Talk:Economic and political boycotts of Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Economic and political boycotts of Israel is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Israel Portal
Economic and political boycotts of Israel is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

We need to add something about the goal of the campaigns. Homey 21:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You meant to say, you need. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, we do, as an encyclopedia and as editors - it's your responsibility too you know. It makes no sense to talk of a boycott without discussion what it's objective is. Remember the W5 rule, we are missing the fifth W.Homey 22:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the intro right now is that it only contains part of the goals of some of the participants. It doesn't say anything about the nations and people that want Israel to be wiped off the map entirely, even though most of them have claimed to renounce that idea for public relations purposes. The boycotts started before Israel controlled the West Bank and even before Israel existed. I don't think all of this needs to be cluttering up the lead anyway, it should be in its own little section lower in the article, maybe with a section-stub tag. The addition of the sentence about "apartheid" is just so blatant in its motivation that I don't even know what to say about it. Within time, I doubt there will be any article on Wikipedia that mentions Israel to which someone will not have added a mention of apartheid. Also, the actions of the Red Cross in boycotting Israel for many years are part of the whole series of boycotts, so the actions of the Red Cross and their recent reversal do belong in the article. That material should be added back. I cannot do the editing right now, but will get back to it over the weekend if nobody else has done it first. 6SJ7 16:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Calling the ICRC actions a boycott is highly controversial. If you can find some reliable reference it might be acceptable to include it but only in a very limited fashion. It was part of an existing policy which would have been applied to any member who did not use an official symbol. I'm sure if India or Sri Lanka and gone ahead and used the Swastika as their symbol you wouldn't be calling the decision of the red cross to refuse to recognise the Indian or Sri Lankan Red Swastika a boycott of India or Sri Lanka (due to racial prejuicide). Also, you might want to read up on wikipedia policies with regards to NPOV and similar matters. This article is primarily about the boycotts NOT about the policies and beliefs of the countries and people involved in the boycotts. There might be some justification to including very brief mention that SOME (not all) of the people and countries wish Israel to be wiped of the map and the alleged/purported links to the boycotts policies with suitable references but we have to be very careful. It would be just as wrong to go in to great detail of Israel's controversial policies including kidnapping (e.g. Vanunu), assasination, collective punishment, destruction of civilian infrastructure etc etc etc. N.B. To avoid confusion, I should state I am not suggesting Israel's policies are comparable to the policies of Nazi Germany or that the Star of David has the same connotations of the swastika. Nil Einne 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Definitive article

Not sure about the boycott of israel, they are separate boycotts. --Coroebus 21:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arab Israeli conflict

"The proposed boycott of Israel refers to a series of political campaigns designed to weaken and isolate the State of Israel as part of the Arab-Israeli conflict." I think not. Some may be considered part of the conflict (e.g. Arab nation boycotts) but certainly not the others. --Coroebus 22:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If you choose sides - e.g. punish one side but not the other for similar actions - you become a participant in the conflict. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Or, stated another way, the academic and religious institutions boycotting Israel have injected themselves into the conflict and are therefore part of it. Everyone involved in a boycott may not have the same goals, but they are all trying to "weaken and islolate" Israel in order to exert pressure in an effort to change Israel's policy toward the Palestinians, which is part of the overall Arab-Israeli conflict. 6SJ7 00:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
If I may respectfully disagree, I think it is OR to state that this is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, you may think it is, but I personally don't, nor do many others, so we can't definitively refer to it as such. --Coroebus 07:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The people who want the boycotts are trying to force Israel to adopt a certain political position, so their actions are certainly part of the conflict. Conflicts are not only fought using violence. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The 'Arab-Israeli conflict', at least as far as I understand it, is a conflict between the Arab nations and Israel (militarily, or whatever, into which the Arab boycott certainly does fit). But the drive for a two-state solution or Palestinian rights is not necessarily part of such a conflict (i.e. I don't think many Palestinian rights activists, particularly abroad, would be impressed by being labelled as protagonists in the Arab-Israeli conflict). As a parallel, support for the civil rights of Northern Irish Catholics was not necessarily part of the Republican/British conflict. At present I hold your position to be OR, and am minded to change it, unless you can provide good reason for me to accept your position, which your above comment does not represent. --Coroebus 14:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

