Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Unions

Unions:
THW rejects unions:
Background:
Labor unions in the United States are legally recognized as representatives of workers in many industries. The most prominent unions are among public sector employees such as teachers and police. Activity by labor unions in the United States today centers on collective bargaining over wages, benefits, and working conditions for their membership and on representing their members if management attempts to violate contract provisions. Although much smaller compared to their peak membership in the 1950s, American unions also remain an important political factor, both through mobilization of their own memberships and through coalitions with like-minded activist organizations around issues such as immigrant rights, trade policy, health care, and living wage campaigns.
Today most unions are aligned with one of two larger umbrella organizations: the AFL-CIO created in 1955 and the Change to Win Federation, which split from the AFL-CIO in 2005. Both advocate policies and legislation on behalf of workers in the United States and Canada, and take an active role in politics. The AFL-CIO is especially concerned with global trade issues.
American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen under 9% — levels not seen since 1932. Unions allege that employer-incited opposition has contributed to this decline in membership.
Unions are currently advocating new federal legislation that would allow workers to elect union representation by simply signing a support card. The current process established by federal law requires at least 30% of employees to sign cards for the union, then wait 45 to 90 days for a federal official to conduct a secret ballot election in which a simple majority of the employees must vote for the union in order to obligate the employer to bargain. Unions report that, under the present system, many employers use the 45 to 90 day period to conduct anti-union campaigns.
During the 2008 elections, the Employee Free Choice Act had widespread support of many legislators in the House and Senate, and of the President. Since then, support for the "card check" provisions of the EFCA subsided substantially.

Pros:
·      They provide support against big companies
·      unions are good for workers: if workers have a problem with the employer, then they can all ban together and take care of the problem.
·      unions allow employees to band together to negotiate for better wages and benefits, and to make sure that everyone is being treated fairly by the employer.
·      they even help protect minorities, and other subordinated groups, from being wrongfully fired.
·      it helps all working people, the economy and the future of progressive politics.
·      provides better and safer work environments.
·      encourages teamwork and cooperation.
·      Created jobs for hundreds of people and immigrants, Put the US one step ahead of the world, Brought people to the large cities to work instead of farms, Brought people over from different countries and created America. Lead to some great accomplishments.
Cons:
·      bad for the employer: workers can ban together until the employer meets their needs.
·      employers can become aggressive, and very unfair to try and stop unionization, employers can be charged with unfair labor practice.
·      unions push wages to unreasonable amounts, employers can be striked against.
·      striking can make union members look greedy, People were underpaid
·      Children had to work alongside their parents; the conditions were terrible in the factories.
·      people were paid as little as possible so the robber barons could make as much money as possible. rich get richer, the poor get poorer

References:



Genetically modified crops


Genetically Modified crops:
THW ban genetically engineered crops.
Background:

Genetically modified foods, also known as genetically engineered foods, are the latest contribution of genetic engineering technology. Genetically modified foods are made by inserting genes of other species into their DNA. Though this kind of genetic modification is used both in plants and animals, it is found more commonly in the former than in the later. There are a variety of reasons for developing genetically modified foods. For instance, some foods are genetically modified to prevent the occurrence of allergies after consumption, while some are developed to improve their shelf life. It is also been said that experts are working on developing foods that have the ability to cure certain diseases. Some of the genetically modified foods that are available in the market include cotton, soybean, canola, potatoes, egg plant, strawberries, corn, tomatoes, lettuce, cantaloupe, carrots, etc. Though developers and manufacturers of genetically modified foods ensure that there are various advantages of consuming these foods, a fair bit of the population is entirely against them. Let us look at some of the genetically modified foods pros and cons.

