   Can Divestiture Bring Peace To Middle East?
  Today, the Guardian published a commentary by Gerald Kaufman, a Labour MP for Manchester Gorton, that put forth The case for sanctions against Israel. In a nutshell, Kaufman asks if what worked to bring down Apartheid in South Africa would work to bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and argues that it would. You can read his arguments for yourself. My question is what do you think? Can sanctions make a difference? Could a divestiture movement make a difference? Why do you think the way that you do about this? What leads you to think that way?   
  Well, I think if a movement is made like this, the United States will most likely not enact any sanction upon Israel, nor will they support action in the United Nations.  Even if it solves the problems in Israel (Which I don't believe it will.. I don't believe that peace can be attained here through coercion), it will create greater problems between the United States and other countries.  Either way, it will most certainly not bring peace to the entire Middle East.  It's always been a hot spot because of clashing cultures, religions, and the fabulous wealth found beneath the sands.   ;  I think that the wall is a good idea, and will slow down, if not completely stop attacks against the Israeli governement, my only beef with it is that it is cutting through other people's land.  The wall will hopefully limit the casualities to the military, instead of people who can't fight back.I suggest that both sides move forward instead of concentrating on the past...Sanctions and arms bans, I think are a stupid idea, and will strip Israeli's defence against its enemies, and open the way for Genocide, and is also an unrealistic proposition as the USA will not support this action.   ;Quote:Original post by ForestwalkerI think that the wall is a good idea, and will slow down, if not completely stop attacks against the Israeli governement, my only beef with it is that it is cutting through other people's land.  The wall will hopefully limit the casualities to the military, instead of people who can't fight back.The wall is an idiotic idea. The ONLY way peace is EVER going to be attained in the middle east is by integration, not segregation. Segregation only breeds contempt and hatred, not understanding.An independent Palestinian state is never going to work.   ;  I personally think the only way to break the deadlock is for Israel to make concesions, and to make them without presure being applied to make them do so (such as economic sanctions). Not only does this wall need to be scrapped, a lot of other things have to change, and a timeline has to be decided upon by both sides, and then stuck to in which it will happen. The problem is that right now, both sides are hard-liners, and nobody seems willing to make the attempt.I thought about this issue for quite awhile actually, as I do many things, and I think the best way to end this would be for Israel to announce, quite out of the blue, that all military checkpoints will cease, from now on and indefinately into the future, and that if there are no attacks for a week from that time on, they will be willing to begin serious negotiations for a resolution to the conflict. In the negotiations, they draw up a timeline, agreed upon by both sides, for the dismantling of other obstacles to the peace, such as the wall. This allows for a gradual stand down of hostility, and as long as the palestineans believe that Israel is serious, and is willing to make changes, I think you'll see that the terrorist groups will hold off. Whatever the outcome of the talks, or however long they take, the checkpoints remain down so long as there are no attacks perpetrated.I honestly think a major action by Israel is just about the only way this thing can end well. Removing the checkpoints would be a major show of faith unprecedented in this conflict, and would definately demonstrate that they were quite serious. If a week goes by without incident, it would demonstrate that the palestineans were also willing to seek a peaceful resolution, and then there is a strong point to start negotiations on. As long as both parties go in with an open mind, and willing to make concessions and changes, I think it could definately lead to a peaceful resolution. It would take time, but it would give a starting point from which it could happen. I think Israel needs to be the one to make the first major concession; the first show of faith though, because quite frankly, the palestineans don't have much left to conciede.Worst case, if attacks occur within that critical first week, after the checkpoints have been removed, then at least the Israeli government have something to justify thier hard line approach. It would demonstrate that they, in a major show of faith, were willing to back down first, with the promise of serious negotiations for further standdowns to follow, and the palestineans merely took advantage of the situation to make another strike. That's like attacking under a white flag, and would give thier argument some weight, which it has been losing with the steps they have taken over the last few years in perticular.Oh, and forgive the general way I throw around Israeli and Palestinean. I'm not suggesting that everyone on both "sides" falls under the same category.   ;  I tend to agree with Kaufman, at least in a general sense. I don't think the Israelis will put an end to checkpoints or wall building otherwise. At present, they seem to lack incentives to change and sanctions/divestiture can provide that. A divestiture movement would also give the US Congress reason to think twice about subsidizing Israel and if those subsidies were put at risk, I suspect the Israelis would make the changes needed to keep them flowing. However, I think a divestiture movement targetting Israel would be very difficult to establish in the US and would be much more divisive than the movement that helped end apartheid in South Africa.   ;Quote:Original post by Nemesis2k2I personally think the only way to break the deadlock is for Israel to make concesionsI agree with you here. But the rest of the post was completely unrealistic.Quote:Original post by Nemesis2k2the best way to end this would be for Israel to announce, quite out of the blue, that all military checkpoints will cease, from now on and indefinately into the future, and that if there are no attacks for a week from that time onThere is no way the government would risk something like that. That's way too much of a gamble.Quote:Original post by Nemesis2k2as long as the palestineans believe that Israel is serious, and is willing to make changes, I think you'll see that the terrorist groups will hold offAnd here is the main point where your logic fails. Maybe the majority of Palestinians do wish for peace and are willing to leave us alone. But there is a minority that only wishes to see jews out of the whole region. Unfortunately this minority is comprised of people with bombs.Quote:Original post by Nemesis2k2Worst case, if attacks occur within that critical first week, after the checkpoints have been removed, then at least the Israeli government have something to justify thier hard line approach. It would demonstrate that they, in a major show of faith, were willing to back down firstFor the Israeli public this would be a flashback to the Oslo peace agreements. You're suggesting we make the exact same mistakes again. If any leader is even suspected of wanting to take the steps you suggest, he will be immediately thrown out of office.Israel does need to make concessions. But these concessions have to be separated completely from terror. Maybe even one-sided. Even with a healthy peace process there are enough people on both sides that are completely consumed by hate and will do anything to hurt the other side. These people are the reason we are where we are, and the most important thing is not to let them dictate our policies.shmoove   ;Quote:Original post by LessBreadCan sanctions make a difference?No. As much as people here like to believe that Israel is in control of the situation, it is not. Fact of the matter is, nobody knows who is in control. People can't even decide if Arafat is a cardboard figure or a leader and if he is a criminal and a murderer or a martyr. Some people think the cause of suicide bombings is purely an incentive of individuals while others think it's a well funded and organized movement. Nobody knows who controls the situation, what drives those in control, what their goals are, and what the boundaries of their control is. Do the people in control know the boundaries of their own power? Can they predict if/when the situation goes beyond their control? Did it already happen? IMO people that think Israel has the power to change the situation in the region are very much separated from reality.Quote:Original post by LessBreadWhat leads you to think that way?Simple analysis of information at hand (or in this case lack of thereof) [smile]   ;Quote:I agree with you here. But the rest of the post was completely unrealistic.This is one of those "what if" thought experiments. I know it has many holes (The government wouldn't have the support of the people, the possible rouge element making an attack alone for revenge, etc), but this is simply the best thing I can see for the situation. In reality it might fall down in a smoldering heap, I'm just floating the idea.Quote:There is no way the government would risk something like that. That's way too much of a gamble.It's a big gamble, and that's precisely why it just might work. Such a major shift in policy would definately get attention. I think you'd find that the major groups would all hold off for that week, just to see how it would play out. As for the government, obviously they wouldn't risk it, definately not with the current administration, hence why this is a "what if", not a serious suggestion.Quote:And here is the main point where your logic fails. Maybe the majority of Palestinians do wish for peace and are willing to leave us alone. But there is a minority that only wishes to see jews out of the whole region. Unfortunately this minority is comprised of people with bombs.You're correct, but behind all the masks and the hatred, the people running these groups can think. You can't bomb the Israeli people out of the country. It's a futile endeavour. Right now they are winning though, and that's because international support for Israel is slipping, and the palestineans are gaining it. They want to gain enough international support for their cause, so that other countries will act against Israel. If they make an attack during that week, Israel will gain support, and the palestinean fundamentalists will loose it. It will hinder them, not help them. Of course, the question is, do they care? You'll have people there who simply want to kill as many Israeli people as possible. The question is, are these people behind the groups, or do you have people who would actually be willing to negotiate?I honestly think this move would work, and bring everyone to the table. Where things go from there would depend on a lot of things, but I believe it would give a solid base to start from.Quote:For the Israeli public this would be a flashback to the Oslo peace agreements. You're suggesting we make the exact same mistakes again. If any leader is even suspected of wanting to take the steps you suggest, he will be immediately thrown out of office.Well they have to do something. Things are only getting worse, and the current "solutions", like the wall, are only going to make things worse. Israel has to make concessions, and it has to make major ones. What do you propose as an alternative?   ;  This has to be the dumbest article I have ever read. IT completely ignores the current problem in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, instead focusing on "easier to solve" popular problems like the wall. The problem between Israel and the Palestinian is terror. When the intifada started, the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority were still holding peace talks. The only reason these talks have been suspended is because of the Palestinian Authority's unwillingness to combat terror. The reason that government structures were destroyed by Israel was to coax Arafat to fight terrorism, or lose those structures that signify his self rule. Arafat chose not to fight terror, in fact members of terror organizations are on his pay list and serve in his government. When the Palestinians stop supporting terror, when they stand up and fight those who will terrorize Israel, THEN and only then will peace negotiations continue. Even the roadmap calls for this. The first step in the roadmap is, and has always been, for the Palestinians to fight terror. They have never done this. Sanctions against Israel ? For what ? For protecting itself against groups whose goal is the complete destruction and annihiliation of the jewish race ? Where are the calls for sanctions against the Palestinians for supporting and allowing terrorist actions from their territories ?  Nitzanp.s. Do you use Intel chips ? Do your packets travel through cisco routers ? Were the chips in your computer and home applicance created by Applied Materials machines ? Are your freedoms protected by weapons that use Israeli technology (3rd largest weapons exporter in the world) ? Better not sanction Israel! ;)   