The Case for Sanctions Against Israel

[Violet_Crumble]

The bomb attack in Tel Aviv yesterday highlights the desperate need to achieve a peace settlement. It highlights, too, the futility of the wall Israel is building in Palestinian land, a wall condemned by the international court of justice last Friday and whose route was condemned by Israel's supreme court last month. What action is needed to put an end to this dance of death?

When the international court demanded the removal of the wall, the Israeli government replied that it had a "moral duty" to protect its citizens. Quite apart from the fact that this government - the most rightwing and bellicose in Israel's 56-year history - could not recognise a moral duty if hit in the face by one, the protection of citizens is, above all, the duty in which it is failing.

<snip>

What, then, should be done? It is pointless to take the issue to the UN security council, since the Bush administration, seeking to win Jewish votes from the Democrats while impelled to support Sharon by Texas Christian wacky fundamentalism, would veto any resolution condemning the Israeli government.


Economic sanctions and an arms ban against Israel are the only way of breaking the impasse. Such a policy brought down apartheid in South Africa, which was similarly condemned by the world court in 1971 for its illegal occupation of South West Africa (now free and democratic Namibia). It was sanctions imposed by a President Bush (the incumbent's markedly more sensible and principled father) that forced a rightwing Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir, to peace talks in Madrid after Bush suspended $10bn of loan guarantees for resettling Russian immigrants in Israel.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=5878

[Jim Sagle]

1. Actually, suicide bombings are way down since construction began, and

the Peace Fence is only about 35% done.

The Peace Fence...making the world a better place, one brick at a time.

[IndianaGreen]

2. "Peace fence"? Why didn't the East Germans think of that?

They should have called it the Peace Wall instead of the Berlin Wall.

The Orwellian language that comes out of Jerusalem and Washington these days puts 1984 to shame!

[Jim Sagle]

3. The only Orwellianism here is coming from those who neglect to point out

that the Peace Fence is designed to keep bad guys out and not to keep good guys in.

[lefty_mcduff]

5. Not really - Orwellian still fits.

The Berlin Wall was claimed to be part of a 'buffer zone' to protect the Soviet Union from the hordes of the West. That's pretty much *exactly* the same thing.

[Jim Sagle]

6. Orwellian fits the opposition, not the fence.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. Then why is the Piece Fence built on a piece of occupied land?

The argument against the security barrier isn't that Israel shouldn't defend herself form terrorist attacks, but that she should respect the integrity of the land she occupies by not making de facto annexation of territory or by using occupied land for her own use, such as building settlements.

The problem is that the Piece Fence is annexation. The Israeli government (and its supporters on this forum) have failed to show that a barrier built on or closer to the Green Line would be any less of an effective at preventing attacks than the fence built where it is. They have have many opportunities to present their case, but only respond that it is for security. That's just begging the question.

Until the Israeli government can show a compelling need to build the barrier in occupied territory, then it must be held that building the barrier where it is has a purpose other than security. That being the case, those who charge that calling it a "Peace Fence" is Orwellian are within reason.

[Jim Sagle]

10. It's not occupied, it's disputed. And the reason they placed the fence

there is to force Arafat back to the bargaining table. Nothing is permanent about the fence's location.

[Jack Rabbit]

11. Disputed?

Speaking of Orwellian terms, that's another one. The West Bank is not not and never has been part of the modern state of Israel. The land was overrun in 1967. It is occupied. The only dispute is in the minds of the Israeli right wing. If you don't think so, please consult the following:



Also, it should be noted that Resolution 242 emphasizes "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". In short, the land is occupied and cannot be unilaterally annexed. Any claims Israel would like to make on the territory will have to be negotiated and the Palestinians will have to be compensated for the territory given over the Israeli state in some way.

[Jim Sagle]

14. Yes, disputed - because no treaty with the Palestinians has yet been

signed. Not occupied - because the Palestinians have yet to declare themselves a nation - something they could do at any time with no permission needed from anyone.

[The Magistrate]

15. Unfortunately, Mr. Sagle

Neither of the things you advance establish what you wish them to.

