from:

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jawa/jawa001013_1_n.shtml

73 Luban, Daniel. (February 23, 2009). Politics: Rights Group Calls for Israel/Hamas Arms Embargo.Inter Press ServiceNews Agency. Retrieved from: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45860

74 IHS Janes. (October 13, 2000).AGM - 114 Hellfire. Retrieved from:

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jalw/jalw001013_1_n.shtml75 Amnesty International. (2009)Fuelling Conflict: Foreign Arms Supplies to Israel/Gaza. Retrieved from:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/012/2009/en/5be86fc2-994e-4eeb-a6e8-

3ddf68c28b31/mde150122009en.html76 Northrop Grumman. (July 23, 2009). Northrop Grumman Performs Successful SABR Fit-Check Aboard F-16 Fighter At

Edwards Air Force Base. Retrieved from: http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=16963877 Airforce-Technology.Com. (2009)F-16 Fighting Falcon Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft, USA. Retrieved from:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f16/


20/29

20

20

Israels F-16 combat aircraft played a central role in the killing of Palestinian civilians and the wholesaledestruction of Palestinian civilian and economic infrastructure.78

This is not the first time F-16s have been implicated in Israeli violations of international law in the OPT.For instance, on 20 May 2007, an Israeli F-16 jet plane fired a missile towards a family gathered in GazaCity, killing eight peoplenone of them combatants.79 F-16s were also widely used by Israel in its war onLebanon in 2006, including its attack against Qana on 30 July 2006 that resulted in over 28 civilian deaths.Many of Israels air attacks on Lebanon were directed in areas where there was no combatant activity andseemed deliberately targeted at civiliansa violation of the international laws of war.80


On January 5, 2005, the University of Wisconsin at Plattevilles Faculty University Senate voted torecommend that the University of Wisconsin divest from companies that provide the Israeli army withweapons and other supplies, including Northrop Grumman.81

On December 31, 2005, the Norwegian Ministry of Finance included Northrop Grumman in a list of

companies that were excluded from the Government Pension Fund due to violations of its ethicalguidelines.82

In its June 2007 Report and Recommendations to the United Methodist Churchs New EnglandConference, the United Methodist Churchs Divestment Task Force recommended that the Church divestfrom Northrop Grumman because it was deemed to support in a significant way the Israeli occupation ofPalestinian territories.83

78 Amnesty International. (July 2009).Israel/Gaza: Operation Cast Lead: 22 Days of Death and Destruction. Retrieved

from: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/015/2009/en/8f299083-9a74-4853-860f-

0563725e633a/mde150152009en.pdf79 Defence for Children International: Palestine Section. (2007). Israeli Violations of the Right to Life: Palestinian childfatalities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory during the First Half of the Year 2007. Retrieved from:

http://www.crin.org/docs/DCInov10.pdf; BTselem. (January 2008).Annual Report 2007. Retrieved from:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/200712_Annual_Report_eng.pdf80Brookes, Andrew. (August 8, 2006).Air War Over Lebanon. The International Institute for Strategic Studies. Retrieved

from: http://www.iiss.org/programmes/defence-analysis-programme/analysis-archive/air-war-over-lebanon/; Human

Rights Watch. (August 2, 2006).Lebanon/Israel: IDF fails to explain Qana Bombing. Retrieved from:http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/08/02/lebanonisrael-idf-fails-explain-qana-bombing; Human Rights Watch. (August

2006).Fatal Strikes: Israels Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon. Retrieved from:http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/lebanon0806webwcover.pdf

81 The Michigan Daily. (February 4, 2005).Faculty senate in Wisc. passes divestment bill. Retrieved from:

http://www.michigandaily.com/content/faculty-senate-wisc-passes-divestment-bill82 Norges Bank. (2007)NBIM Annual Report 2007. Retrieved from: http://www.norges-bank.no/upload/nbim/reports/2007

percent20part4.pdf83 New England Conference of the United Methodist Church Divestment Taskforce. (June 5, 2007)Report and

