“Words do not stop drones and do not intercept missiles. Only tangible assistance does.” These were the words of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, shortly after the Islamic Republic of Iran launched hundreds of Shahed drones and missiles at Israel in April of this year.

Recently, the Sumud Coalition introduced the “Books, Not Bombs” referendum to the Yale College Council and this week, the Yale student body will put it to a vote. The referendum demands that Yale “divest from military weapons manufacturers” and “act on its commitment to education by investing in Palestinian scholars and students.” How noble of them, taking a stance against the big bad warmongers. If only things were this simple. I approach this topic as a Jewish Zionist with lots of family and friends living in Israel and serving in the Israel Defense Forces. Some might say I have my biases, but the way I see it, I have skin in this war.

I am quite fond of democracy and that is why I oppose this referendum. Democracy is what allowed this referendum to take place at Yale, and I am grateful for this despite my opposition to the referendum. The problem is that “Books, Not Bombs” is based on a dangerous isolationist ideology that is ineffective at protecting democracies. As Zelenskyy said, only tangible action, such as military assistance, protects democracies. We are privileged to live in the United States, and sometimes it is easy to take democracy for granted. Our democracy has its flaws and it sometimes falls short of its ideals, but ultimately democracy thrives because people are willing to fight for it. When our democratic allies are threatened, books will not protect them from bombs. For example, they’re trying to divest from the very defense manufacturers who provide Ukraine with essential military aid to defend their country from genocidal Russian invaders. 

I am not Ukrainian and although I am deeply passionate and involved with the Ukrainian cause, I do not claim to speak on behalf of the Ukrainian community at Yale. The “Books, Not Bombs” Referendum FAQ section 9 attempts to address the aforementioned problem, but instead doubles down and says that divesting from Ukraine’s defense is justified if it also means divesting from Israel’s defense. It calls Ukraine a “good guy with a gun,” but ultimately argues that neither Ukraine or Israel should have the gun in the first place. In other words, the referendum favors unilateral disarmament in the face of invaders who seek the dismemberment of the targeted countries and their citizens. Forget Israel for a moment; I dare anyone to go up to a Ukrainian student at Yale and tell them that you voted to divest from the defense of their family, friends and homeland because you also wanted to divest from the defense of the Jewish homeland — not to mention delaying the return of the hostages, some of whom are our fellow Americans.

In April, I was in Israel on the night that Iran sent hundreds of drones and missiles to kill civilians. I’ve had to run barefoot to the bomb shelters as I heard and felt explosions over my head. However, even when I was sitting awake in bed, fully clothed, waiting for the sirens to sound as death barreled towards me at the speed of sound, I felt grateful. I survived those bombs not because of books, but because of Israel’s miraculous defensive capabilities — the Iron Dome, Arrow 2 and 3 and David’s Sling. I was grateful to be in Israel, protected by the only Jewish army in the world. The actions that the “Books, Not Bombs” referendum seeks would make it harder for Israel to protect me, my family and my friends from neighboring factions who have stated time and time again that they would stop at nothing to kill the Jewish people. And while “Books, Not Bombs” will endanger Israeli civilians, including my loved ones, it won’t protect innocent Palestinians. Israel’s air defense system has repeatedly protected the entire country, Jews and Arabs alike. Ironically, yet tragically, Iran only killed a Palestinian man in the West Bank in its most recent attack. 

Though many advocates of this referendum may be well-intentioned, their theory of the case is flawed. Suppose that the Yale Investments Office did disclose — and then divest — its stakes in defense manufacturers. The impact on Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky’s total production would be marginal. But the message that such an action would send would be harmful: the next generation of American leaders believes that Israel should have to defend itself with one hand tied behind its back. 

The war can end tomorrow and no more innocent Palestinian or Israeli blood needs to be shed if Hamas returns every hostage and surrenders. In an ideal world, groups like Yalies4Palestine and Yale Friends of Israel could work together toward a true peace. Instead of calling for divestment from Israel, we should put pressure on Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran to end this war, because only they have the keys to peace.

ELIJAH WIESEL is a first year in Davenport College. He can be reached at elijah.wiesel@yale.edu.