Pros:
  • One of the major advantages of genetically modified foods is that they help in controlling the occurrence of certain diseases. There are some foods that cause allergy to people when consumed. By modifying the DNA system of these foods, the properties causing these allergies are eliminated successfully.
  • It is also said that genetically modified foods grow faster than the foods that are grown in the traditional manner. Due to this, productivity increases, providing the population with more food. Apart from this, it is claimed that genetically modified foods are a boon in places which experience frequent droughts, or where the soil is incompetent for agriculture, due to which it is difficult to grow normal crops.
  • Though the seeds of genetically modified foods are quite expensive, the total cost of production is said to be lesser than the production of traditional crops. The main reason for this is that these foods have natural resistance towards pests and insects and so not much pesticides and insecticides have to be sprayed on them. This reduces the necessity of exposing genetically modified crops to harmful pesticides and insecticides, making these foods free from chemicals and environment friendly as well.
  • Genetically modified foods are said to be high in nutrients, and contain more minerals and vitamins than those found in traditionally grown foods. Other than this, these foods also taste better. Another reason for people opting for genetically engineered foods is that they have an increased shelf life and so there is less fear of the foods getting rotten quickly.
  • About 200 million acres of farmland worldwide are now used to grow GE crops such as cotton, corn, soybeans and rice. The most common GE crops are Soybeans, which represent 63% of all GE crops, Corn (19%), Transgenic Cotton (13%) and Canola (5%).iv The majority of genetically modified crops grown today are engineered to be resistant to pesticides and/or herbicides so that they can withstand being sprayed with weed killer while the rest of the plants in the field die.
Cons:
  • The biggest threat caused by genetically modified food is that they can have harmful effects on the human body. It is believed that consumption of these genetically engineered foods can cause the development of diseases which are immune to antibiotics. Moreover, according to some experts, people who consume such foods have high chances of developing cancer. Besides, as these foods are new inventions, not much is not known about their long term effects on human beings. As the health effects are unknown, many people prefer to stay away from genetically modified foods.
  • In many countries, manufacturers do not mention on the label that the foods are genetically manufactured because they think that this would affect their business. However, this is not a good practice as consumers do not get the chance to decide whether they should really opt for these foods.
  • Many religious and cultural communities are against genetically modified foods because they see it as an unnatural way of producing foods. Many people are also not comfortable with the idea of transferring animal genes into plants and vice versa. Also, this cross-pollination method can cause damage to other organisms that thrive in the environment.
  • Experts are of the opinion that with the increase of genetically modified foods, developing countries would start depending more on industrial countries because it is likely that they would control the food production in the time to come.
What is the current situation abroad?
The EU is delaying the planting of GM crops until they are proved to be safe. The US, Canada and Argentina are bringing a case in the World Trade Organization alleging that this delay is simply a trade barrier by another name. Given the absence of evidence of any harm from GM foods, the plaintiffs have every chance of winning the argument.

References:
California Department of Food and Agriculture. “A Food Foresight Analysis of Agricultural Biotechnology: A Report to the Legislature,” January 1, 2003.
Hogg, Chris, “Taiwan breeds green-glowing pigs.” BBC News, January 12, 2006.
Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge; Margriet Caswell, “The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States.” USDA, 2006.
California Department of Food and Agriculture. A Food Foresight Analysis of Agricultural Biotechnology: A Report to the Legislature. January 1, 2003.




Friday, November 5, 2010

Drinking Age:




Background:
All 50 US states have set their minimum drinking age to 21 although exceptions do exist on a state-by-state basis for consumption at home, under adult supervision, for medical necessity, and other reasons. Proponents of lowering the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) from 21 argue that it has not stopped teen drinking, and has instead pushed underage binge drinking into private and less controlled environments, leading to more health and life-endangering behavior by teens. Opponents of lowering the MLDA argue that teens have not yet reached an age where they can handle alcohol responsibly, and thus are more likely to harm or even kill themselves and others by drinking prior to 21. They contend that traffic fatalities decreased when the MLDA increased.
Resolution: lowering the drinking age to 18 years old.