Recommendations. Retrieved from:

http://neconference.brickriver.com/files/oFiles_Library_XZXLCZ/NEUMC_Divestment_Report_-FINAL_060407-

img_PM2YX4SR.pdf


21/29

21

21

SECTION 6

York Universitys Investment in Hewlett Packard

1. The Company

Hewlett Packard (HP

84

) is among the world's largest information technology (IT) companies, with revenuesamounting to nearly $115 billion for the 2009 fiscal year.85 Commonly known for its personal computingdevices, printers, and digital cameras, HP is involved in a wide range of services including the design,implementation, and maintenance of IT infrastructure. HP operates in more than 170 countries, bothunder the HP label and through its various subsidiaries. HP's international presence is amplified furtherthough the other IT companies it owns and the companies to which it outsources.


As of September 2010, the York University Pension Fund holds $1,3910,000, and the York UniversityEndowment Fund holds $716,414.66 worth of shares in Hewlett Packard.

3. Hewlett Packard's Complicity in Israeli Human Rights Violations

HP and its subsidiaries are involved in several aspects of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and GazaStrip. The following is an overview of HP's most egregious practices and the ways in which these maycontribute to grave breaches of international law and systematic violations of human rights.

3.1 Biometric Identification Systems at Checkpoints

HP is implicated in facilitating the Israeli checkpoint system through its ownership of EDS.86 Its Israelisubsidiary, EDS Israel, works with the Israeli Ministry of Defense on the development, installation andmaintenance of technologically advanced monitoring systems used at several new checkpoint terminals,

including many in occupied territory. These checkpoints constitute part of the Israeli Separation Barrier,declared illegal by the International Court of Justice in 2004.87 In its Advisory Opinion, the Court statedthat, considering its illegality, Israel is obliged by international law to cease construction of the barrier andto dismantle it in its entirety. So far, Israel has refused to accept the decision and is continuing theconstruction of the barrier, and the checkpoints on its path, with the assistance of various contractors andconsultants, among them EDS Israel.

Specifically, EDS Israel heads a consortium that has introduced the Basel System, an automated biometricaccess control system developed by the Israeli company On Track Innovations (OTI). This system readsthe facial dimensions and hand geometry of Palestinian workers seeking to cross into Israel.88 The IsraeliCenter for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, B'tselem, writes that these workers who are forced

84 Although the official name of the company on the New York Stalk Exchange became HPQ when it merged with Compaq

in 2002, it is still widely known by its original name.85 Hewlett Packard.About Us. Retrieved from: http://www8.hp.com/us/en/hp-information/about-hp/index.html.86 In 2008, HP completed the purchase of global IT giant EDS, making it part of HP. Hewlett Packard Newsroom (13 May

2008).HP to Acquire EDS for $13.9 Billion. Retrieved from:

http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2008/080513a.html.87 Diakonia: Easy Guide to International Humanitarian Law in the Occupied Territories. The ICJ Advisory Opinion on the

Wall.88 Israel High-Tech and Investment Report (January 2004). On Track to Install ID Systems at Gaza Checkpoint. Retrieved

from: http://ishitech.co.il/0104ar1.htm.


22/29

22

22

to cross at checkpoints operated by Israeli soldiers, frequently fall victim to exploitation by theiremployers and to violent assaults and severe maltreatment by police officers and soldiers.89

3.2 Outsourcing of IT Services to Illegal Settlement

HP helps to sustain the Israeli occupation through its indirect relationship to employment in the illegalWest Bank settlement of Modi'in Ilit. HP subsidiary HP Invent outsources IT services to Matrix, whichcarries out much of its work in Modi'in Ilit through its subsidiary, Talpiot.90 Matrix/Talpiot's operationsemploy Israeli settlers at low-wages subsidized by the Israeli government.91 Through its relationship toTalpiot, HP is profiting from the Israeli occupation and is helping to ensure its economic viability.

