The Weapon of Boycott

Dr. Abdul Qader Tash

The resolution passed by Arab foreign ministers recently has enraged Israelis and Americans. The Arab League Ministerial Council has asked Arab countries to halt the normalization of relations with Israel, to resume a primary economic boycott against it, and to freeze their participation in multilateral peace talks. Israel and the United States consider this resolution as Arab "violence" against Israel and as a threat to the peaceful solution of Arab-Israeli problems!

Amazing indeed is the logic that condemns the effect without condemning the cause. Arabs have been patient for too long and accommodative too far, while Israel has stuck to intransigence and obstinacy. It has done all it could do sabotage the efforts to find a solution to the problem. Its decision to build a settlement at Abu Ghneim in East Jerusalem was the proverbial last straw that broke the camel's back.

After all these provocations, the refusal to implement the agreements already signed, the rush to build more settlements, the insistence on the Judaization of Jerusalem and tightening the noose on the Palestinian people politically and economically, after all the doors to a just and comprehensive peace have been shut before them, don't the Arabs have the right to use the weapon of boycott?

By the way, is boycott an invention of the Arabs? Is it not an accepted practice when a country occupies another's land and refuses to abide by the decisions of the international community? The world community has resorted to different forms of boycott in several cases. The boycott of South Africa, in its apartheid years, is only one instance. America has been the most enthusiastic supporter of political and economic boycott against a number of nations and peoples, such as Iraq, Libya and Sudan. Now it is imposing an unjust embargo against Iran and Cuba and is trying hard to make other countries follow suit, all because those two countries refuse to take orders from Washington.

America champions the principle of boycott as a weapon against those who disagree with it, but condemns Arabs for using it against Israel as a last resort. This double standard always was, and remains, a feature of American logic: Israel has rights that others don't have. It can do what others can't, but no one should react, because it would hurt Israel's feelings and would make it pull out of the peace process. What peace is this if the chief patron wants a peace that gives everything to one side and demands every concession from the other side!

Arabs should not be bothered by Israeli and American anger. They have demanded only the barest minimum. They have already surrendered many of their rights in the hope of a peace which every passing day seems to be more an illusion than reality.

It is not that a freeze in normalization and a resumption of the boycott will regain for the Arabs their lost rights. They may not have much practical effect on Israel either. However, those actions would be an expression of the extent of Arab frustration. Of course, the fallout of that frustration will not be good either for the Arabs or for Israel.

These proposed steps should be accompanied by an immediate and resolute move to support the resistance of the Palestinian people and to extend financial assistance to them to ensure their land. That is essential to enable them to resist the occupation and counter Israeli efforts to Judaize Al Quds and thereby impose a fait accompli.

Dr. Abdul Qader Tash is managing editor of the English-language Arab News, published in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. This column was reprinted with permission from the April 6, 1997 issue.