“””I don’t understand is why you think an embargo would achieve the result you imagine it would. I sometimes wonder if the experience of sanctions against the RSA under apartheid has skewed everyone’s thinking with regards to the efficacy of sanctions? I think more attention should be paid to the history of Iraq here. The sanctions regime in this case was rightly criticised for effectively punishing the population while the regime survived with contemptuous ease. Yet it’s now being suggested that this should be attempted in Israel’s case?”””

One difference is that in Israel the public can vote the government out if they don’t like its policies. The israeli government could overcome that obstacle by ending democracy and becoming a military dictatorship, but that would probably harm their country more than the EU sanctions would.

Another aspect is that Israelis be given the option of living and working in the EU. If this turns Israel into a ccountry of net emigration, withn most of the emigrants being skilled people in their 20s and 30s, it is likely to call into question the viability of Israel as a country, and for this reason any Israeli government would take it very seriously. (It also means that those who take up this option are not being punished, and they are likely to be disproportionately those who disagree wityh the Israeli govenrment’s policies.)

A third reason is if the EU starts talking about supplying Israel’s adversaries with modern weapons; if Europe started doing this, the military balance of power in the region would be asltered and the Israeli govenrment would be very concerned; possibly concerned enough to rethink those of its policies that Europe objected to.

“””Your ideas are a direct response to events in Lebanon?”””

Yes. And also of Israel’s continuing occupation of the West Bank, de facto annexation of parts of it, and siege of Gaza.

“””You seem to be arguing not only for the economic collective punishment of Israel but that to achieve this end the EU should seriously consider effectively dismatling the WTO?”””

Regarding the WTO and WIPO, if they as institutions behave in ways incompatible with the EU’s objectives and policies, of course the EU should not continue to support them.

On the whole, I support free trade. Like you I disagree with rich countries’ protectionism of agriculture (which hurtsd them and everyone else).

I wouldn’t describe modern Africa as a “catastrophe”, but that’s a whole blog post in itself…

“””The reason I didn’t understand your article is that you seemed to be suggesting this should be scraped in favour of a series of bilateral arrangements based around the attitude of various governments towards Israel.”””

Based on that, and a *lot* of other factors. I don’t think the EU should get obsessed abouit punishing Israel.

I do not propose blockading Israel (i.e. using violence and threats thereof to physically prevent ships from tradong with israel), although it would be entirely moral for the EU to do so as that is what Israel has done against Lebanon.

Instead I propose economic sanctions (refusing to trade); these do not involve coercion. The purpose of sanctions is not to depopulate Israeli, it is to apply pressure on the Israeli government, so that Israel becomes a less militaristic country.

You also say:
“””How is this in any way morally different from the statement “if someone attacked Israel, they would be made to suffer for it”? Isn’t that what is currently happening, given the rocket attacks from Lebanon on Israel?”””

In a word: proportionality.

However, I do not consider arguments from morality to be a refutation of my original argument, which is based entirely in terms of Realpolitik, and asks the question “how can the EU best achieve its policy objectives, and gain the maximum ability to influence events in the Middle East?”; that my answer to this question may by some be considered immoral is not in itself relevant.

Or disagree, even…

I share your dismay at the present response over the air campaign in Lebanon.

I meant to say I share your dismay over the air campaign in Lebanon. Although the response from a number of different quarters dismays me too.

However, have you considered what you are proposing? You seem to be arguing not only for the economic collective punishment of Israel but that to achieve this end the EU should seriously consider effectively dismatling the WTO? I don’t understand why you could think this was a good idea. I’m not one of those who decries ‘globalisation’ in the narrow sense that I believe the expansion of trade has been a net gain for the world. The EU has obviously been a part of this but most economic historians argue that this should be understood within the context of a world-wide reduction in protectionism and tariffs under the auspices of the WTO and its predecessor GATT, along with developments like the NAFTA. Obviously these have problems and injustices but they have much to do with protectionism in agriculture, which obviously affects Africa detrimentally, and the conditions that the apparently historically-illiterate IMF is disposed to imposing.

But the catastrophes of Africa and Russia in the post-Soviet period shouldn’t blind us to the fact that the expansion of trade overall represents a huge improvement in human welfare. The reason I didn’t understand your article is that you seemed to be suggesting this should be scraped in favour of a series of bilateral arrangements based around the attitude of various governments towards Israel. I think these are rather narrow criteria, to say no more than that.

In any event, even if this were all even possible, another thing I don’t understand is why you think an embargo would achieve the result you imagine it would. I sometimes wonder if the experience of sanctions against the RSA under apartheid has skewed everyone’s thinking with regards to the efficacy of sanctions? I think more attention should be paid to the history of Iraq here. The sanctions regime in this case was rightly criticised for effectively punishing the population while the regime survived with contemptuous ease. Yet it’s now being suggested that this should be attempted in Israel’s case?

“if someone attacked the EU, they would be made to suffer for it.”

How is this in any way morally different from the statement “if someone attacked Israel, they would be made to suffer for it”? Isn’t that what is currently happening, given the rocket attacks from Lebanon on Israel?

“””The EU does not have the military clout to invade a whelk stall. Its individual countries do”””

This is an undercurrent of what I’m trying to say — that if the EU was able to act more united, it would have a bigger voice on the world stage.

“””Would you get a UN resolution before doing that, or would it just be another unilateral violation of “international law”? Isn’t killing and starving civilians “illegal collective punishment”?”””

Yes it is a violation of international law, in the same way that Israel’s actions are. I’m just pointing out that if Israel started a shooting war with the EU, the EU could make things very nasty in Israel very quickly. And the Israelis know it. As a consequence, I think it is very unlikely that Israel would attack the EU; generallly bullies only attack small defenceless targets like Lebanon or Syria.

“””And what do you do when Israel starts firing back? How many European and Israeli lives would you sacrifice to this mad scheme?”””

If i was running the EU, I wouldn’t start a war against anyone. But if someone attacked the EU, they would be made to suffer for it.

“the EU has the economic and military clout to make what it says stick.”

At this point I started laughing. The EU does not have the military clout to invade a whelk stall. Its individual countries do, but there has never been a signifigant EU military action.

“The EU could also bomb Israeli ports and oil refineries with cruise missiles; Israel is dependent on imports for such things as food and fuel”

Would you get a UN resolution before doing that, or would it just be another unilateral violation of “international law”? Isn’t killing and starving civilians “illegal collective punishment”?

And what do you do when Israel starts firing back? How many European and Israeli lives would you sacrifice to this mad scheme?

2. The EU may further choose not to trade with companies in third countries which continue to trade with Israel and to seize their assets (both physical property and intellectual property) in the EU.

Including the US? That would be hilarious, if short-lived.