Why an Economic Boycott of Israel is Justified - by Norman Finkelstein
Roald B. Larsen
Norsk politikk blir lagt merke til:
Anbefales:
http://www.counterpunch.com
January 18, 2006
Human Rights Violations, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity
Why an Economic Boycott of Israel is Justified
By NORMAN FINKELSTEIN
EDITORs' NOTE: In early January Kristin Halvorsen, current Norwegian Finance
Minister and leader of the Left Socialist Party (a member of the current three-party
governmental coalition), expressed her personal and party support for a Norwegian
boycott of Israeli goods and services. Almost immediately the Israeli ambassador to
Norway protested and Condoleezza Rice threatened Norway with "serious political
consequences" if Halvorsen's statement represented the policy of the current
government. Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre then dashed off a letter to
Rice (addressed "Dear Condi"), assuring her that the Left Socialist Party's position
on a economic boycott of Israel "has never been and will never be" the policy of the
Norwegian government. For her part Halvorsen distanced herself from her previous
statements, as top leaders of the foreign affairs department criticized her and drew
parallels between a boycott of Israeli goods and the Nazi boycott of Jewish shops.
Finklestein's piece was published in Norway's most influential newspaper Aftenposten
this past week.
The recent proposal that Norway boycott Israeli goods has provoked passionate
debate. In my view, a rational examination of this issue would pose two questions:
1) Do Israeli human rights violations warrant an economic boycott? and
2) Can such a boycott make a meaningful contribution toward ending these violations?
I would argue that both these questions should be answered in the affirmative.
Although the subject of many reports by human rights organizations, Israel's real
human rights record in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is generally not well
known abroad. This is primarily due to the formidable public relations industry
of Israel's defenders as well as the effectiveness of their tactics of intimidation,
such as labeling critics of Israeli policy anti-Semitic.
Yet, it is an incontestable fact that Israel has committed a broad range of human
rights violations, many rising to the level of war crimes and crimes against
humanity. These include:
Illegal Killings.
Whereas Palestinian suicide attacks targeting Israeli civilians have garnered much
media attention, Israel's quantitatively worse record of killing non-combatants is
less well known. According to the most recent figures of the Israeli Information
Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories (B'Tselem), 3,386 Palestinians
have been killed since September 2000, of whom 1,008 were identified as combatants,
as opposed to 992 Israelis killed, of whom 309 were combatants. This means that
three times more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed and up to three times
more Palestinian civilians than Israeli civilians. Israel's defenders maintain that
there's a difference between targeting civilians and inadvertently killing them.
B'Tselem disputes this:
"[W]hen so many civilians have been killed and wounded, the lack of intent makes
no difference. Israel remains responsible." Furthermore, Amnesty International
reports that "many" Palestinians have not been accidentally killed but
"deliberately targeted," while the award-winning New York Times journalist
Chris Hedges reports that Israeli soldiers "entice children like mice into a trap
and murder them for sport."
Torture.
"From 1967," Amnesty reports, "the Israeli security services have routinely tortured
Palestinian political suspects in the Occupied Territories." B'Tselem found that
eighty-five percent of Palestinians interrogated by Israeli security services were
subjected to "methods constituting torture," while already a decade ago Human Rights
Watch estimated that "the number of Palestinians tortured or severely ill-treated"
was "in the tens of thousands a number that becomes especially significant when it
is remembered that the universe of adult and adolescent male Palestinians in the
West Bank and Gaza is under three-quarters of one million." In 1987 Israel became
"the only country in the world to have effectively legalized torture" (Amnesty).
Although the Israeli Supreme Court seemed to ban torture in a 1999 decision, the
Public Committee Against Torture in Israel reported in 2003 that Israeli security
forces continued to apply torture in a "methodical and routine" fashion. A 2001
B'Tselem study documented that Israeli security forces often applied "severe
torture" to "Palestinian minors."
House demolitions.
"Israel has implemented a policy of mass demolition of Palestinian houses in the
Occupied Territories," B'Tselem reports, and since September 2000 "has destroyed
some 4,170 Palestinian homes." Until just recently Israel routinely resorted to
house demolitions as a form of collective punishment. According to Middle East
Watch, apart from Israel, the only other country in the world that used such a
draconian punishment was Iraq under Saddam Hussein. In addition, Israel has
demolished thousands of "illegal" homes that Palestinians built because of Israel's
refusal to provide building permits. The motive behind destroying these homes,
according to Amnesty, has been to maximize the area available for Jewish settlers:
"Palestinians are targeted for no other reason than they are Palestinians." Finally,
Israel has destroyed hundred of homes on security pretexts, yet a Human Rights
Watch report on Gaza found that "the pattern of destructionstrongly suggests that
Israeli forces demolished homes wholesale, regardless of whether they posed a
specific threat." Amnesty likewise found that "Israel's extensive destruction of
homes and properties throughout the West Bank and Gazais not justified by
military necessity," and that "Some of these acts of destruction amount to
grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention and are war crimes."