Pros:
1.     Turning 18 entails receiving the rights and responsibilities of adulthood to vote, serve on juries, get married, sign contracts, join the military--which includes taking on the responsibilities of life and death--and be prosecuted as adults. Adults from the age of 18 should therefore also be trusted to make decisions about alcohol consumption.
2.     When adolescents are not taught to drink in moderation, they end up binge drinking when they do consume alcohol. It is better to teach youth to learn how to drink responsibly and hold them accountable for their actions as we do with driving.
3.     Although the United States increased the MLDA to 21, its rate of traffic fatalities in the 1980s decreased less than that of European countries whose legal drinking ages are lower than 21proving that establishing an MLDA at 21 is not necessarily an effective way to reduce traffic fatalities.
4.     Lowering the drinking age will make alcohol less of a taboo, take away the thrill that many young people get from breaking the law, and make alcohol consumption a more normalized activity done in moderation.
5.     Prohibiting teens from drinking in bars, restaurants, and public locations has the effect of forcing them to drink in unsupervised places such as fraternity houses or house parties. When teens get hurt from alcohol-related injuries or accidents, they are sometimes afraid of seeking medical help for fear of legal consequences. Lowering the drinking age will allow teens to drink alcohol in regulated environments with supervision.
Cons:
1. States that previously lowered the drinking age to 18, such as Massachusetts, Michigan, and Maine experienced an increase in alcohol-related crashes among the 18 to 20 age group. 
2.  Raising the MLDA back to 21 has decreased the percentage of fatal traffic accidents for those between 18 to 20 by 13% and has saved approximately 21,887 lives from 1975-2002.
3.  Because teens are simultaneously undergoing physical changes, peer pressure, and new situations and urges, allowing them to consume alcohol can make them more vulnerable to drug and substance abuse, unplanned and unprotected sex, depression, violence, and other social ills.
4.  Current MLDA laws set at 21 are working because the percentage of underage drinkers has decreased since 1984.
5. When teens drink alcohol, they are more likely to binge drink than people above the age of 21, thus demonstrating that teens are more prone to alcohol abuse than older demographics and should not be allowed to consume alcohol.

6. Lower drinking ages to 16, 17, or 18 like the MLDA in some European countries is inappropriate for US standards because American teens generally start driving at earlier ages and drive more often than their European counterparts. American teens are thus much more likely to drive under the influence of alcohol if the drinking age were lowered in the US.

Reference page:










Social security privatization:



Background:

The US Social Security program is intended to provide a safety net protecting American workers and their families in the event of retirement, disability, and early death. Moving Social Security benefits into private accounts is one proposal to prevent Social Security's predicted future financial shortfall. Privatization of Social Security would allow workers to control their own retirement money through personal investment accounts. Supporters of private accounts contend that retirees would have the freedom to invest their retirement money in the stock market as they wish, theoretically earning higher returns than with government-invested funds. Critics of privatizing Social Security argue that investing retirement money is complicated and risky because individuals can lose their retirement safety net through bad decisions.

Pros:
1. When Social Security began in 1935, the contributions of 17 workers paid for the benefits of one retiree. In 2035 the estimated ratio will be 2.1 workers per beneficiary. Allowing individuals to contribute to their own private accounts may reduce future loss of money from fewer worker contributions.
2. Using the existing system to avert the pending collapse of Social Security will require deep cuts in benefits, heavy borrowing, or substantial tax hikes. A better solution is to switch to private investment accounts that will be funded with existing payroll tax thereby avoiding any benefit cuts or tax hikes.
3. A medium income worker born after 1965 can expect less than a 2% rate of return with the existing Social Security system. Privatizing Social Security will put more money in the pockets of retirees. Over the last 80 years, private investment in the US has earned an average return of nearly 8%.
4. Private retirement accounts will give a worker contractual rights to retirement benefits, a right missing from the current Social Security system. In the 1960 US Supreme Court case Flemming v. Nestor, a retiring legal immigrant eligible for Social Security benefits, who paid into the system for 19 years, was denied his Social Security retirement money after being deported as a member of the Communist Party.
5. Putting Social Security into private accounts does not expose retirement money to risk. These federally regulated personal accounts would allow individuals to invest only in diversified, approved mutual funds and not in single stocks or highly volatile stocks.
Cons:
1. Moving Social Security into private accounts would cause substantial reductions in traditional Social Security benefits. Privatization would, over the next 47 years, reduce benefit levels by as much as 44% below 2005 levels.
2. Getting a privatization system started is too costly. The transition costs of setting up new personal accounts while continuing to provide benefits to Social Security's current beneficiaries would require an extra $1 trillion to $2 trillion.
3.  Private accounts would reduce special insurance protections, such as disability and survivor's insurance, that are also provided by Social Security. Cuts will have to be made to these programs in order to fund private retirement accounts.
4. Privatizing Social Security, which essentially is putting peoples' retirement money at the whim of the stock market, will weaken the federal retirement system through potentially risky investments.
5. Putting their Social Security funds into private investing accounts exposes US workers to be victims of unscrupulous stock brokers and of their own investment choices.
6. Many people either do not know, or do not want to know, how to make the sound decisions about their own long-term investments that private accounts require.
References page:



Negative Campaigning:




Background:
Negative campaigning, also known more colloquially as "mudslinging", is trying to win an advantage by referring to negative aspects of an opponent or of a policy rather than emphasizing one's own positive attributes or preferred policies. In the broadest sense, the term covers any rhetoric which refers to an opponent, if only by way of contrast, but can also include attacks meant to destroy an opponent's character, which may veer into ad hominem. Negative campaigning can be found in most marketplaces where ideas are contested. In U.S. politics, "mudslinging" has been called "as American as Mississippi mud". Some research suggests negative campaigning is the norm in all political venues, mitigated only by the dynamics of a particular contest.
There are a number of techniques used in negative campaigning. Among the most effective is running advertisements attacking an opponent's personality, record, or opinion. There are two main types of ads used in negative campaigning: attack and contrast.
Attack ads focus exclusively on the negative aspects of the opponent. There is no positive content in an attack ad, whether it is about the candidate or the opponent. Attack ads usually identify the risks associated with the opponent, often exploiting people’s fears to manipulate and lower the impression voters have of the opponent. Because attack ads have no positive content, they have the potential to be more influential than contrast ads in shaping voters’ views of the sponsoring candidate’s opponent.
Resolution: This house rejects negative Ad. Campaigns.
Pros:
1.     Sponsors of overt negative campaigns often cite reasons to support mass communication of negative ideas. The Office of National Drug Control Policy uses negative campaigns to steer the public away from what they perceive to be health risks. Similar negative campaigns have been used to rebut mass marketing by tobacco companies, or to discourage drunk driving.

2.  Cathy Allen, president of Campaign Connection of Seattle, suggested negative campaigning might be the 'proper course' during political contests in the following situations: when taking on an incumbent; when being significantly outspent;
When there is irrefutable information that the opponent has done something wrong; when the candidate has little name recognition.

3.     In a 1996 study, researchers concluded, "the informational benefits of negative political ads possess the capacity to promote political participation, particularly among those otherwise least well equipped for political learning." Their testing found citizens who were aware of negative advertising were more likely to vote than those who didn't express recollection of such ads.

4.     Martin Wattenberg and Craig Brians, of the University of California, Irvine, considered in their study whether negative campaigning mobilizes or alienates voters. They concluded that data used by Stephen Ansolabehere in a 1994 American Political Science Review article to advance the hypothesis that negative campaigning demobilizes voters was flawed.

5.     Rick Farmer, PhD, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Akron found that negative ads are more memorable than positive ads when they reinforce a preexisting belief and are relevant to the central issues of a marketing campaign. Researchers at the University of Georgia found the impact of negative ads increases over time, while positive ads used to counteract negative ads lack the power of negative ads.

