Boycotting Israel won't solve crisis

[Mosby]

Sir -- We, members of the American Trade Union movement, have heard and read with disappointment and sadness that some of our Irish colleagues continue to lead a campaign in Ireland for a boycott of Israeli goods and services. It would seem that the appeal we made to them, during our visit to Ireland last November, to reconsider their boycott call has fallen on deaf ears.

We believe that such a campaign amounts to a form of prejudice and discrimination. In unfairly singling out one party to the conflict, it aims to punish and delegitimise Israel while ignoring the decades-long attacks against it by Palestinian terrorist organisations. Such a campaign can only serve to embolden these extreme elements and disempower moderates.

snip

Jack Ahern, President,

New York City Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO,

Atty Mike Carroll,

Robert Haynes, President, Massachusetts AFL-CIO,

Atty Cody McCone,

Atty Brian O'Dwyer,

Tom Wilkinson, President,

Fairfield County Labor Council, AFL-CIO

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/boycotting-israel-wont-solve-crisis-1657552.html

[GoesTo11]

1. It wouldn't come close to a final solution, although it's a start.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. What do you mean by final solution and what has it got to do with boycotting Israel?

Sorry, but that comment seemed rather silly...

[Neo Atheist]

3. what an unbelievably idiotic choice of words

were you using the "English to Eichmann" Translator when you wrote that?

[Idealism]

5. You outdo yourself

:rofl:

Seriously, I hope you forgot the sarcasm tag.

[GoesTo11]

7. "Solve the crisis" = Solution.

What are you all getting worked up about?

[Idealism]

8. Perhaps I gave you more credit than was due

Your usual snarkiness and sarcasm led me to believe this was a similar posting, sorry.

[GoesTo11]

9. Nah, you were right.

I was being snarky. Combined snark with a play on words.

I really don't like the boycott idea.

[Idealism]

10. What about it to you oppose?

I know you approve of this measure more than violent retaliation, so why are you against non-violence trying to change minds? Or is this specific to academic or cultural boycotts?

[GoesTo11]

11. Not productive.

I certainly oppose boycotts less than I oppose violent retaliation. Basically, I think that any country would have done what Israel did with all the rocket attacks from Gaza, and many countries would have done far more. Boycotts won't make a country stop defending its citizens. The settlements are not something that every country does (although, truthfully, many countries do the equivalent - but that doesn't make it right). But they're not worth boycotting over.

I think any good long term outcome will have to come from Palestinians being raised, not from Israel being brought down.

[Idealism]

13. The settlements haven't been the only thing drawing international condemnation

Although people are right to harp on the settlements. I personally take umbrage with the Israeli governments use of extra-judicial assassinations that target Palestinian leaders they do not like. Besides the fact that these killings are against international law, that is not the way to get people to negotiate with you. More often than not through the decades that this policy has been exercised, the fallen leader gets replaced with an even more hawkish figure, to make matters even worse. Hundreds of Israeli citizens have been killed in suicide bomber attacks explicitly carried out in retaliation for the assassination of Palestinian leaders. Military intelligence has told the government this over and over just to be ignored, which is the most appalling aspect of the entire thing in my eyes. Why would the government carry out policies that they know will lead to their own citizens dying and suffering?

I think boycotts are effective if coordinated enough. The idea isn't to make Israel's economy hurt for years, it is to make them realize the potential negative impact and to change their ways immediately. The more backers of this the better, and of course this is better than violent retaliation.

[GoesTo11]

14. Boycotts won't make them realize anything

There is already an "us against the world" mentality that runs pretty deep in Israel. It's really important to understand how they feel if you want to induce a desirable response. A boycott would reinforce that feeling and would increase support for a government that embodies that feeling. Although there are the zealots who want biblical land, almost all Israelis are very concerned with security and they're not going to put economics over security. Not that this will happen, but if, for example, the US put a million troops in a buffer zone, Israel would probably vote overwhelmingly to give the Palestinians whatever they want on the other side of that buffer zone.

[Idealism]

15. It was a similiar mentality in South Afrfica with the minority white rulers.

They too felt the whole world, or at least the continent, is against them. If it comes down to economics against security, I think economics will win out. Given the severity of this global recession, if the US would threaten to cut our foreign aid to Israel, I doubt it would change matters unless there was a united effort to divest and boycott. If there was this divestment and boycott, the public opinion against the settlements and land grabs may change. The problem is there are those on both sides who dehumanize their adversaries in order to commit horrible acts. Rocket attackers do not see the face of the child they maim when their projectile hits a school, just like the IAF pilots don't see the sleeping mother they killed while dropping bombs on a row of houses.