Given the current state of this article and the Arab economic boycott of Israel article, I do not understand why there are two articles. I understand there is an issue about whether a particular "boycott" is one boycott or several boycotts, but I think that at this point it is clear that this article is about a series of boycotts all against the same target, though not necessarily for the same reasons. (In most of the cases the reasons are a matter of debate anyway, as I mention above.) Perhaps this article should be moved to something like "Economic and academic boycotts of Israel," the material from the "Arab boycott" article moved here (where there is already a section for it), and the "Arab boycott" article changed into a redirect to this one. 6SJ7 23:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Just to add, if there is a single article, the material Zeq had put in, about the Red Cross, could have its own little section. It definitely should go in somewhere as it is part of the whole series of boycotts going back more than 80 years, that a single article would be about. 6SJ7 23:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree they should be merged. Zeq, thanks for moving that material into the intro. It reads better this way. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea --Coroebus 14:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone didn't notice, I moved this article so the name refers to boycotts, plural. The new name is something of a compromise and maybe someone has a better idea. "Boycotts of Israel," by itself, didn't sound right, especially when it is my intention to merge "Arab economic boycott of Israel" into this article, and I assume the word "economic" got into the title for some reason. "Economic, cultural, social, academic and athletic boycotts of Israel" seemed a bit unwieldy. Because all of the various means of boycott (economic, cultural, etc.) are aimed at a political goal, I decided "Economic and political" was a reasonable shorthand. 6SJ7 20:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In order to discourage...

I notice this sentence that I included was removed with the comment "rm "in order to discourage Jewish settlement" - why do they need excuses? Should we excuse the Nazis then?", I should like to point out that I added the text to explain why someone would have a boycott of a state that didn't even exist, it is hardly an excuse. Secondly, we really are here to provide an insight into motivation (where there is evidence available). Thirdly, I think the Nazi comparison is incredibly unproductive. --Coroebus 18:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the Nazi line
and note similarities with the Nazi boycotts of Jews of the 1930s.
because I can't find such a claim in any of the cited article. Specifically, article 5 which appeared to be the source doesn't appear to make any comparisons between the boycotts of the state of Israel to the Nazi boycotts of the Jewish people. I'm aware that some people claim that the boycotts are motivated (at least partially) out of anti-semitism not solely because of the policies of Israel or otherwise are not justifable in relation to Israel's policies. And I'm sure there are some that even go as far as to link them to the Nazi boycotts but we at least need a cite if we are going to include such a controversial claim. Nil Einne 17:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Did you see the ref [1] that immediately follows? The cartoon caption says: Title: Away with him. The long arm of the Ministry of Education pulls a Jewish teacher from his classroom. March 1933 (Issue #12) Caricatures from "Der Sturmer" Source: German Propaganda Archive. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McDonald's

McDonald's didn't have any outlets in the Arab world before they opened outlets in Israel, so the example can't be correct. Rmsharpe 20:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli boycott & USA law

This section looks weak, the laws are quite draconian. Believe the largest fine is up to $50,000 US per quarter or 5 years in prison.

Ribicoff Amendment -1976 Tax Reform Act (TRA) prohibits US Citizens/companies from boycotting Israel in the USA, so do 1977 changes to the Export Administration Act (EAA). These laws were specifically setup to stop participation of U.S. citizens in other nation's economic boycotts or embargoes of Israel.

"a fine of up to $50,000 or five times the value of the exports involved, which ever is greater, may be imposed in addition to imprisonment of up to five years."

"The TRA requires taxpayers to report "operations" in, with, or related to a boycotting country or its nationals and requests received to participate in or cooperate with an international boycott. The Treasury Department publishes a quarterly list of "boycotting countries.""[2]

May write a section explaining these laws and how they got enacted. 82.29.227.171 13:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Anti-Boycott law in the US is so stupid, and shows the US govt is taking sides.

[edit] human rights abuses?