Cons:
1.     Some strategists say that an effect of negative campaigning is that while it motivates the base of support it can alienate centrist and undecided voters from the political process, reducing voter turnout and radicalizing politics. In a study done by Gina Garramone about how negative advertising affects the political process, it was found that a consequence of negative campaigning is greater image discrimination of the candidates and greater attitude polarization.
2.     Negative ads can produce a backlash. A disastrous ad was run by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in the 1993 Canadian federal election, apparently emphasizing Liberal Party of Canada leader Jean Chrétien's Bell's Palsy partial facial paralysis in a number of unflattering photos, with the subtext of criticizing his platforms. The ad was badly received and helped reduce the governing Conservatives to two seats.
3.     Research published in the Journal of Advertising found that negative political advertising makes the body want to turn away physically, but the mind remembers negative messages. The findings are based on research conducted by James Angelini, professor of communication at the University of Delaware, which used ads that aired during the 2000 presidential election. During the study, the researchers placed electrodes under the eyes of willing participants and showed them a series of 30-second ads from both the George W. Bush and Al Gore campaigns. The electrodes picked up on the “startle response,” the automatic eye movement typically seen in response to snakes, spiders and other threats. Compared to positive or neutral messages, negative advertising prompted greater reflex reactions and a desire to move away.












Reference page:












Deforestation



Background:
Deforestation is the intentional clearance of forests by logging and/or burning (popularly known as slash and burn). Deforestation occurs for many reasons: trees or derived charcoal are used as, or sold, for fuel or as lumber, while cleared land is used as pasture for livestock, plantations of commodities, and settlements. The removal of trees without sufficient reforestation has resulted in damage to habitat, biodiversity loss and aridity. It has adverse impacts on biosequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Deforested regions typically incur significant adverse soil erosion and frequently degrade into wasteland. Disregard or ignorance of intrinsic value, lack of ascribed value, lax forest management and deficient environmental laws are some of the factors that allow deforestation to occur on a large scale. In many countries, deforestation is an ongoing issue that is causing extinction, changes to climatic conditions, desertification, and displacement of indigenous people.

