Could
Sanctions And Divestment
End The Occupation?
By Am Johal
17 August, 2006
Countercurrents.org
Recently, the Ontario division
of the Canadian Union of Public Employees drew praise and criticism
for taking a position supporting a divestment and sanctions campaign
against Israel aimed at ending the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza
and East Jerusalem. Many other churches and organizations have supported
the campaign which originated with Palestinian civil society, political
leaders and labour unions. However broad based support has been harder
to find.
Additionally, some organizations
within Israel have also supported this approach including the more grassroots
areas of the peace movement who have felt boxed in by the confusing
politics of Israel’s mainstream peace movement which has supported
the construction of the Separation Wall and the bombing of Lebanon.
In a research report put
together by Shir Hever of the Alternative Information Center, it argues
that only about 5% of economic sanctions are effective based on research
conducted by political scientist Robert Pape. In the case of South Africa,
sanctions played only a minor role in bringing down the Apartheid regime
there although it had a major symbolic effect by raising the awareness
of the excesses of government policy which violated human rights on
an international level.
According to the report,
Israel is the “biggest exporter of fertilizers, polished diamonds
and industrial oils. It exports 57% of the total world exports of fertilizers,
34% of the total exports of polished diamonds, 26% of the total exports
of industrial oils and 12% of the total weapons sales.” Since
2002, Israel has become a lending market. Foreign aid from places such
as the United States and Germany has given Israel “a powerful
base of foreign currency which strengthened its economy.”
Since 1996, Israel has steadily
increased its Central Bank reserves initiated by a 9 billion dollar
grant from the United States under the Clinton Administration in a move
designed to stabilize the Israeli economy. In the event of an effective
sanctions and divestment campaign, Israel is better positioned and protected
from the effects for a longer period of time due to the size of these
reserves. Israel’s trade deficit is also declining. Trade with
the European Union in particular is driving economic growth in Israel.
Israel has also, surprisingly,
gained revenue from the increase in humanitarian assistance to the Occupied
Palestinian Territories since the signing of the Oslo Accords. Israel
has imposed taxes and tariffs on these funds and has benefited greatly
from this financial arrangement.
Israel, according the AIC
report, was the 10th largest arms exporter in the world. In 2001, Israel
sold a variety of military systems to over 57 countries in the world.
Israel is the 4th biggest arms dealer to developing countries.
Though many Arab countries
have boycotted Israel for decades, countries such as Saudi Arabia will
be forced to drop their boycott as a condition of joining the World
Trade Organization.
Though South Africa had a
wealth of natural resources which lessened the economic impact of the
sanctions against it, Israel’s economy relies on the import of
raw materials to drive its economy. Raw materials, energy resources
and unpolished diamonds made up the majority of Israel’s imports.
Israel is the 8th largest per capita exporter in the world and 10th
biggest per capita importer in the world. The US funds Israel at a rate
of close to $3 billion per annum. In 2004, the US gave $2.64 billion
to Israel. The AIC report also shows that the costs of the occupation
surpass the amount of foreign aid which Israel receives. Israel has
also confiscated foreign currency sent to the Palestinians.
As with many sanctions and
divestment campaigns, there is the need for significant support from
within the country supporting such measures from critical voices in
order to build support abroad. Civil society organizations and others
in the peace movement have not sufficiently raised this issue to the
degree that is required if they expect civil society organizations in
the West to support these measures.
Imports from EU countries
make up 28% of Israel’s imports. Exports to EU countries make
up 36% of Israel’s exports.
Boycotts targeted at Israel’s
agriculture industry would also have political effects due to the political
strength of the industry in the country. The AIC report also argues
that “a boycott of Israeli products will lead to scarcity in foreign
currency and to a slowing of military imports to Israel.”
Faith organizations, civil
society and labor unions are best positioned to organize campaigns in
the West targeting the Israeli economy. However, for a campaign to be
most effective, it would require significant internal support within
Israeli civil society. Without those voices coming forward, it will
be a hard sell in Europe and North America where the effects of a campaign
would be most pronounced and potentially far-reaching in altering Israeli
policies of occupation.
As in the case of South Africa,
individual consumers not wanting to associate with the regime forced
major corporations to divest from the country from a moral position.
As long as Hezbollah is well armed as a militia movement, the likelihood
of building broad based Western support for sanctions and divestment
against Israel will be much more difficult given the most recent conflict.
Additionally, the Palestinian and Israeli peace movement needs to build
a broader base of support in order to more effectively call for sanctions
as an effective political approach.