Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) weighs in
 

And now the Non-Aligned Movement (116 member-states) kicks in.

From today's Jerusalem Post online.

Aug. 22, 2004 23:27
Israel unfazed by NAM decision
By HERB KEINON


Backpackers from Oranit and Ma'aleh Adumim need not worry that favorite locations like India and Thailand will be off-limits following a resolution adopted by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Thursday to bar settlers, Israeli diplomatic officials said Sunday.

Senior Foreign Ministry officials Sunday studied the "Declaration on Palestine" issued by the foreign ministers of the 116-member NAM and concluded that that although the resolution is very negative and a likely harbinger of what Israel will face next month at the United Nations, the likelihood of any of the states actually imposing sanctions called for in the declaration are slim.

The declaration calls upon member states "to undertake measures, including by means of legislation, collectively, regionally and individually, to prevent any products of the illegal Israeli settlements from entering their markets consistent with the obligations under International Treaties, to decline entry to Israeli settlers, and to impose sanctions against companies and entities involved in the construction of the wall and other illegal activities in the Occupied Territory, including East Jerusalem."

Diplomatic officials said that the resolutions are of a declarative nature only, and that it is not in the economic or strategic interest of these countries to ban entry to Israelis, or to stop doing business with Israeli companies.

The ministry has decided to keep a low profile on the issue, and not to formally protest in the form of demarches to some of the friendly governments who are part of the NAM and adopted the resolution. Among these countries are India, Thailand, Ecuador, Kenya, and the Philippines. Israeli officials pointed out with particular displeasure that two countries represented in the movement, Cyprus and Malta, are now also members of the European Union.

Israel does not have diplomatic ties with 30 of the 116 members of NAM, including the current chairman of the organization – Malaysia.

While downplaying the practical ramifications of the resolution, diplomatic officials did say it is a worrisome precursor of what appears to be trend of sanctions various international bodies will try to impose as a result of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling against Israel for building the security fence.


What a wonderful thing friendship is! Israeli kids go to Thailand in DROVES after army service. Israeli honeymooners and vacationers without a lot of money to spare have a great time at Cyprus. We sent Israeli engineers to Kenya and other African states when they needed advanced know-how. And if I had a shekel for every Filipino/a caretaker working in Israeli old-age homes......

Israel is always first in the world to volunteer to help another country in an emergency,,,,,,,,,,, and the first to get smashed in the face in thanks.

Can Israel throw out the guest workers from those countries and bring in others?

Sanctions Against Israel
 

Last week the Non-aligned Movement (NAM) resolved that the groups’ 125 members should impose sanctions against Israel.

By itself, the NAM decision is insignificant.
It’s non-binding and member states often ignore the decisions anyway. Most bizarrely, the decision calls for sanctions against Israeli settlers. How any member state of NAM is meant to determine such a thing is anyone’s guess.

But in other regards, it does have some tiny significance. The NAM can be a weather-vane, picking up small changes in world opinion before larger bodies such as the EU or UN respond.

It’s possible that the UN Security Council might consider a resolution regarding Israel later this year. Even if it does, it’s unlikely to go anywhere, but then I didn’t think that Britain would vote for the General Assembly resolution on the ICJ ruling.

At this stage Israel can rest easy knowing that the US will veto anything in the Security Council. But in the long run it may be a different story. The US was not in favour of sanctions against South Africa initially either, but the push for sanctions gradually gained momentum despite its’ opposition.

The IJC decision has proven much more significant than many expected. It has already had some influence on Israeli Government policy towards the occupied territories and may have been a factor in the Israeli Supreme Court decision on the separation barrier. Whether it will lead to any decisive action is another matter.

Sanctions would be good for Israel. Like South Africa, it may impel it towards decisions that, sooner or later, must be made anyway. This will halt the slow but steady erosion of Israels’ standing in the world, a standing that has been steadily tracking downwards for decades.

Sanctions? – George W. Bushs’ words might be appropriate – bring them on!