Pros:
1.                    Although deforestation is not totally good, it has some promising advantages for the people. Its direct purposes have effects, which significantly contribute to the atmosphere and to the environment. For example, the cutting of trees lets the carbon dioxide stay on them rather than emit it in the air such that in the case of dying and rotten tress.
2.                    Also, much of the vast part of the forest is left unused which can be turned to agricultural sites instead. This way, it will help feed millions of starving people. Some parts of the forest can also be turned into great infrastructures, which will give rise to a booming economy, thus helping the people as well. Grazing animals are also one way that deforestation becomes useful. Truly, the advantages could be quite innumerable if summed up. However, weighing the good and harm that deforestation brings should always be considered.
3.                    One of the easiest benefits of deforestation to spot are the economic ones. Lumber products are one of the most staple constructive materials in human society. Whether it's raw lumber used for making tables and houses, or paper and other wood by-products, we simply cannot live without the use of lumber. Like steel and stone, wood is one of the most basic natural resources, and unlike steel and stone, it is renewable simply by growing more trees. The only real trick to balancing its consumption is to grow more trees to replace the ones taken.
4.                    Keep in mind that a lot of jobs revolve around the use of lumber. Wood cutters aside, there are those who work in processing plants to make glue from wood sap, process pulp into paper, and others. This is another benefit of deforestation; it opens more job opportunities for people who would otherwise be unemployed. These job opportunities are more than simply a humanitarian concept; society at large would suffer if all of the people working in the wood industry were to suddenly find themselves jobless.
5.                    Another benefit of deforestation to consider is the access it provides to other natural resources that may lay within the forest's land area. Some places with heavy forests are home to iron ore, mineral, and even oil deposits, which can be used for man's needs. These natural resources would otherwise lay dormant and untapped unless people access them. The act of deforestation may not be entirely necessary to get at these deposits sometimes, but coupled with the advantages given above, the combination of opening up a new mine or oil well when taken with extra living spaces or farmlands for food makes a lot of sense.
Con:
1.     Its disadvantages come in a million ways. Deforestation introduces numerous community and environmental harms. The abrupt and irreversible consequences of worldwide deforestation are guaranteed to jeopardize the existence of Earth. The domino effect of deforestation includes: extinction of the biodiversity; the annihilation of the indigenous people (local inhabitants of the area); and a global change in climate. One wrong move can lead us all to an empty and meaningless world.
2.     The consequence of deforestation is claimed to be a domino effect because one step to destroying nature will cause the deaths or extinction of many more species. After the death of animal and plant life is the partial loss of human life through poverty and pollution. If things pursue this way, human extinction could also be inevitable. The years are counting, and each day of that year trees are being felled and lands are being abolished of the natural wonders. If the world used to be a better and cleaner place to live in, then we can definitely start to relive those days now.
3.     Deforestation is causing a loss of biological diversity on an unprecedented scale. Although tropical forests cover only six percent of Earths land surface, they happen to contain between 70% and 90% of all of the worlds species As a result of deforestation, we are losing between 50 and 100 animal and plant species each day. Inevitably, the loss of species entails a loss of genetic resources. Many of these species now facing the possibility of extinction are of enormous potential to humans in many areas; especially medicine. As of 1991, over 25% of the worlds pharmaceutical products were derived from tropical plants. By contributing to the extinction of multiple species of plants and animals, we might be destroying the cures for many of the diseases that plague the human race today.
4.     The problem is that once forests have been cut down, essential nutrients are washed out of the soil all together. This leads to soil erosion. As of now, about 80% of the soils in the humid tropics are acidic and infertile. When there are no trees to keep the soil in place, the soil becomes ripe for erosion. It dries and cracks under the suns heat. Once the soil temperature exceeds 25 degrees centigrade, volatile nutrient ingredients like nitrogen can be lost, further reducing the fertility of the remaining soil. Furthermore, rainfall washes remaining nutrients into rivers. This means that replanting trees will not necessarily help to solve the problems of deforestation; by the time the trees have matured, the soil might be completely stripped of essential nutrients. Eventually, cultivation in the forest regions will be impossible, and the land will be useless. The soil erosion will lead to permanent impoverishment of huge land areas.
5.     Clearing the forest dramatically increases the surface run-off from rainfall, mainly because a greater proportion of the rain reaches the ground due to a lack of vegetation that would suck up the excess rainfall. "Tropical forests can receive as much rain in an hour as London would expect in a wet month, and a single storm has been measured as removing 185 tons of topsoil per hectare" (Dudley 21). In tropical regions where the forests are dense, flooding is not as serious a problem because there is vegetation to absorb the rainfall. It is in areas where there is little vegetation that there is a problem. Hence, to avoid the disastrous effects of flooding, tropical forests need to remain dense and lush.

Reference page:


































European Union and trade sanctions on Israeli

Background Information:

The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe. Committed to regional integration, the EU was established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993 upon the foundations of the European communities. Now Israel’s occupation (defined as such by the U.N., under international law) of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem in the wake of the Six Days War of 1967, is considered by many to have led to some of the longest and gravest human rights violations in recent history. The conflict is intractably complex, with both parties accused of well-documented transgressions of international humanitarian law. However, while Palestinians have generally been harshly criticized by western government for their belligerent tactics, with Hamas being placed on the list of terrorist organizations and treated as such, support for Israel has remained high. Israel’s disregard for demands to stop its settlement activities, or to make concessions in order to find a peaceful solution to the conflict, has generally been met with only faint criticisms, and those mostly of a symbolic nature. As the occupying power, benefiting from extensive diplomatic, military and financial support from the U.S.A., Israel seems to have little incentive to work towards a speedy solution to the problem. Would economic sanctions finally convince Israel to be more committed to the peace process? And would the E.U. be the appropriate actor to impose such sanctions?

Pros:
1.                    Apartheid is a crime under international law. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, one of the longest in history, is also illegal, as is the West Bank barrier, which quite literally fences Palestinians out of Israel and is built largely on occupied land. If international law is to have any authority at all and not merely be a vacuous system crushed by political considerations, it ought to give rise to a positive obligation on behalf of states to enforce it. As condemnation and diplomacy have consistently failed, economic sanctions are the logical next step.