If a dispute exists over what party properly exercises sovereignty over the territories overrun in '67, it is one Israel is not a party to. All of that ground was part of the area set aside for the Arab Zone by the U.N. Partition in '47, and so there cannot be any rightful Israeli claim to it. It is true that Israel succeeded in '48 in conquering a portion of the designated Arab Zone, and that the incorporation of that conquest into Israel was effectively ratified on its admission to the United Nations in 1951. This cannot serve as a precedent, however, for any further absorption by conquest subsequent to Israel's coming under the U.N. Charter, and in view of the developed state of international law in the question of annexing territory taken in war. Either Jordan or Egypt might perhaps advance some claim the territory in question is disputed, since both conquered portions of it in '48, and Jordan claimed to have annexed the portion it conquered, and did in fact exercise without hinderance sovereignty there for nineteen years. Both countries, however, have foresworn by treaty any claim to that ground subsequently. That no final treaty between Israel and the political leadership of the Arab Palestinian people has been concluded has no bearing whatever on the question. The land is outside the boundaries alloted to the Jewish Zone by the United Nations, and outside the boundaries recognized as Israel subsequently on its joining the United Nations. Israel has no claim to it; it is not part of Israel; none of it can be legally incorporated into Israel without the agreement of the Arab Palestinians, to whom it was consigned by the Partition of '47.

Nor does the fact that the political leadership of Arab Palestine has yet to declare itself a sovereign state have any bearing on whether the territory is occupied. Nationhood is not a prerequisite for that status. Whether you are aware of it or not, Sir, you are attempting here to revive the old doctrine under which Columbus and Cortez sailed, that regardless of population and local arrangements, whatever land does not have a government recognized by a civilized power may be claimed by that power which first comes upon it in force. It is fair enough to state that is the way the world's affairs were arranged for the great bulk of human history, but it is no longer recognized as a lawful doctrine, but seen instead as merest piracy. The territories overrun in '67 are occupied, because they are not part of Israel, and yet are under control of Israeli miltary power. That is all that needs to be demonstrated for Israel to be recognized as an occupying power, a status which imposes certain duties, and confers certain rights, and requires the observence of certain restrictions, under international law.

[Jack Rabbit]

17. Thank you, Sir

As always, your post is a model of facts encased in a sound argument.

[The Magistrate]

18. A Pleasure, My Friend

Reiteration of that particular line is becoming tedious; it is utterly without foundation, and that has been demonstrated ad nauseum....

[tinnypriv]

24. Correct, except you should remove 'right-wing'

Since its government policy (whoever is in power) that the WB and Gaza are the "Judea, Samaria and Gaza Area", or "Judea, Samaria and Gaza District", according to the official maps of Israel.

'West Bank' is a term rejected by Israel, without exception. Right-wing or not.

[Classical_Liberal]

12. The theft fence is designed to steal more land

Security could just as easily be achieved if it were on the green line where it belongs.

[lefty_mcduff]

4. It isn't built with bricks. It isn't a fence. And it certainly

isn't making the *WORLD* a better place. Hardliner Soviets made the same Orwellian argument about the Berlin Wall. They were wrong as well.

Attempting to brand this land grab as the Peace Fence would seem to denote that it's bringing peace. And that is just nonsense.

As long as Israelis drive tanks through the Peace Fence checkpoints and fly Apache Helicopters over the 'Peace Fence' to attack Palestinians it's not bringing ANY Peace.

[Jim Sagle]

7. Most of it is actually chain link fence. So you're right about that part.

But most of it IS a fence. And I crushed that silly "Orwellian" meme already.

[lefty_mcduff]

8. Not sure you crushed anything.

Just because you claim you defeated an argument does not actually make it so. The 'Orwellian' comments refers to your 'Peace is War' description of the wall. Pretty accurate actually.

It's not bringing ANY Peace. Using your logic it *could* be called the 'Fewer Suicide Attacks but Just As many IDF Attacks on Palestinians" fence. Though that ain't so catchy.

[IA_Seth]

13. New name...

The "Keeping you out and away from crops, schools, and other essentials to prosperity" Fence.

[Jim Sagle]

16. Things are more peaceful than they used to be.

This arrangement won't be good forever, and I doubt that it's intended to last that long, but for now, it's a vast improvement.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

21. Will make trains be more on time too (nt)

[The Magistrate]

23. It Is Damned Annoying WhenThey Do Not, Sir....

[Betty The Younger]

19. No it highlights the desperate need

"The bomb attack in Tel Aviv yesterday highlights the desperate need to achieve a peace settlement."

