In several instances, there have been calls to boycott Israel economically, including trade and tourism, as well as academically. It is believed that an
economic boycott would cripple the economy of Israel, thereby facilitating peaceful solutions to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, promoting sympathy towards the Palestinians and the alleviation of their plight. Box 11.1 highlights one of the most recent examples of political consumerism related to a call for boycotting Israel.
There can be pragmatic as well as moral dilemmas associated with a boycott. The main realistic objection to boycotting Israel is that in an environment imbued with politics and ideology a general boycott is probably not to eventuate anytime soon, if ever. A look at the world map indicates trade agreements and diplomatic relations with Israel in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the Pacific, Europe, North America and Latin America. Trade agreements are numerous and will remain so (Table 11.1).
Similarly, on 20–22 October, the Conference, hosted by the President of the State of Israel, Shimon Peres, entitled ‘Facing Tomorrow’ took place in Jerusalem. ‘Some 3,000 participants, from Israel and overseas will be taking part in the Conference which will focus on our mutual tomorrow by investigating trends that are shaping the future and exploring actions that could be undertaken towards the betterment of generations to come for all the world’s citizens’
(Israeli Presidential Conference, 2009).
Box 11.1. A most recent example of political consumerism (excerpt from electronic Intifada 2009).
UK trade unions overwhelmingly pass boycott vote:
Press release, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, 17 September 2009 In a landmark decision, Britain’s trade unions have voted overwhelmingly to commit to build a mass boycott movement, disinvestment and sanctions on Israel for a negotiated settlement based on justice for Palestinians. The motion was passed at the 2009 TUC Annual Congress in Liverpool today (17 September), by unions representing 6.5 million workers across the UK. Hugh Lanning, chair of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said:
‘This motion is the culmination of a wave of motions passed at union conferences this year, following outrage at Israel’s brutal war on Gaza, and reflects the massive growth in support for Palestinian rights. We will be working with the TUC to develop a mass campaign to boycott Israeli goods, especially agricultural products that have been produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank.’ The motion
additionally called for the TUC General Council to put pressure on the British government to end all arms trading with Israel and support moves to suspend the EU–Israel trade agreement. Unions are also encouraged to disinvest from companies which profit from Israel’s illegal 42-year occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. The motion was tabled by the Fire Brigades Union. The biggest unions in the UK, including Unite, the public sector union, and UNISON, which represents health service workers, voted in favor of the motion.
The motion also condemned the Israeli trade union Histadrut’s statement supporting Israel’s war on Gaza, which killed 1,450 Palestinians in three weeks, and called for a review of the TUC’s relationship with Histadrut. Britain’s trade unions join those of South Africa and Ireland in voting to use a mass boycott campaign as a tool to bring Israel into line with international law, and pressure it to comply with UN resolutions that encourage justice and equality for the Palestinian people.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10781.shtml
Furthermore, boycotts create a collateral damage disregarding those who fight for the same principles but use different means, and more importantly indiscriminately hurting those who share the same opinion, as well as those who are neutral in their position.
The other realistic objection, which could also present a moral dilemma, is that hurting the economy would more likely precipitate more suffering, in both sides, not less, which in turn will engender more anger, and sharpen even harder the split of opinions among people. Furthermore, there is empirical evidence that trade increases the chance of peace. New econometric research showed that, in the case of India and Pakistan, trade with other countries decreases conflict and enhances peace (Mamoon and Murshed, 2007). These authors concluded: ‘Our most significant result is that multilateral trade, or increased international trade with the rest of the world (in contrast to bilateral trade between India and Pakistan), is the most significant factor in reducing conflict. Our analysis also showed that while hostilities in the Kashmir dispute have hampered bilateral trade between the two nations, the converse is also true’ (p. 17). Other studies supported the same conclusions (e.g. Polachek, 1997; Hegre, 2000). Thus, economic hardships, stagnation or decline bear the same frustration on both conflict groups, in that in both cases they poison people’s quality of life, regardless of the level of frustration – frustration is frustration is Frustration. In addition, taking the example of Northern Ireland, it is believed that economic growth and prosperity can reduce terrorist violence.
Decades of terrorist violence gradually came to a halt as the economy of the country improved. For example, the August 1994 cease-fire provided the evidence to back up such a theory – tourism jumped 20% within the space of Table 11.1. Example of trade agreements with Israel.
Israel and the USA: Friends, Partners, Allies
– Jan 2007 The Israel–Turkey Free Trade Agreement
Joint Statement: USA–Israel Joint Economic Development Group Joint Statement – 18 June 2003
Bilateral agreements reached at first Israeli–
German intergovernmental consultations – March 2008
Israel–US Free Trade Area Agreement Israel and Germany to mark 40 years of diplomatic relations –31 January 2005 Free Trade Agreement between Israel and
Canada European Neighbourhood Policy: Draft Action
Plan EU–Israel – 12 November 2004 High-level France–Israel Group: Joint Communiqué and Conclusions – 17 September 2003
Delhi Statement on Friendship and Cooperation between India and Israel (10 September 2003)
High-level France–Israel Group: Joint Communiqué and Conclusions – 17 September 2003
Joint statement on deepening relations between Japan and Israel (27 February 2008)
The EU’s Relations with Israel – An Overview (EU website)
Source: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/.
a year; unemployment dropped to 11.5%, the lowest level in 14 years; over 30 million pounds in new investment ventures were announced. However, despite the example of Northern Ireland, there is little talk about the ‘Israeli–
Palestinian peace dividend’. Jordana Friedman of the Council on Economic Priorities stated in her research study ‘The Corporate Sector and Conflict Prevention’: ‘Like Northern Ireland, other countries should start applying the logic of economics to peace negotiations. No one talks about the “Bosnian peace dividend” or the “Middle Eastern peace dividend”, despite the fact that both regions would benefit economically from a permanent end to violence’
(European Platform for Conflict Prevention and Transformation).
Classic scholars like Adam Smith long speculated that prosperity is a requirement to peace (Gartzke, 2005). For example, the great 18th-century French philosopher Charles de Montesquieu in his dissertation on the separation of powers, states:
Peace is the natural effect of trade. Two nations who traffic with each other become reciprocally dependent; for if one has an interest in buying, the other has an interest in selling: and thus their union is founded on their mutual necessities.
(Book XX, p. 2) Similarly, ‘substantial research shows that democratic government is stable only when combined with relatively high levels of economic development’
(Gartzke, 2005, p. 1).