An excellent Ha'aretz article detailing the history of boycott movements worldwide, including Mussolini's Italy, Cuba, Iran, Israel, Palestine, and South Africa. By and large, the verdict seems to be an outsized faith in the ability of boycotts to contribute to positive change based on the single example of South Africa. In the context of Italy, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and for that matter Israel (which, lest we forget, is being faced with a comprehensive Arab boycott), boycott policies have ranged from simply ineffective to outright counterproductive.
Incidentally, this I think is one of the reasons why I'm increasingly skeptical of the boycott of Gaza. Part of the goal is to deprive the Hamas regime of materials it can use to enact terrorist policies, and the boycott probably is reasonably good at that. But part of the justification is to try and signal to the local Palestinians that they need to change their government and policies, and I'm very skeptical it will have that effect, when typically such boycott policies tend to re-entrench extremist elements and allow them to blame all their problems on the boycotting outsiders. (There's also a punitive rationale for boycotts, but while I believe moral wrongdoing is a necessary condition for justifying a boycott, I don't believe it is by itself sufficient). More importantly, the efficacy of a policy of boycott and isolation becomes effectively unfalsifiable: If it results in positive change by Hamas, then great, it succeeds (though that raises the question of where the line is between "it's working, keep up the pressure" and "it worked, time to reengage"), but if it cause retrenchment, instead of signaling the policy is a failure, it tends to be taken as an even stronger sign that we can't talk with such a radical regime. It's difficult for me to say a way out of that muck.
What do you consider to be a "boycott" of Gaza? Most of the goods going into Gaza come through Israel. Are you advocating that Israel completely open its border with Gaza and allow everything to pass through in both directions?
ReplyDeleteStan
The Israeli government is severely restricting the flow of goods into Gaza. This isn't to say it is stopping all goods -- clearly it isn't -- but equally clearly it is not allowing enough to satiate local demand (in part because of the "dual-use" problem that occurs with many construction materials, which can build bunkers just as well as houses).
ReplyDeleteThere are alternatives to this policy that do not create "open borders" -- a free trade policy, or even a "Marshall Plan" type policy that aggressively tries to rebuild the Gaza strip with a massive influx of investment and resources.
These policies carry with them risks; but so does the status quo policy of isolation. The history of isolationist policies at achieving what they intend to is relatively poor, so I'm in the mood to try something new.
Can you give me some examples of alternative policies?
ReplyDeleteAnd do you advocate allowing items with dual purposes into Gaza. I have personally seen the insides of a Qassam rocket. I have seen concrete and re-bar just below the warhead.
Stan
I just gave you two: free trade, and Marshall Plan reconstruction. Presumably, those would involve dual-use provisions. Which involves risk, such as (as I mentioned) the increased ability to build rockets and bunkers and such. That's a bad thing, and that risk is presumably a large part of why that policy isn't occurring right now. But as I noted, there are risks to the status quo as well (increased radicalism, externalization of harms against Israel, unclear route to a permanent peace agreement, proliferation of smuggling routes which insure the bad stuff gets in anyway).
ReplyDeleteIt's a question of which risks are preferable, balancing of prospective benefits and harms, and I don't claim it's cut and dry. I merely note that we've tried option A for some time, and it doesn't seem to be doing what we want it to do (and it's, on its terms, not a permanent solution even if it worked perfectly), so maybe Option B is worth a chance.
Sorry, I misread what you had written. Enormous amounts of aid have gone into both the West Bank and Gaza, in the past. Much of it has been earmarked towards economic development. The aid comes from the International community, but has not had the desired effect as much of it has been lost to corruption.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure I am reading you correctly, but are you saying that Israel should attempt a Marshall plan for Gaza? As far as free trade, Hamas won't even talk to Israel, let alone create a normal border such as exists between Canada and the U.S. or European Union countries.
Remember, Hamas' very charter calls for the genocide of Jews.
No, in this situation an embargo on non essential goods to an enemy state is a minimum appropriate response. I do not know how things will play out in the long run, but nothing should be done that enhances Hamas' position.
I agree that an embargo of goods does not solve any long range problems, but it creates far fewer ones than supplying the enemy. You can't put out a fire by throwing dollar bill on it.
Stan