The case for sanctions against Israel [View All]

[aneerkoinos]

First, I hope it's OK to post this here instead of the Israel/Palestine group, because I wish that the possible discussion on this article and the points I try to make would center more on the EU and EU/US angles.


"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?"

snip

"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.

Obtaining sanctions and a weapons ban today will not be easy. That is all the more reason why a strong campaign needs to be mounted as soon as possible. A recent report by the House of Commons international development committee pointed to the leverage available through making European trade agreements conditional on Israel's compliance with international law and security council resolutions (all flouted by Israel).

War on Want has stated: "A trade policy could provide a key mechanism for exerting pressure on Israel. A full economic embargo would be in line with article two of the EU-Israeli association agreement, which states that trade restrictions can be enforced in deference to a country's poor human rights record." As emerges incontrovertibly from the Israeli supreme court's ruling, let alone that of the international court, this government's human rights record is appalling."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1259087,00.html


I see no realistic hope of either Bush or Kerry admins taking effective measures to end the conflict, so it is time for EU to face it's responsibilities promoting peace and stability and human rights at it's neighbourhood, even if this means breaking loose from common front with US. Most Israel foreign trade is with EU, so this should give enough leverage for EU policy of sanctions to be very effective on both putting pressure on Israeli governement and changing the common opinion in Israel, first among the influential Israel business community.

After the International Court's condemnation of the "security" wall has gone through UN and been vetoed by US, it should be time for EU to take action. However, I'm not in total agreement with the article, I don't support full trade embargo right away (except arms embargo), but a slowly tightening sanctions regime, starting with threatening and clear dates. The human rights clause in association treaty with Israel not only allows EU to use trade sanctions, but also morally obligates it to do so. This should naturally be done in consultation with third parties, including Russia, EU's other Mediterranean partners and US.

So, how likely is it that EU would follow my advice? Hard to say. I'm pretty sure that European common opinion and also majority of European Parliament support sanctions or threat of them if given chance to vote. The power to take initiative in EU trade policies lies with European Commission, but it is hard to imagine that in a matter as grave as this, Commission would go forward without political support from European Counsil, ie. governement of member states. Such support may be hard to come by. For Germany, because of historical reasons, it is very difficult to take any actions against Israel. Especially UK and some of the new member states may be very reluctant to defy US, if (and when) it comes to that. But there's also cost to pay in not taking action. No end to the conflict in sight, EU's policies on human rights and promoting international rule of law loosing credibility and EU's southern neighbours accusing us - rightly so - of partiality in the conflict.

One unknown is how hard blow would such action be on the already strained US - EU relations, e.g. presuming that Kerry wins. Any takers?