3.3 Management of the Israeli Navy's IT Infrastructure

HP assists in facilitating the illegal naval blockade off the coast of the Gaza Strip through its managementof the Israeli Navy's IT infrastructure.92 Since coming into effect in 2006, the blockade has reduced exportsto a trickle, while preventing humanitarian aid, including much needed medicines and constructionmaterials, from entering the Gaza Strip.93 In enforcing the blockade, the Israeli Navy has not only turned

back humanitarian aid vessels, but also attacked them. Most recently, they attacked the aid vessel the MaviMarmara, killing nine international peace activists and aid workers, and injuring dozens more.94 The IsraeliNavy has also prevented fishermen from fishing within Gaza's territorial waters. Gazans are nowprohibited from going more than three nautical miles off the coast, despite agreements signed as part ofthe Oslo peace process allowing them to fish up to twenty nautical miles away.95 This is yet anotherexample of the collective punishment perpetrated against the people of Gaza.

3.4 Technology Provision to the Israeli Defense Forces

HP aids the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) in its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip by supplying itwith personal computers, servers, and virtualization systems.96 The IDF has enforced the illegal occupation

of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since 1967. Aiding and abetting the IDF in enforcing this occupationimplicate HP implicated in numerous violations of international law and human rights.

89B'tselem: The Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.Economic and Social Rights: Workers from

the Occupied Territories. Retrieved from: http://www.btselem.org/english/Workers/Index.asp.90 Talpiot. Clients List. Retrieved from: www.talpiot-it.com/clients.html91 Algazi, Gadi (August 2006). Commercial and Political Exploitation of Stolen Land: Offshoring to the West Bank. Le Monde

Diplomatique. Retrieved from: http://mondediplo.com/2006/08/05offshoring92Business Monitor International. (24 July 2008).Israel Information Technology Report Q3 2008: IT Services. Retrieved

from: http://www.marketresearch.com/product/display.asp?productid=1830025&g=1.93 B'tselem: The Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. (31 May 2010). The Gaza Strip: The siege on

the Gaza Strip: 1.5 million people imprisoned. Retrieved from:http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20100531_The_Siege_on_Gaza.asp.

94 BBC News (31 May 2010). Deaths as Israeli Forces Storm Gaza Aid Ship. Retrieved from:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10195838.95 B'tselem: The Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. The Gaza Strip: Israel's Control of the

Airspace and the Territorial Waters of the Gaza Strip . Retrieved from:

http://www.btselem.org/english/Gaza_Strip/Control_on_Air_space_and_territorial_waters.asp96Shelah, Shmulik. (15 July 2009). HP beats IBM in Army virtualization tender: IBM has been supplying the IDF with

virtualization products until now. Globes. Retrieved from: http://archive.globes.co.il/searchgl/IBM percent20has

percent20been percent20supplying percent20the percent20IDF percent20with

percent20virtualization_s_hd_2L34nDJKrCbmnC30mD3WnCJOnBcXqRMm0.html


23/29

23

23


HP is a relatively new target among campaigns calling for divestment from companies involved in theIsraeli occupation. HP was recently added to a list of companies highlighted by the New EnglandConference of the United Methodist Church for divestment. In 2005, the New England AnnualConference passed a resolution calling for divestment from companies that support the Israeli occupationin a significant way.97

HP has also recently been the subject of the San Francisco Bay Area campaign Don't Buy IntoApartheid.98

97 New England Conference The United Methodist Church. (May 2010).Divestment Task Force (2010): Report and

Recommendations. Retrieved from: http://www.neumc.org/pages/detail/375.98 US Campaign for the Cultural and Academic Boycott of Israel. (28 February 2010).BDS Bus Ad Sightings. Retrieved

from: http://usacbi.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/bds-bus-ad-sightings/.