Dupe with this.

http://www.israelforum.com/board/sho...ight=sanctions


Try reading next time. I'd merge or delete this if I could.

didya get a woodie over it mike? burn a few etrogs in effigy?

How sad that an organization like NAM can pass sanctions against a country like Israel so easily and then do nothing when it comes to Sudan. Oh wait, Sudan is a member of NAM. :rolleyes:

Yes, I'd read it.

The NAM aspect, I thought, was the least significant development and I had no interest in discusing NAM.

The effects of the ICJ ruling within Israel, on the other hand, are very interesting. Such as the Attorney General considering the possibilty of declaring (for the second time) that the 4th Geneva Convention does apply to the Occupied Territories.

The other significant aspect of the ICJ ruling is that it was a similiar ruling that was the beginning of the end for the South African Aparthied regime. The World Court ruling then (1977?) led to the imposition of sanctions on SA.

{What's an etrog??}

>>The other significant aspect of the ICJ ruling is that it was a similiar ruling that was the beginning of the end for the South African Aparthied regime. The >>

Oh Michael again with your Yada Yada Yada trying to compare Israel to South Africa. It won't work. Keep trying with your Pali allies.

<<This will halt the slow but steady erosion of Israels’ standing in the world, a standing that has been steadily tracking downwards for decades.<<

Who cares about Israel's standing in the fascist world. You can all go take a hike Michael.

Israel seems to.

Some obviously don't though. And I'm sure no one is bothered much by NAM.

Howver, just like in SA, sanctions may enable a Government to make decison that it may have difficulty in making without pressure.

That doesn't mean that the sanction regime should be the same. I wouldn't support sporting or economic bans or the type that were imposed on SA.

Diplomatic sanctions, but more importantly, an embargo on miiltary aid might be appropriate.

Slow strangulation perhaps? I wonder where some folks get the notion that sanctions generally work? From Iraq? Iran? Algeria? Somalia?

The blighted left loves to stroke itself with the illusion that their protests and placards brought the South African government down. They did not what did was the simple reality of no longer being able to micromanage a population 10x their size which didn't want to be ruled over.

Posted by Michael:


Howver, just like in SA, sanctions may enable a Government to make decison that it may have difficulty in making without pressure.


If the Western world will ever declare sanctions on a truely Democratically elected government to make political decision - it will be the end of ligitimacy of Western Civilization as we know it.


That doesn't mean that the sanction regime should be the same. I wouldn't support sporting or economic bans or the type that were imposed on SA.

Next will come sanctions on Australia.


Diplomatic sanctions, but more importantly, an embargo on miiltary aid might be appropriate.


Again - impose an embargo on a Democracy and it's going to be it.

Yet, interestingly enough, not a word of sanctions against the Palestinians.

Of course not, because Michael and the other anti-Israel hypocrites want to reward the Palestinian mass-murderers for their actions.

That's why the "non-aligned nations," (i.e., the group of international cultural and economic failures) voted in the UN against a resolution designed to protect Israeli children from Palestinian terrorism, and this proposal is just an extension of their corrupt, Anti-Semitic policies.

And don't forget that a nation like Sudan, which proudly goes about its business of having its Arabs gleefully commit genocide against the rest of its population in Darfur, is a shining example of the "non-aligned nations." So, we know exactly who we're dealing with when hearing that they would like to place sanctions on Israel.

>>Diplomatic sanctions, but more importantly, an embargo on miiltary aid might be appropriate.>>

Israel buys it's weapons from the good old USA; you think we will put sanctions on Israel? Europe already have sanctions.

The real wepons, like Tanks and advanced ammunition, Israel produces by itself. No sanctions could demage Israel's military power, only expand it.

Sanctions will only liberate Israel from different committments and different self imposed restrictions made to avoid such sanctions.

If Israel avoided using artillary against Arabs fireing missiles at us, because of fear of sanctions, now such a fear will vanish once the sanctions imposed.