The conflict between Israel and the State of Palestine is a never-ending case. Numerous ceasefires were agreed, after much struggle only to be reneged on not long after.
Israel and the Arab countries have fought four major wars ever since the formal creation of Israel through the 1947 UN Partition Plan. The Palestinians had two Intifadas (uprisings) in 1987 and in 2000-2005 to fight the oppressing power of the Zionist regime. More and more people have died throughout the conflict, with the most coming from the occupied Palestinian regions, West bank and Gaza Strip (not under complete occupation).
So, before heading into the debate of boycotting, why are these two countries fighting against each other?
To cut it short, taking a retrospective view, in the past one millennium, the Jews have been persecuted ever since the First Crusade up to the Nazi-led Holocaust in Europe. Jews have been seen as unnationalistic minorities in Europe and as “enemy of the state”.
As the nationalistic spirit of Zionism started to expand in late 19th century, the modern day Aliyah (emigration) into The Promised Land happened. And coupled with the help of the Sharif of Mecca, Sheikh Hussein (although he was tricked by the British Empire), Israel was successfully formed in 1948.
Hussein’s son, Prince Feisal, also agreed to the Jewish immigration into the former Ottoman Syria region, thinking the Arabs and the Jews will actually live in peace. Despite that, he never agreed for a separate country for the Jews. Again, he too, was tricked by the cunning British Empire.
So now, history aside, should we or should we not boycott the products of Israel?
We Malaysians have seen in recent times the act of boycotting products from Israel by many of us. This is actually part of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign initiated in 2005. The coordinating group of BDS has actually listed several products and companies of Israel and its allies which contribute financially to the Zionist regime.
The question is, why stop at Israeli companies? Whilst many might think that these companies are the main donors to the regime, actually they have missed the biggest contributor to Israel. It’s no other than the United States of America.
The United States contributes US$3 billion to US$4 billion on average, every year to Israel. Believe it or not, the US has given Israel a total of US$121 billion since World War 2 and a huge chunk of this financial aid is funnelled towards military technology improvements. Recently, President Obama even announced an additional funding of US$225 million to improve the home-grown Iron Dome missile interceptor.
Other than that, the US is the biggest exporter of military supplies to Israel despite its legislation, Arms Export Control Act which prohibits the US from exporting arms to countries with possibilities of conflict escalation. But alas, apparently the United States might hit back by saying Israel has the right to defend itself.
If you really think boycotting is an effective way to stop the carnage in Palestine, start with the United States. No more technological gadgets originating from Silicon Valley. That essentially means no more Facebook, Google and i-Phones. Xiaomi, Samsung and Lenovo should do fine. No more Intel computer processors, no more Philips fluorescent lights and no more sending your kids to the Ivy League universities.
And yeah, no more watching the superhero movies of Marvel Comics.
Shouldn’t we do it completely?
It’s not that I want to offend the ones wanting to boycott and end the aggression and brutal massacre in Palestine, but if we want to do something, shouldn’t we do it completely?
Israel gets its power from the support of its greatest ally, the United States. But can we really engage in the BDS campaign against the United States? It is very much implausible. To sanction America economically and to impose an embargo on trade with the US, will cost us fatally more than what America will feel in return.
Simply because Malaysia’s economy is export-reliant and any disruption in trade deals will cause the economy to face lack of growth. Recently, when Bank Negara announced that Malaysia’s second quarter economy growth of the year is 6.2 percent, the mood was jubilant amongst the industry players. However it was also noted that such increase in economic performance was due to more export while the domestic consumption has actually fallen.
Thus, bearing this into mind, is it feasible to boycott the US? Of course not, since America is our biggest investor and one of our top five trade partners.
I personally am against any acts of economic sanction on any country. Conventionally, it is believed that economic sanctions can compel a regime or a government to comply with international pressures or even to stop engaging in inhumanely activities. Supporters of sanctions often cite the Lockerbie case, where after immense economic sanctions from the world, Libya’s former dictator, Muammar Gaddafi actually handed over two suspects of the plane crash.
For me, economic sanctions will only create more harm than good. Regime at the top hierarchy may feel less agony, but it is the common civilians who would struggle due to the sanctions. Islamic Republic of Iran for example, has long been under economic sanctions of the West due to its clandestine nuclear programme.
However, due to the sanctions, Iran has seen insufficiencies of medical equipment and drugs for the ill. Recently, when an IrAn-140 plane crashed in Iran, lack of replacement parts due to the sanctions were cited as the reasons.
In the aftermath of the First Gulf War, the Saddam Hussein regime was subjected to heavy sanctions for the attack over Kuwait and this has caused 5,000 starvation deaths a month, one of the reasons the UN started the Oil for Food Programme.
When Cuba came under the communist rule after the revolution led by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, the capitalist (well, not entirely) United States imposed embargo on the Cuban goods and halted trade relations with Cuba.
This however, never caused the communist rule to collapse. It is still standing strong till now. But the embargoes have caused deficiencies of clean water and spreading of diseases with lack of drugs to control them. Increased food prices have also caused malnutrition amongst many.
Why, one of the main reasons that compelled Japan to wage the Pacific War against the United States was due to the embargoes on Japan after it invaded French Indochina. As the US was Japan’s main supplier of oil at that moment, Japan advanced in South-East Asia to gain influence over the resource-rich region and to offset the impact caused by the embargo. Pearl Harbour was destroyed also because of the same embargo.
Impacts of economic sanctions
These are the impacts that can be caused from economic sanctions and boycotts. When you are boycotting McDonald’s and Starbucks’ due to their alleged link to the Zionist regime, you are actually hurting their business. This will in turn, open the way for retrenchment of the workers and for less compensation. And no thanks to some hard-core boycotters, the employees of the franchises have faced humiliation and distress.
In McDonald’s case, the chief of its Malaysian outlets, Stephen Chew, has clarified that the contribution by McDonald’s to Israel was due to a programme called Matching Grant. The employees will contribute financially to charity of their choice and the employers will then match it.
It is how McDonald’s actually gave to Israel, as its few employees have chosen the Jewish United Fund (JUF) to receive their contribution. But as he stressed, the contributions to JUF is very trivial compared to the other charities. Why, he says, even Islamic charities receive the financial contributions.
To add, even the head of McDonald’s Israel, Omri Padan, has made it a point that outlets will not be opened beyond the Green Line (1967 borders). The fast-food entity is totally against setting up of any outlets within the occupied region of Palestine. This decision has actually caused the wrath of many Israelis in the illegal settlement areas, but this has never caused Omri to budge.
What Israel is doing is totally inhumane and cruel. It was never acceptable. Yet at the same time, the radical actions of Hamas of shooting missiles into Israel are actually worsening the situation. In the war between Hamas and Israel, it is the Palestinians who are at the losing end. Israel, with its immense military spending, is left unscathed whilst Gaza is destructed to the core.
While I mentioned that BDS may not be a good option, I respect the opinion of its supporters. But that alone will never suffice. Malaysian Muslims engaged in serious boycott act in 2008 when Gaza was in turmoil, but the spirit barely lasted for two weeks.
Intervention from the international community
What we actually need is the intervention from the international community. The United Nations’ Charter’s Chapter VII actually allows for international military intervention after trying bringing both sides of war-waging parties to mediation.
We need just that. First, Israel needs to stop further encroachment into Palestinian region. Hamas, at the same time, needs to be forced to accept the two-state solution which is the most feasible and plausible solution. Hamas, which is categorically against two-state solution in its charter, should be requested to accept the idea.
Any aggression from any sides, be it Hamas or Israel should be counter-attacked using international community’s sanctioned military. Only such stern actions can stop the conflict for good.
But then again, all these are easier to be said than to be done. Why? Any action against Israel by United Nations’ will most probably be vetoed by its greatest ally, the United States. Perhaps the United Kingdom and France will also follow suit to support their ally, the US. These countries being permanent members of the Security Council are given the privilege of veto power.
A veto from any one of the five permanent members can annul a resolution approved by the General Assembly, comprising of all the member states. UN is incapable of approving a resolution of military action against al-Assad regime in Syria, also due to the veto by Russia and China, another two permanent members.
With such veto power in place, not only the Palestinian conflict, but also others in the world may never be solved by the international community. The doctrine of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ which complements Chapter VII will remain as a doctrine of no use. The governments all over the world, despite opposing the veto powers, are hesitant to take any solid action.
Perhaps the fear of any trade sanctions by these five major economies is more inundating. Or maybe, they succumb to the fact that if a resolution is passed in the General Assembly to annul the veto power for good, the permanent five can still veto the resolution.
So, don’t we all have hope? Yes we do! We need international uprisings, not to topple the government but to force the end of veto powers. People’s voices should be heard.
Some might claim that the ‘Occupy’ movements may have failed in their objective, but these worldwide protests have caused the governments to reconsider social and economic inequalities. The attention has been shifted to national discussions on huge disparities in wealth distribution and flaw in democracy, to name a few.
We need such uprisings again, this time to reform the United Nations. If the permanent five are unwilling to cause a change, perhaps a new international organisation should be introduced to replace the United Nations. After all, even the UN is a replacement to the failed League of Nations. This however should be the last resort as creating a new international organisation is not that easy.
I’m sick of this never-ending peace talk between Israel and Palestine. We need to stop it once and for all. Palestinians have the right to live and Israelis have the right to defend themselves. And above all, this is a conflict of humanity, not a conflict of Islam-Judaism.
GANESHWARAN KANA is a second-year economics undergraduate at Universiti Malaya and blogs at universaltheboss.blogspot.com .