Apart from the sheer magnitude of its human rights violations, the uniqueness of
Israeli policies merits notice. "Israel has created in the Occupied Territories a
regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of
law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality,"
B'Tselem has concluded. "This regime is the only one of its kind in the world,
and is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the apartheid
regime in South Africa." If singling out South Africa for an international
economic boycott was defensible, it would seem equally defensible to
single out Israel's occupation, which uniquely resembles the apartheid
regime.
Although an economic boycott can be justified on moral grounds, the question remains
whether diplomacy might be more effectively employed instead. The documentary
record in this regard, however, is not encouraging. The basic terms for resolving
the Israel-Palestine conflict are embodied in U.N. resolution 242 and subsequent
U.N. resolutions, which call for a full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and
Gaza and the establishment of a Palestinian state in these areas in exchange for
recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security with its neighbors. Each
year the overwhelming majority of member States of the United Nations vote in
favor of this two-state settlement, and each year Israel and the United States (and
a few South Pacific islands) oppose it. Similarly, in March 2002 all twenty-two
member States of the Arab League proposed this two-state settlement as well as
"normal relations with Israel." Israel ignored the proposal.
Not only has Israel stubbornly rejected this two-state settlement, but the policies
it is currently pursuing will abort any possibility of a viable Palestinian state.
While world attention has been riveted by Israel's redeployment from Gaza,
Sara Roy of Harvard University observes that the "Gaza Disengagement Plan is,
at heart, an instrument for Israel's continued annexation of West Bank land and
the physical integration of that land into Israel." In particular Israel has been
constructing a wall deep inside the West Bank that will annex the most
productive land and water resources as well as East Jerusalem, the center of
Palestinian life. It will also effectively sever the West Bank in two. Although
Israel initially claimed that it was building the wall to fight terrorism, the
consensus among human rights organizations is that it is really a land grab to
annex illegal Jewish settlements into Israel. Recently Israel's Justice Minister
frankly acknowledged that the wall will serve as "the future border of the
state of Israel."
The current policies of the Israeli government will lead either to endless bloodshed
or the dismemberment of Palestine. "It remains virtually impossible to conceive
of a Palestinian state without its capital in Jerusalem," the respected Crisis Group
recently concluded, and accordingly Israeli policies in the West Bank "are at
war with any viable two-state solution and will not bolster Israel's security;
in fact, they will undermine it, weakening Palestinian pragmatistsand sowing
the seeds of growing radicalization."
Recalling the U.N. Charter principle that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by
war, the International Court of Justice declared in a landmark 2004 opinion that
Israel's settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the wall being built
to annex them to Israel were illegal under international law. It called on Israel to
cease construction of the wall, dismantle those parts already completed and
compensate Palestinians for damages. Crucially, it also stressed the legal
responsibilities of the international community:
all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting
from the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including
in and around East Jerusalem. They are also under an obligation not to render aid
or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction. It is also
for all States, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law,
to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the wall, to
the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought
to an end.
A subsequent U.N. General Assembly resolution supporting the World Court opinion
passed overwhelmingly. However, the Israeli government ignored the Court's opinion,
continuing construction at a rapid pace, while Israel's Supreme Court ruled that the
wall was legal.
Due to the obstructionist tactics of the United States, the United Nations has not
been able to effectively confront Israel's illegal practices. Indeed, although it is
true that the U.N. keeps Israel to a double standard, it's exactly the reverse of
the one Israel's defenders allege: Israel is held not to a higher but lower standard
than other member States. A study by Marc Weller of Cambridge University comparing
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory with comparable situations in Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Kosovo, East Timor, occupied Kuwait and Iraq, and Rwanda found
that Israel has enjoyed "virtual immunity" from enforcement measures such as an arms
embargo and economic sanctions typically adopted by the U.N. against member States
condemned for identical violations of international law.
Due in part to an aggressive campaign accusing Europe of a "new anti-Semitism,"
the European Union has also failed in its legal obligation to enforce international
law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Although the claim of a "new anti-
Semitism" has no basis in fact (all the evidence points to a lessening of anti-
Semitism in Europe), the EU has reacted by appeasing Israel. It has even
suppressed publication of one of its own reports, because the authors like
the Crisis Group and many others concluded that due to Israeli policies the
"prospects for a two-state solution with east Jerusalem as the capital of
Palestine are receding."
The moral burden to avert the impending catastrophe must now be borne by individual
states that are prepared to respect their obligations under international law and by
individual men and women of conscience. In a courageous initiative American-based
Human Rights Watch recently called on the U.S. government to reduce significantly
its financial aid to Israel until Israel terminates its illegal policies in the West
Bank. An economic boycott would seem to be an equally judicious undertaking. A
nonviolent tactic the purpose of which is to achieve a just and lasting settlement
of the Israel-Palestine conflict cannot legitimately be called anti-Semitic. Indeed,
the real enemies of Jews are those who debase the memory of Jewish suffering
by equating principled opposition to Israel's illegal and immoral policies with
anti-Semitism.
Norman Finkelstein's most recednt book is Beyond Chutzpah: On the misuse of
anti-Semitism and the abuse of history
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520245989/counterpunchmaga
(University of California Press).
His web site is www.NormanFinkelstein.com.
http://www.counterpunch.com/finkelstein01182006.html