The problem here is that Hamas will not just renounce violence without Israel first doing something to appease them. It is a matter of ego and arrogance. Hamas sees themselves as strengthened by Cast Lead because if this massive operation failed to root them out of Gaza, and the world reacted unfavorably to Israel in the process, they are in a win-win situation. They can continue the rocket attacks with relative impunity because you will always have people speak out against Israel's actions against Palestinians (some for definitely the wrong reasons). If Israel does breakdown and actually commit to the two-state solution, forsake demolishing Palestinian homes and colonizing Palestinian lands, and stop the extrajudicial assassinations and air raids, you will see an agreement from the Palestinians. It may not be Hamas, but the Palestinian people will not allow that type of appeasement fall on deaf extremists' ears. The only reason Hamas has the backing of the people is because they have never seen an Israeli commitment to peace brought by Fatah or the PLO. If these things started to happen, and hopefully someone like Marwan Barghouti could take the reins from Fatah and lead a PA unity government, then you will have Palestinians accept no right of return. The foreign aid they would get would dramatically improve their lives, and like I stated before, I believe economics will trump everything in this situation.

If you make the occupation too costly, Israel will not continue it, no matter what the ultra Nationalists say.

[GoesTo11]

16. South Africa was different in the key respect of your argument

Jews came to Israel in order to feel secure after not just the Holocaust but all sorts of hardship over the centuries.
Whites settled South Africa under the flags of some very powerful countries in order to make money - if they felt it was the world against them, they wouldn't have an explanation that is as intuitive to them as anti-Semitism is to Israelis. And on the flip side, they would be more willing to choose the economic side of the equation since they were really quite rich because of being colonists exploiting natural resources. Stereotypes aside, very few Jews ever came to Israel to strike it rich.

[Idealism]

17. So you don't believe that Israeli's "think with their wallets?"

I believe most don't care about the settlements, but if they get hit in the pocketbook, they would take notice and pressure their officials to either do something about it, or get voted out of office.

There will be some who will say this is more "us vs the world," but what does that rhetoric ever yield that is productive? If there are billions less a year in investment flowing into Israel, you will see change happen, whether it is unpopular at first with some or not.

[GoesTo11]

18. Exactly

They would not think with their wallets when it comes to security. More so than Americans, who haven't really faced existential threats. When security not part of the discussion, of course they think with their wallets. If you think that money would come before security, then I can see why you think boycotts would work to pressure Israel, but I think that is a very incorrect assumption.

[Idealism]

19. Perhaps that is the problem

That the average Israeli sees Hamas as an existential threat to Israel. I certainly don't think that is the case, considering that Hamas has nothing but small arms and weak explosives against the entire might of the Israeli forces. That is an unfortunate side effect of Israeli politics, though. Just like the Iraq War and national security was greatly over-hyped following 9/11 and in the lead up to the 2004 presidential election, I believe the Israeli politicians have no quarrels with greatly exaggerating Hamas's capabilities because it serves their own needs.

Do you believe that Hamas poses an existential threat to the state of Israel?

[eyl]

23. The point you're missing

is that it doesn't have to be an existential threat to all of Israel - it's enough that Hamas (and by extension, Palestinian terrorism in general) is a substantial threat to individuals' security.

Hell, Yesterday's bulldozer attack occured not far from where I live - and I'd passed through that junction the previous evening. So in my personal outlook security is definitely a highly significant factor.

[Idealism]

24. What was the reason given by the Palestinian?

Or did the motive get explained that he "hated Israeli's?"

The US has a problem with how we perceive terrorists. Many US citizens think Al Qaeda "hate us for our freedoms" or some nonsense, they don't see the things Bin Laden protests against (US troops and bases in Saudia Arabia, unconditional support to dictators who oppress Muslims, unquestioning loyalty to Israel at the expense of Palestinians, etc). We are told these people hate us for our life style and that they carry out these crimes unprovoked.

In Israel, does the average citizen see, think, or question the settlements? Do they question extrajudicial assassinations? How about air raids into Gaza? Does every action of the military get justified, no matter the civilian casualties? These things anger an entire society who is already predisposed to be upset with Israel. Does the average citizen see these things in Israel? I know the average US citizen doesn't see these things here.

[Shaktimaan]

27. If everyone's son, father and brother in America...

was in the army, do you think people would be as complacent as they are about these matters?

There's your answer.

Seriously, you are making a lot of assumptions about Israel based on what you know about America. It seems like you're assuming certain things but you lack any real kind of understanding of the history or culture. To be honest I really find it to be pretty condescending. (no offense intended.)

[Shaktimaan]

26. This argument is a few years too late though.

The problem here is that Hamas will not just renounce violence without Israel first doing something to appease them.

If Israel does breakdown and actually commit to the two-state solution, forsake demolishing Palestinian homes and colonizing Palestinian lands, and stop the extrajudicial assassinations and air raids, you will see an agreement from the Palestinians.

That is precisely what the Israeli left thought in the early 90's when they were pushing the land-for-peace concept and Oslo. It's a terrible thing but they all turned out to be wrong. And those asshole, right-wing bigots from the settler movement ended up predicting everything fairly accurately. There's a reason that the land-for-peace movement is all but dead in Israel now.

Israel has already done what you suggest... more than once. They really have. The reaction they got was not the one that leftists like myself expected at all. It was tragic. But at least no one has any illusions anymore as to the reality of the situation.

