The problem isn't external pressure; it's the nature of the pressure. This isn't designed to make anyone in Israel, "feel the pinch". As a political statement it plays into the idea of Israel as martyr.
As a statement of understanding the arguments (to keep the biases of Israeli professors from being spread in Canada) are offensive, and are likely to harden the opinions to the opposite end (even among those, in Israel, who don't support the present ways of addressing the problems).
Then there's the political downside for the Union; geting painted as all sorts of nut-job, in what is, at present, a Bush-style anti-union Gov't.
It's not that I think pressures shouldn't be used, it's that I think this is bad pressure.
The real pressure, if it were me; would be to refuse to replace munitions used outside of Israeli territory, unless in response to actual presence.
If they want to bomb rocket launching sites, they can do it with things they make. If they want to make a case for it being a reasonable response, they can appeal to an outiside agency. But the US is paying (in the form of supplies and military assistance; though in smaller figures than are usually reported) for the bombs.
We don't have to do that. At that point the ability to use the force drops, a lot. Which changes the incentives. If overreacting to provocation actually made Israel, obviously, less secure, the domestic upside would be reduced.
I wish that were viable. I very much wish that were viable.
At the moment, Israel's military aid from the U.S. is spent on munitions that are manufactured in the U.S.; with job loss in all sectors (700,000 last month!) it would be a brave congressperson indeed who would stop that subsidy for local manufacturing!
Want brave? No need for that level of brave (the piss off Dobson and AIPAC level of brave, yes, but not the lose jobs brave). We need to replace a lot of munitions. The line doesn't have to stop; all that has to change is who is spends that money.
Actually, Sid Ryan, president of CUPE Ontario, is calling for this.
Meanwhile, in other parts of the forest union, heads are thudding onto desks and Communications Staff are thanking God fasting that they do not work for Sid.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 02:07 am (UTC)I don't have any better ideas; do you?
no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 02:18 am (UTC)As a statement of understanding the arguments (to keep the biases of Israeli professors from being spread in Canada) are offensive, and are likely to harden the opinions to the opposite end (even among those, in Israel, who don't support the present ways of addressing the problems).
Then there's the political downside for the Union; geting painted as all sorts of nut-job, in what is, at present, a Bush-style anti-union Gov't.
It's not that I think pressures shouldn't be used, it's that I think this is bad pressure.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 02:27 am (UTC)What would be good pressure? More to the point, what would be EFFECTIVE pressure?
no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 02:32 am (UTC)The real pressure, if it were me; would be to refuse to replace munitions used outside of Israeli territory, unless in response to actual presence.
If they want to bomb rocket launching sites, they can do it with things they make. If they want to make a case for it being a reasonable response, they can appeal to an outiside agency. But the US is paying (in the form of supplies and military assistance; though in smaller figures than are usually reported) for the bombs.
We don't have to do that. At that point the ability to use the force drops, a lot. Which changes the incentives. If overreacting to provocation actually made Israel, obviously, less secure, the domestic upside would be reduced.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 02:38 am (UTC)At the moment, Israel's military aid from the U.S. is spent on munitions that are manufactured in the U.S.; with job loss in all sectors (700,000 last month!) it would be a brave congressperson indeed who would stop that subsidy for local manufacturing!
How many brave congresspeople do we have?
no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 02:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 02:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 04:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 03:58 am (UTC)But the best response (to an earlier boycott) is here:
http://danceswithcamels.wordpress.com/2008/03/16/fry-some-other-fish-ya-dirty-wanks/
no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 06:07 am (UTC)Meanwhile, in other parts of the
forestunion, heads are thudding onto desks and Communications Staff are thanking God fasting that they do not work for Sid.Comme toujours.