24/29

SECTION 7York Universitys Investment in Lockheed Martin:

1. The Company

Lockheed Martin is an arms manufacturer based in the United States. It focuses on the production ofaeronautics and electronics, as well as research and development of information technology services andsystems. The corporation describes itself as a global security company providing weaponry to nationalgovernments, including the United States Department of Defense. It also operates a commercial arm, withcorporate sales in 2009 totaling $45.2 billion.99 Lockheed Martin employs 136,000 employees in 75countries worldwide, including in 500 cities throughout the United States.100 Lockheed Martin currentlystands as the worlds number one military contractor and the largest arms exporter, 101 receiving 84 percentof its revenue from the US government and the Pentagon. 102 Lockheed Martin has also been embroiled incontroversies over fraud, overbilling of the federal government, questionable foreign payments, andemployment discrimination.103 For both the US and other governments, Lockheed Martin has producedcombat ships, fighter jets, missiles, nuclear weapons and military electronics. 104


As of September 2010, the York University Pension Fund and the York University Endowment Fundcurrently hold no investments in Lockheed Martin.

3. Lockheed Martins Complicity in Israeli Human Rights Violations

Lockheed Martin is the largest overseas supplier for the Israeli armaments industry105 and since 1995, it hasreceived more than $4 billion from Israel for providing arms such as fighter jets and missile systems. 106 Oneof its contracts with Israel includes manufacturing F-16 fighter aircrafts for the Israeli Defense Forces. Thisis an ongoing contract with the Israeli Defense Forces and Israeli Defense Industries, and is financed in

part through U.S military aid to Israel.107

In 2004, F-16 planes were developed by Lockheed Martin to meet Israeli military specifications. Theseplanes feature synthetic aperture radar (SAR) to enable tracking of ground targets, and conformal fueltanks to extend flight range.108 In a joint contract with Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin producedHellfire missiles, which have been used against Palestinian civilians. During Operation Grapes of Wrath

99 Lockheed Martin.About Us. Retrieved from: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/aboutus/index.html100Ibid.101 Corpwatch: Holding Corporations Accountable.Lockheed Martin. Retrieved from:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=9

102 Crocodyl: Collaborative research on corporations.Lockheed Martin. Retrieved from:http://www.crocodyl.org/wiki/lockheed_martin

103Ibid. This employment discrimination is cited in a 1996 lawsuit filed by former workers related to age discrimination,

settled by the corporation for 13 million dollars.104Ibid.105 The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions: United Kingdom chapter. Retrieved from:

http://www.icahduk.org/divestment/companiestodivest.html106Hoder Investment Research (Oct. 2009). Companies Supporting the Israeli Occupation of Palestinian Land. Retrieved

from: http://www.interfaithpeaceinitiative.com/profiting.pdf107Global Security.F-161 Sufa (Storm). Retrieved from: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/f-16i.htm108Ibid.


25/29

25

25

in Lebanon, Hellfire missiles fired from an Israeli Apache helicopter targeted an ambulance, killing 6civilians.109 They were also fired during the brutal military campaign Operation Cast Lead against Gazain 2008/09.110

Prior to the recent assault on Gaza and the boarding of aid ships en route to Gaza, former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan had already condemned the IDFs use of American built military weapons, statingthat hundreds of Palestinian civilians had been killed or injured in Israeli attacks, citing tanks deployed inrefugee camps and explosives dropped on heavily populated areas.111 Following Operation Cast Lead in2008/09, the use of F-16 fighter jets and Hellfire missiles was well documented as contributing to the morethan 1,000 confirmed Palestinian civilian deaths.112 These F-16 fighter jets have long been connected toIsraeli attacks on Palestinian and Lebanese villages. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch andAmnesty International have labeled such actions violations of human rights and insisted that theyconstitute war crimes, according to international law.113

In March 2010, amid criticisms of Israels continued housing construction in the occupied territories, theUnited States and Lockheed Martin signed a new agreement to provide Israel with several new SuperHercules tactical transport aircrafts.114 In a $2.7 billion deal, Israel has recently purchased 20 new F-35

fighter jets from Lockheed Martin for delivery between 2015 and 2017.115


Lockheed Martin has been a prominent target of many divestment campaigns concerned with Israelstreatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories and inside Israel proper. Lockheed Martin has beenincluded in divestment campaigns at Stanford University, Columbia University and the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.