I realize you don't know what I'm talking about. If you like I'll lay it all out for you. But the short version is that the thing you are suggesting here has already been tried. Seriously... you are making predictions here based on some assumptions you have. It sounds like you're basing them on what you think YOU would do. On what sounds REASONABLE. Forget it dude. You seriously don't know nearly enough about this to make any kind of predictions at all. No one does. Especially about Hamas.

Everyone thought that what you are saying here would actually work if Israel just committed to it. But it really didn't. You are 100% wrong on this one.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Israel hasn't done as the poster suggested...they really haven't....

Continued settlement activity

From 1992 to 1996, when the Labor-MERETZ government was in office, the West Bank settler population expanded by 39 percent to 145,000. Only 16 percent of this growth was due to natural increase. The government constructed a vast network of bypass roads to provide easy access to the settlements, preparing the way for annexing several large settlement blocs. In East Jerusalem, the Jewish population grew by 22,000 to over 170,000, and the government authorized completion of 10,000 subsidized housing units begun under the previous Likud regime. In violation of international law and Oslo's principles Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres reaffirmed Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem. According to the Israeli human rights group, B'Tselem, "Israel systematically violates human rights in the Occupied Territories in violation of the Oslo Agreements and in breach of its obligations under international human rights agreements" (Human Rights in the Occupied Territories Since the Oslo Accords, December 1996).


http://www.meripFrom 1992 to 1996, when the Labor-MERETZ government was in office, the West Bank settler population expanded by 39 percent to 145,000. Only 16 percent of this growth was due to natural increase. The government constructed a vast network of bypass roads to provide easy access to the .org/mero/mero032699.html

Demolition of Palestinian homes

While nearly 300 Palestinian houses were demolished in Jerusalem between 1987 and 2000, in West Jerusalem some demolition orders were carried out, but only of an extra room or a porch, never a whole building like in Palestinian neighbourhoods.

http://www.jcser.org/english/homedemolitions.html

[Shaktimaan]

34. what about the beginning of oslo?

Idealism's argument is that if Israel makes a substantial commitment to the peace process then there wouldn't be resistance from groups like Hamas. But the first 6 months of Oslo was a great example of exactly what he's asking Israel for. Hamas' response is a matter of historical record, as is their motivation.

Hamas did not start the rash of terrorism seen during that period because Israel wasn't adhering to the agreement. It was because they feared a successful agreement with Israel.

Likud was elected because of what the Israeli public saw as the failure of Oslo. Israel made concessions and the Palestinians did nothing except increase terror.

[Sezu]

25. "Boycotts won't make a country stop defending its citizens."

Don't worry, the Israel haters will figure something else out that will.

:sarcasm:

[Dorian Gray]

32. Oopss...

should read more before I respond. Ignore my last response to you.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. No, it's "Solve the crisis" = final solution...

What a fucking moronic thing to say.

[Dorian Gray]

31. Google

"Final Solution." Your choice of words may have been accidentally tragic, but it's really not appropriate for a discussion on Israel or Jewish issues.

[Jefferson23]

4. Yea well, they want to keep on making money, that is their priority,

not the crisis in Gaza. No surprise here.

[Vegasaurus]

6. Of course it is prejudice and discimination

and it won't work.

[azurnoir]

12. Yup it was called prejudice

when South Africa was boycotted too

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Exactly n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

22. These idiots trot out the same nonsense every now and again...

Seriously, what else does anyone expect from the US union movement? Gosh, I hope their unions have never boycotted any other country or business coz that'd make them guilty of discrimination and prejudice. Or does that whiny stuff only apply to Israel and to nothing else?

[iconicgnom]

28. Just as in the case of SA, boycotts serve their purpose.

For one thing, boycotts are *performative* communications. They aren't neutral. They involve the rational-active-selves of the boycotters, so express a degree of conscious commitment. This is good, because it reinforces a consciousness of the problem. But in themselves, boycotts aren't intended to be "solutions".

The siege on Gaza is VERY SIMILAR to a boycott - except it's exercised by military force.

[LeftishBrit]

29. Boycotts may or may not serve their purpose

Boycotts are most likely to be effective for a state that has previously been, and perceived itself to be, in good standing with the international community; which values its international ties; and which has reason to believe that if it changes certain specific actions, this will result in a change in the international attitude.

These do not apply to Israel - or Palestine. A state or people that already feel that 'the world is against us so we must look after ourselves' is likely to become even more intransigent when boycotted.

'The siege on Gaza is VERY SIMILAR to a boycott - except it's exercised by military force.'

I couldn't agree more, and have pointed this out in the past. I have always opposed this siege. But has it 'served its purpose', except to make many Gazans more hawkish and intransigent than before, and to strengthen Hamas? A very striking example of what I said above.

[iconicgnom]

30. As I said "except it's exercised by military force"

That's a rather large exception, LeftishBrit! It breaks any analogy that someone might attempt to draw between the *legitimacy* of the one and the *legitimacy* of the other.

And oh yes, the siege on Gaza is working to destroy a people. Don't kid yourself that it hasn't been effective.