To say that the reason for boycotts is "to protest Israel's alleged human rights abuses" is POV. Even if we leave aside the question why countries whose "alleged human rights abuses" are much worse that Israel's are not subjected to such treatment and even if we leave aside the dreadful history of the boycott that confutes this POV, other opinions exist why Israel is being singled out. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

But that is the stated reason for the boycotts, whatever you think the real reason is, and so it should be reported as such. Deuterium 06:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
First, the Arab boycotts began in 1920. What were the "human rights abuses" then? Israeli occupation of 1967, no doubt. Second, I can show instances when The Protocols of Zion were stated as a reason. Why don't we list that? ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The sentence in question is referring to the recent boycotts [i]outside[/i] the Arab world, specifically in the West (e.g. church divestments and so forth). The stated reason for all of these boycotts in the West is to protest the treatment of the Palestinians, not a desire to destroy Israel. To lump Western boycotts in with the Arab League boycott is to fundamentally misrepresent the issue. Deuterium 07:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This is described in the corresponding section and has no place in the intro. If you insist on adding it, then criticism should be added into the intro as well. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

This section of the article is flawed for two reasons. The first is that while the section does begin with appropriate mention of criticism of the boycott, the third and fourth sentences, which make up more than half of the section, discuss "prominent Jewish Israeli orginizations" which support the ban. This is not appropriate content for a section entitled "criticism". Additionally, these "prominent Jewish Israeli orginizations" do not seem to be representative of popular Israeli opinion. The Wikipedia article on Gush Shalom describes the group as claiming that "Israel is commiting war crimes [on Palestinians] on a daily basis". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gush_Shalom Matzpun is a similar orginization. Posted on its website http://www.matzpun.com, Matzpun writes "The inhumane oppressor [Israel] hopes that starving will help force the Palestinians to surrender" and discusses the "Israeli government's policies of killing civilians - men, women and children". These standpoints seem more representative of Palestinian groups than "prominent Jewish Israeli orginizations", regardless of one's personal views in the matter.

[edit] Loose wording

The U.S. Anti-boycott laws do not prohibit inhabitants of the U.S. from individually boycotting Israel (everybody is free to buy where they want), it prohibits inhabitants of the U.S. from making agreements with a third party to boycott Israel... AnonMoos 21:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split out Academic boycotts of Israel into its own article?

There is a discussion on the Talk:New anti-Semitism page as to whether we should split out all the material relevant to the recent academic boycott attempts and responses to its own article.

Leflyman wrote that:

"I'd say that the associated Academic boycotts section should likewise be developed as a separate article (Academic boycotts of Israel), differentiated from the Economic and political boycotts of Israel, which says very little about the prominence of on-campus movements."

SlimVirgin wrote that:

"It's a good idea to have something on that. Not sure we have enough on the subject in this article to justify starting another page. Do you think we do?"

I wrote that:

"A couple months ago I figured that eventually there would be an article like Academic boycotts of Israel. In order to give such a potentially contentious article context I started work on a similar article relating to the academic boycott of South Africa. See:
Academic boycott of South Africa (I just moved it from a draft within my userspace, it needs major clean-up from other contributors, hint hint)
Many of the same issues arise with that boycott as with the current one, although of course there are many differences."

Anyways, figured the best place to report this discussion is on this page.

I have just done a first pass at the Academic boycotts of Israel article. --Ben Houston 06:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Boycott Israel - The Palestinian Campaign for Boycott Divestment Sanctions Against Israel.jpg

Image:Boycott Israel - The Palestinian Campaign for Boycott Divestment Sanctions Against Israel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Disinvestment" verses "Economic boycott"

One thing that appears to be confused or conflated in this article is the concept of "disinvestment" and the idea of an "economic boycott". While this may seem like a moot point, it isn't. Disinvestment campaigns are legal in the US, while boycott campaigns are illegal. Right now the article labels "disinvestment" as a type of "economic boycott" (see the heading used for the section of the divestment campaign) when it is no such thing. My recommendation is for a separate article dealing specifically with the divestment issue be created, I would suggest a title of Disinvestment from Israel. This would reduce the confusion/conflation that is reflected in the current state of this article. I also suggest this because there is a large unwieldy Israel section in the main disinvestment article that also needs some work. --Lucretius (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)