Lockheed Martin was one of the companies named in a bill passed by the UC Berkeley student senate infavour of divesting the university from companies that provide military support to the Israeli occupation.

The bill was later vetoed by UC Berkeleys Associated Student Body President.116

109 Human Rights Watch. (2000).No Additional U.S Air-to-Ground Missiles to Israel. Retrieved From:

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2000/05/22/no-additional-us-air-ground-missiles-israel110 Hoder Investment Research (Oct. 2009). Companies Supporting the Israeli Occupation of Palestinian Land. Retrieved

from: http://www.interfaithpeaceinitiative.com/profiting.pdf111 William D. Hartung & Frida Berrigan (2002).Report: U.S Arms Transfers and Security Assistance to Israel .World

Policy Institute Research Project. Retrieved from: http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/israel050602.html112 Amnesty International. (July 2009).Israel/Gaza: Operation Cast Lead: 22 Days of Death and Destruction. Retrieved

from: http://www.amnesty.org/library/asset/MDE15/2009/en/8f299083-9a74-4853-860f-

0563725e633a/mde150152009en.pdf113 Campaign Against the Arms Trade.Arming the Occupation: Executive Summary . Retrieved from:

http://www.caat.org.uk/resources/publications/countries/israel-1002-summary.php; Amnesty International. (2009).

Fueling Conflict: Foreign Arms Supplies to Israel/Gaza. Retrieved from:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/012/2009/en/5be86fc2-994e-4eeb-a6e8-

3ddf68c28b31/mde150122009en.html114 Jim Wolf. (March 26 2010). US, Israel in pact for Lockheed planes.Reuters. Retrieved from

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26203902.htm115 Anshel Pfeffer. (August 15 2010). Israel to purchase 20 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets.Haaretz. Retrieved from:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-to-purchase-20-lockheed-martin-f-35-fighter-jets-1.308177116 Youmna Derby & Dina Omar. BDS at UC Berkeley: The Campaign, the vote and the veto. Retrieved from:

http://www.caldivestfromapartheid.com/


26/29

26

26

Students at the University of Michigan have begun their own divestment campaign targeting Israel. Itincludes Lockheed Martin (U Michigan invests several million dollars in the company). Their studentgovernment has already passed a resolution to pressure the administration to divest from companies thatbenefit from the Occupation.117

Source: http://forgivewithoutreason.tumblr.com/post/3183301599/protest-free-palestine

117Global BDS Movement. (Feb. 2009). Historic Student Divestment Resolution passed at the University of Michigan,

Dearborn. Retrieved from: http://bdsmovement.net/?q=node/647


27/29

27

27

SECTION 8Divestment Case Study: York University and South Africa

Context

The mid-1980s saw a wave of activism on university campuses across Canada and much of the world in favour of divestment from South African apartheid. Student groups formed to pressure their respectiveschools to sever all institutional links with South Africa whether via pension funds, endowment funds,goods and services contracts, or other institutional links. Student groups calling for such action weregenerally formed in or around 1985 and, by the late 1980s and early 1990s, they largely succeeded in theiraims.

Student Activism at York

In March of 1985, the York Student Movement Against Apartheid (YSMAA) was formed to push for theboycott of, and divestment, from South African products, services and investments at York University.Their first campaign was to collect 1000 signatures for a petition that demanded the university to make apublic statement renouncing apartheid and to call for the resignation of the shoe entrepreneur Sonja Batafrom the Board of Governors118. Bata Limited, through its operations in South Africa, perpetuatedcrimes against humanity and was notorious for practising union-busting in its factories. The Yorkcommunity demanded her removal as her presence contradicted the board's own regulation that membersmust serve the interest of, and broadly represent, the community, and advance its moral development119.

As the campaign gained momentum, YSMAA teamed up with the York University Faculty Association'santi-apartheid committee and other campus organizations to form the York University DivestmentCommittee, a coalition of staff, faculty and student groups120.

The University Divests

After many months of mobilizing support, in January of 1986, York University became the secondCanadian school to adopt a policy of divestment from South Africa121. A motion to divest, within oneyear, all holdings linked to South Africa and to continue divestment until the apartheid regime fell had beenproposed by the York University Divestment Committee122. Because of the broad community support thathad been mobilized, the ten person All-University Pension Committee did not take long to approve of thismotion123. Shortly after, York divested between $8 and 9 million from all South Africa-linked companieswithin its pension holdings124.

118Fine, Sean. (8 May, 1985) Petition at York asks Bata to resign. Globe and Mail.

119 Ibid.120 Rosenfeld, Erika. (20 Jan, 1986). York committee to vote on divestment policy. Globe and Mail.121 Ibid.122 Polanyi, Margaret. (23 Jan, 1986). York University plans end to Pretoria links. Globe and Mail.123 Ferri, John. (23 Jan, 1986). 2 more Ontario Universities poised to curb S. Africa links. Toronto Star.124 Rosenfeld, Erika. (20 Jan, 1986). York committee to vote on divestment policy. Globe and Mail.


28/29

28

28

Delaying the Inevitable

York was fortunate to have had a president that, though initially resistant to the idea of divestment,eventually came to see the wisdom of joining a powerful global movement in support of human rights inSouth Africa. In fact, Gene Desfor, a professor of environmental studies, commented that York wasfortunate to have had students, faculty and administration that co-operated in the community's attempt toaccomplish divestment125. Not all Canadian university presidents were so enlightened. In the case of theUniversity of Toronto, for example, President George Connell resisted taking action on apartheid for somethree years, despite mounting calls from students, staff, faculty and alumni. For some time, he was able tocommand support of the universitys Governing Council, but eventually, in January 1988, the Counciloverruled him and ordered the school to proceed with full divestment. Despite this, the administrationunder Connell delayed full implementation of the Council's decision for another two years126.

Apartheid Collapses

Less than four years after York took a firm stand against apartheid, the South African regime began to

unravel first with the release of Nelson Mandela in 1990, and then with the country's first multi-racialelections in 1994. In becoming the second Canadian university to implement divestment against SouthAfrica, York set an example for universities across the country that would each eventually take a stance insupport of social justice and human rights. York had joined a global movement that helped force an endto a racist and abusive regime unfortunately, not the last one in the world that no one today would darecontemplate defending.

125Rosenfeld, Erika. (20 Jan, 1986). York committee to vote on divestment policy. Globe and Mail.126Linda Freeman. (1997). The Ambiguous Champion: Canada and South Africa in the Trudeau and Mulroney Years.

Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 145-7.


29/29

29

SECTION 9

Demands

Based on the findings of the report and in the spirit of democratic governance, we demand that:

1)York University immediately divest from and refuse to reinvest in stocks in BAE Systems,Northrop Grumman, Hewlett Packard and Lockheed Martin.

2) York University refrain from investing in all companies involved in violations of international law.With respect to Palestine, this entails following the guidelines put forth by Students for Justice inPalestine in the historic divestment by Hampshire College127:

York University should refrain from investing in companies that:

a) Provide products or services that contribute to the maintenance of the Israeli militaryoccupation of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as well as the SyrianGolan Heights;

b) Provide products or services that contribute to the maintenance and expansion of Israelisettlements in the occupied Palestinian territories;

c) Establish facilities or operations in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories;d) Provide products or services that contribute to the maintenance and construction of the

Wall;

e) Provide products or services that contribute to violent acts that target either Israeli orPalestinian civilians.

3) York University work with students, faculty, and staff to undergo a democratic and transparentprocess to ensure accountability to principles of social and environmental justice.