2.                    The E.U. is in the best position to impose such sanctions. The U.S. government has strong historic ties of support for Israel, with organizations like AIPAC lobbying Congress and the President directly in matters of foreign policy. The Department of Defense gives Israel in excess of two billion dollars annually in military aid. The Palestinian cause is staggeringly under-represented in both the U.S. media and across the political spectrum. Therefore the U.S. is highly unlikely to take a fair and balanced stance in the matter.

3.                    Sanctions would provide Israel with an incentive to cooperate towards finding a peaceful end to the occupation and the humanitarian concerns it has led to. Currently, Israel is largely confrontational, defiant of international requests to stop illegal settlement activities in the West Bank and generally reluctant to move towards the establishment of a Palestinian state and pulling out of Gaza and the West Bank.

4.                    Economic sanctions work, just as they did in the case of South Africa. Israel’s proximity to Europe makes the E.U. a valuable trading partner. The EU is Israel's largest trading partner, accounting for 27% of Israeli exports and 43% of Israeli imports. Israel and the E.U. have free trade agreements in place. The Israeli economy is particularly susceptible to sanctions at it is heavily reliant on trade. With very few natural resources of its own, Israel relies on imports of crude oil, grains, raw materials, and some military hardware. It also has a developed industrial sector, exporting large quantities of high-tech hardware and software, biotech and military systems.

5.                    Israel is a de facto apartheid state. Its treatment of Israeli residents and Palestinians in the occupied territories – including separate roads and inequality in the provision of infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources - is reminiscent of South Africa’s treatment of its black citizens, prior to 1994. International censure and sanctions resulted in South Africa putting an end to the Apartheid regime. The same should be done in the case of Israel.

Cons:

1.    In international law, the crime of apartheid is defined as the systematic oppression of one race by another. In the case of Israel, the reasons behind the regime of separation are almost exclusively based on security concerns. Since it was built, the West Bank barrier has led to a substantial decrease in terrorist attacks within Israel. While states ought to enforce international law in the case of crimes against humanity, like apartheid, there are plenty of other states in the world who systematically repress their citizens and committing egregious human rights violations against their minorities. The E.U. seems largely unconcerned with these other transgressors. Choosing to sanction Israel appears anti-Semitic and does very little for international law – if different states are treated differently for the same alleged crime, that is also politics - it is not law.

2.    The E.U. is comprised of 27 states with their own governments and foreign policy objectives that would be impossible to harmonise. It only has a rudimentary foreign policy system, with the role of the E.U. Foreign Minister / High Representative largely symbolic. To think that countries like Germany or Poland and Belgium or France would have the same approach to the issue is naïve. Also, sanctions adopted by all would place a high economic burden on just a few members, like the U.K. and Ireland, who actually trade with Israel.

3.    Israel is not the only party to blame for the stalemate. While it may be unapologetic in its treatment of Palestinians, Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel targeting and killing innocent Israeli civilians. How can Israel be expected to sit at the negotiating table while being under attack? Why doesn’t the EU do more to address Palestinian terrorism and to support its Israeli victims?

4.    Trade is a two-way relationship. Sanctions would hurt European countries and Israel in equal measure. Germany, for example is also heavily reliant on trade, as the world’s largest exporter. Sanctions only worked in the case of South Africa because virtually every economically developed country agreed to cooperate, including the U.S.A. If the E.U. alone imposes sanctions, Israel will divert its trade towards other partners – the U.S. being the largest one of them. As for the argument of proximity – Israel has been economically boycotted by its Arab neighbours for decades, with very little impact on its economy.

5.    Israel is the only viable democracy in the Middle east and all its citizens, Arab or Jewish, enjoy social and political equality enshrined in Israeli law, regardless of their race, creed or sex. It cannot extend citizenship to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, as that would destroy the character of the state of Israel – with Jews becoming a minority. It would thus compromise its historic purpose as a home for Jewish people everywhere, to where they can flee from persecution as minorities in other states. For all these reasons, Israel deserves more international support, not criticism and sanctions.















Work cited page: