What Difference Does It Make?
Israel has made it clear that the International Court of Justice’s decision will have no impact on the construction of the Security Fence, and further, that the UN General Assembly resolution condemning the Fence will be ignored. The United States has agreed to back Israel in those determinations.
So, in practical terms, isn’t that really the end of it? The world makes a nasty, but ultimately empty gesture and Israel goes on with the grim but necessary business of protecting its citizens.
Israel has made it clear that the International Court of Justice’s decision will have no impact on the construction of the Security Fence, and further, that the UN General Assembly resolution condemning the Fence will be ignored. The United States has agreed to back Israel in those determinations.
So, in practical terms, isn’t that really the end of it? The world makes a nasty, but ultimately empty gesture and Israel goes on with the grim but necessary business of protecting its citizens.
Not really. While Israel’s diplomatic status in the world does count, countries don’t only live in that milieu. There are also the social and economic spheres, and in these, there is a price to pay beyond gestures. One of the first is the decision of the General Assembly Council of the Presbyterian Church USA to begin gathering data to support a “selective divestment of holdings in multinational corporations doing business in Israel/Palestine.” By a vote of 431-62, the Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee (MRTI) of the church was ordered to make recommendations to the Council. This follows a successful effort by Palestinians to characterize the Security Fence as an “apartheid wall,” evoking in the liberal church images of its successful South Africa divestment campaign.
The campaign in the U.S. may be derailed by the fact that more than 65 percent of Americans polled believe Israel has a right to build the fence to protect itself and grassroots members of the Presbyterian Church itself are beginning to rally against the measure. In Europe, the issue may be more difficult because the wellspring of public opinion does not favor Israel, and the European countries are, in fact, Israel’s largest trading partners. We received an e-mail from an Israeli whose business is more than 50 percent European:
“I wanted to let you know of a disturbing trend in the last few weeks … Since the court decision in The Hague was published and the following vote in the UN Security Council, a growing number of our customers in Europe are making remarks regarding the issue and telling us that they may have to reconsider doing business with an Israeli company. Some have been more direct about it and have told us that renewal of business for 2005 is being reevaluated … you need to be concerned and (try to) do whatever possible, and make as much noise in the U.S. and hope that it may help us here in the European market.”
Unwillingness to accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel is at the core of all the Arab wars against Israel, including the current Palestinian war that drove Israeli tourism and the rest of the economy into a spin from which they are only beginning to recover – in part because of the Fence.
This new campaign to delegitimize Israel politically by undermining its trade ties abroad received an enormous boost from The Hague and UN General Assembly decisions.