Sanctions Against Israel?

Netanyahu and others blame the Palestinians for obstructing peaceThe unthinkable is happening: the U.S. mentioned the idea of placing sanctions on Israel. After decades of being a staunch supporter of the 60 year old nation, U.S. diplomats are not hinting that they are considering some kind of sanctions or other action if Israel does not stop building settlements in the West Bank, but they are saying it is one of the possible courses of action.

"Under American law, the United States can withhold support on loan guarantees to Israel," said George Mitchell, a U.S. peace envoy.

You know what, guys? It’s about time, and it’s still not going to happen (the stopping of the construction, I mean). It already flies in the face of what is legal in the region, and I see no reason to think that it will change much unless there are serious moves made. And, well, I just don’t think the U.S. has the guts to follow through on something like that. Hopefully actions will prove me wrong. Two visiting senators in Israel had quick statements to make on the topic of the U.S. thinking about suspending grants:

"Any attempt to pressure Israel, to force Israel, to the negotiating table by denying Israel support will not pass the Congress of the United States," said Senator Joe Lieberman. Senator John McCain echoed that sentiment, saying: "We disagree, obviously, with that comment and I am sure that you will see the administration in the future say that is certainly not the administration's policy."

But this same thing basically happened back in 1991. Then President George Bush withheld $10 billion when Israel refused to freeze settlement expansion- so this is not a new issue, folks. And it’s not even unprecedented to withhold funds if Israel is refusing to stop building settlements. And that guy was a Republican.

As for the peace process, it is as stalled as ever, seeing that Netanyahu wants to keep building and blames all stalls on Palestinians and the Fatah leader won’t get back in talks until the settlements are frozen.

I read a great comment that someone left on the Reuters article with this news:

“How about the following: Israel at last gives up its infuriating insistence on unilateral righteousness, and finally agrees to a binding timetable for freezing and retracting post-1967 settlement activity, which all impartial parties agree is a legal imperative; AND, AT THE SAME TIME, Palestinian authorities of all political stripe, especially including Hamas and Hezbollah, concede the final, unconditional status of Israel as a permanent free state.”

Interesting suggestion. Israel stops expanding their borders if Palestinian political groups all recognize Israel as a legitimate state. That could work- at least from an outside perspective. It’s the kind of answer you give if you are an arbitrator, or if you don’t have a personal stake or allegiance in the matter. It’s the kind of objective solution that sounds simple until you realize that asking either side to agree to any of that is going to undermine their self-definition.

There will be no sanctions, nor will there be any forward motion in the peace process. It’s not happening. Any time soon.

Photo Credit: World Economic Forum (via Flickr under CCL)