No it highlights the desperate need to crack down even harder on terrorists.

[Betty The Younger]

20. No it highlights the desperate

"The bomb attack in Tel Aviv yesterday highlights the desperate need to achieve a peace settlement."

No it highlights the desperate need to crack down even harder on terrorists.

[tinnypriv]

22. How about sanctions on the United States?

For supporting and funding this idiocy?

If not, why not? Unfair to single out Israel I think.

[Matilda]

25. Not really unfair.

The U.S. may be aiding and abetting, but Israel is doing the
building, and stealing the land.

I think the EU will have to bite the bullet and use the s-word.

[Darranar]

26. There are plenty of other good reasons for sanctions on the US...

If Israel's campaign of repression in the West Bank and Gaza warrants sanctions, then the US slaughter in Iraq warrants similar action.

I am not sure whether Israel, at least, does; sanctions seem to be an unfair form of collective punishment to me, and if Israel's current economic troubles do not seem to harm the Likud in the slightest, why should further economic trouble, spurred on by sanctions, be so much more effective? The flow of US aid would of course continue, and would likely be bolstered, as the "bigoted" world punished "the Jew among the nations" for its "humanitarian" repression of the Palestinian people. Furthermore, the move would give the Israeli right a new excuse to claim that the whole world is against them, therefore reducing respect for the international community to an even lower level.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. There would be no need for sanctions at all...

...if the US put it's foot down and stopped supporting everything Israel does. I might be wrong, but the mere threat of sanctions just from the US alone would go a long way to putting a stop to this. Israel is very sensitive about what states it has good relations with think of it. Without their support, Israel would have incredible trouble in perpetuating the myth that it's Israel, not the Palestinians, who are the victims in this conflict. The trouble with economic sanctions is exactly what you said. The people who will end up punished are low-income Israelis who are already suffering under Sharon's government. And as Jack Rabbit has pointed out before, this situation is a more complex one than the sanctions against South Africa. I think that if every Israeli blindly supported every action of the Israeli govt in the Occupied Territories, then I'd support sanctions, but there's a large number of Israelis who are opposed to the occupation, so how is it fair to hurt them? Economic, cultural, and sporting sanctions might end up becoming necessary, but only if the US is on board and it's a universal thing, and only when all other means to try to get Israel to comply have been exhausted. But while there's countries like the US and Australia (and various shitty little insignificant Pacific islands with a population of several hundred heavily dependent on US and Australian aid people) voting against Resolutions on what is a flawed technicality, Israel will never get the message that what it's doing is totally unacceptable and totally illegal under international law...

Violet...

[Darranar]

28. Welll, the US is about as likely...

to seriously threaten sanctions against Israel as Sharon is likely to announce his support for a democratic one-state solution. The only important party that has any considerable chance of enacting sanctions against Israel would be the EU, and I find that unlikely as well; there is much trade between Israel and Europe, and money has a way of trumping ideology.

The General Assembly resolutions are sort of pointless in my view, whether eight or eighty nations vote against them is irrelevant. The resolutions are not binding, and even UN resolutions that are binding, Security Council resolutions for instance, are occasionally violated anyway with no real response. If the nations were unanimous in condemnation of Israel (aside from "Little Israel" itself, of course), it would simply be an excuse for the usual whining about "Israel hatred" , and if they rejected the resolution overwhelmingly, it would be an excuse to shout about how even the virulently anti-semitic and Israel-hating world supported Israel against the ridiculous accusations thrown at it.

[Matilda]

29. The U.S. only has to withhold its aid and weapons.

Ironic that it was Bush the Elder who did this successfully.

I guess what it would take for this to happen is for Americans who
are opposed to Israel's current actions to cast off their fear of
being called anti-semitic and make their feelings known to the next
administration. (Forget Bush, there's no hope there).

Or perhaps it would just take a courageous president.

[Classical_Liberal]

30. The politicians in most EU countries have publically financed elections

so they aren't as beholdend to industry groups. Futhermore Israel really doesn't contribute much to the vast EU economy, on the other hand the EU contributes vaste amounts to Israels. I am sure Israel will whine, but sanctions are on the way, so it won't whine long.