I look forward to some really serious entertainment as this farce gets into Act III. Will Hillary openly break with Bill? Will Kerry suddenly backtrack? Will the liberals who decided to agree with the likes of Michelle Malkin figure out that maybe, just maybe, agreeing with her is actually a bad idea? And why in heaven's name didn't they figure this out in the first place?
So much stupidity, and so much time to enjoy it all.

PS: I saw an interview with someone from the International Longshoreman's Association, and he was actually nonchalant about the deal, although I've seen longshoremen out there protesting against this deal on the news.

Now, frankly, al-Qaeda could use some ISO-9001 (2002) compliant procedures...

L, you never fail to make me smile. ISO compliance is a subject near and dear to my heart.

Pantom: sounds like you've got quite the soap opera figured out! perhaps you should try to sell it to someone in hollywood

Now, would it be better if the ridiculously counter-productive boycott were ended? Yes.

I'd be interested in knowing why you think it's counter-productive L. I understand it's not correctly enforced (to put it midly). But, if something isn't done correctly, does it mean it shouldn't be done at all? Or is it something else?

The boycott is a farce.

First, given the economies of the region, the Arabs boycotting Israel is ridiculous. It's like me personally boycotting Russia. A naively useless gesture.

Perhaps in 48 it made a bit of sense - it failed but it might have been worth it then, even on the purely symbolic level.

Now, and indeed since the 1980s at least, there is no economic point. The Arab boycott imposes more inconvenience and pain on the Arabs than it does on Israel, which visibly has (leaving aside the issue of massive subsidies to its military spending) a far, far better economy than any of its neighbors. This especially after the liberalisation of the Israeli economy and the abandonment of their pure socialist/commundard model.

In general, few global companies are not going to do business with Israel because the basket-case economies / governments of the Arabs are going to pout and whinge on about it (this even if the boycott was being fully adhered to). Economically or business-wise with few exceptions it's a no brainer.

Second, on a symbolic level, globally, the boycott is a loser. Again, once upon a time it might have been not bad politics, but now it simply plays into the crazy Arabs stereotype.

So, you have a policy that makes zero sense in terms of impact on its intended target, only hurts yourself in the areas of trade and commerce (or hurts you much, much more than the intended target) and makes you look bad, globally, because your intended target is faaaaaaaaaaar and away better at PR than you are. Indeed because your side is possibly the most incompetent bunch of boobs in the PR realm this side of ... Oh say the the Khmer Rouge.

Well, maybe not that bad, but you get the point.

So, do you continue hitting yourself in the nose with hammer, or do you step back and say, what can I do now?

First, given the economies of the region, the Arabs boycotting Israel is ridiculous. It's like me personally boycotting Russia. A naively useless gesture.

Not necessarily. I know a lot of Israelis who would love to go open about it so they can multiply the initiatives, or don't go at all because it's too much of a headache (granted, it's not the boycott per se, as much as the general situation of "non-acceptedness" by most Arabs though).

Now, and indeed since the 1980s at least, there is no economic point.

I disagree. It isn't enforced, and as you put it correctly, Arab economies are a joke, true. But it definitely has a strong psychological effect that prevents them from increasing their business in the region tenfold. What is it that Israelis have that Arabs can't find elsewhere, at the same price or cheaper?

The Arab boycott imposes more inconvenience and pain on the Arabs than it does on Israel

I'm not sure. Prevents Arab from accessing the Israeli market? They couldn't even without a boycott anyway. Besides, there are many much more important markets that Arab could conquer (if they were in such a logic that is) before Israel becomes the last remaining spot. OTOH, Israel which has a far better economy indeed, and is much better prepared in nearly every field, from technology to management processes could definitely multiply its market share in the region if it felt totally free.

In general, few global companies are not going to do business with Israel because the basket-case economies / governments of the Arabs are going to pout and whinge on about it (this even if the boycott was being fully adhered to). Economically or business-wise with few exceptions it's a no brainer.

True, but in France or in Canada for example, 80% of employment is created by small and medium businnesses. IF, and when adhered to, the boycott can penalize those. Of course, that's only theoretical today. But it isn't because something isn't implemented that it should be abandonned. If it's the right thing, its full implemetation should be sought.

it simply plays into the crazy Arabs stereotype

Most people aren't even aware of it. So whether it plays into that stereotype or not, would probably depend on how the PR that surrounds it is done when it awareness of it grows.

Indeed because your side is possibly the most incompetent bunch of boobs in the PR realm this side of ... Oh say the the Khmer Rouge.

We fully agree on this:)

So, do you continue hitting yourself in the nose with hammer, or do you step back and say, what can I do now?

What can we do now? I would say come out of the pre-industrial age. Making sure the boycott is efficient can be done in parallel though, I don't see why both couldn't go together. Here's where I'd join you: it seems obvious to me that the boycott's success is strongly related to Arabs jumping into our era from the political and economic point of view. Absent this, the boycott is not counter-productive. It's just almost nothing.

Shaheen Bek:
Uselessness of the Boycott
Not necessarily. I know a lot of Israelis who would love to go open about it so they can multiply the initiatives, or don't go at all because it's too much of a headache (granted, it's not the boycott per se, as much as the general situation of "non-acceptedness" by most Arabs though).

Well, that is neither here nor there. The issue is impact. Israel has a generally booming economy (certainly the massive transfers help in some areas, but Egypt serves as a fine example one can get billions and still piss it away if you're stupid enough), non-trade with the Arabs is a triviality in large part.

Moving on:
Now, and indeed since the 1980s at least, there is no economic point.

I disagree. It isn't enforced, and as you put it correctly, Arab economies are a joke, true. But it definitely has a strong psychological effect that prevents them from increasing their business in the region tenfold. What is it that Israelis have that Arabs can't find elsewhere, at the same price or cheaper?

Well, potentially integrated export opportunities in some kinds of lower end electronic assemblies. Potential to leverage Israeli IT infrastructure for the Levant for lower cost call center outsourcing. Things like that. Not so much commerce as joint investment.

The Arab boycott imposes more inconvenience and pain on the Arabs than it does on Israel

I'm not sure. Prevents Arab from accessing the Israeli market? They couldn't even without a boycott anyway.

Sure they can. Jordanians do now. Mostly 98 era biz, but its there.

Besides, there are many much more important markets that Arab could conquer (if they were in such a logic that is) before Israel becomes the last remaining spot. OTOH, Israel which has a far better economy indeed, and is much better prepared in nearly every field, from technology to management processes could definitely multiply its market share in the region if it felt totally free.

Well, opportunity analysis, closer markets sometimes make more sense. There is further the issue of non-bilateral blowback in some areas. Were the boycott really enforced and companies made to choose, the Israelis would have far better leverage.

Re the win part, a lot of Israeli practice (speak from my old days working on investment in the Levant) strikes me as not badly adapted to "Med climate" practices. Lots of Israelis are simply Moroccans, Iraqis etc. The cultural fusion of practice, the way which certain institutions were made to work (e.g. in venture capital) etc. provide interesting lessons. Not perfect, but interesting.

In general, few global companies are not going to do business with Israel because the basket-case economies / governments of the Arabs are going to pout and whinge on about it (this even if the boycott was being fully adhered to). Economically or business-wise with few exceptions it's a no brainer.

True, but in France or in Canada for example, 80% of employment is created by small and medium businnesses. IF, and when adhered to, the boycott can penalize those. Of course, that's only theoretical today. But it isn't because something isn't implemented that it should be abandonned. If it's the right thing, its full implemetation should be sought.

I am not sure I follow your thinking here, but if your argument is that 'well we haven't implemented a boycott of Israel to date, but we really should seek full implementation now' I say you're being
Aroubi.

The bloody boycott has not worked, and it ain't going to. Not anymore than the stupid American boycott of Cuba.

Now, I note I am speaking solely to official State lead boycotts. If individual Arab companies, population want to boycott and can sustain the same, then go for it. Organising the same on a non-violent basis would be good for civil society. I doubt it would do anything to the Israeli economy but it might be helpful in mobilising and organising in an open civil way. It would be better if it were made around an achievable goal, such as removal of the WB settlements rather than some messianic Israel ceasing to exist goal.

it simply plays into the crazy Arabs stereotype
Most people aren't even aware of it. So whether it plays into that stereotype or not, would probably depend on how the PR that surrounds it is done when it awareness of it grows.

There has been enough past awareness and promotion that it plays.

We fully agree on this:)

Well, it is so bloody self evident it causes one shame.

I'd start working on being less incompetent. Lose the boycott. At least the State boycotts that are merely jokes.

So, do you continue hitting yourself in the nose with hammer, or do you step back and say, what can I do now?

What can we do now? I would say come out of the pre-industrial age. Making sure the boycott is efficient can be done in parallel though, I don't see why both couldn't go together. Here's where I'd join you: it seems obvious to me that the boycott's success is strongly related to Arabs jumping into our era from the political and economic point of view. Absent this, the boycott is not counter-productive. It's just almost nothing.
Well, getting the economies of the region straight should be a major goal. Take the WB data on business processes, it's shameful. There is a lot of work to be done to remove the rentier mentality and free up the energy of the average Mohammed. Or Shaheen as the case may be. If you are hot to trot for a civil society driven boycott of Israel, well feel free. I see it as a loser (althouhg a popular boycott tied to a concrete and achievable goal, like the removal of Adumim Male has some charm and could even end up as positive PR.

Ustadh Lounsbury:)

Israel has a generally booming economy (certainly the massive transfers help in some areas

I've been to Israel, spent there some time, so I know they would probably have done as well without the massive transfers. They're light years ahead of continental Europe in terms of dynamics. Were it not for the conflict, they would do even better, much better.

Well, potentially integrated export opportunities in some kinds of lower end electronic assemblies. Potential to leverage Israeli IT infrastructure for the Levant for lower cost call center outsourcing. Things like that. Not so much commerce as joint investment.

Yet, I still think the cons outweight the pros of this. My gut feeling is that, yes, Arabs could make a few bucks out of it, but Israel would make a LOT more and it would help widen the gap between them and Israel. Meaning, relatively speaking, Arabs end up losing. Anyway, whether your opinion or mine, one would have to conduct a real, politically neutral, study about this to have some data to base solid claims on of course.

(me) I'm not sure. Prevents Arab from accessing the Israeli market? They couldn't even without a boycott anyway.

(L.) Sure they can. Jordanians do now.

Well, yeah. Kind of reminds of the free trade agreements between Europe and Tunisia. Looks good on paper. In the end, the nascent tunisian industry gets screwed because it's unprepared, and Tunisian businessmen get no chance of ever touching European soil to look for deals or to even start something up there (thanks to restrictions on free movement for Tunisians by way of visas, and on currency export). Note, I'm not for protectionism at all, I'm actually very much for free trade. But you've got to be prepared. And when you open your borders, make sure you really do it for your own too. Make sure your businessmen can go and compete THERE, not just let the "other's" businessmen come and compete HERE.
The Jodanian-Israeli situation is not so different.

Were the boycott really enforced and companies made to choose, the Israelis would have far better leverage.

Depends in which sectors, and how you approach Arab markets. I mean, in the current situation, it's obvious to me that if made to chose between Israel and any single Arab country, Israel has far better leverage. My point though is not about the current situation, as much as about which direction should be sought.

a lot of Israeli practice (...) strikes me as not badly adapted to "Med climate" practices

Well, again, that could be found elsewhere. I'm thinking about quite a few successful Arabs from the diaspora. The same that would attract Israelis in Arab markets would attract those diaspora Arabs as well, in greater numbers. So again, Israelis are a drop in the ocean here. Dealing with them would make no difference for Arabs. It would make one for Israelis.

if your argument is that 'well we haven't implemented a boycott of Israel to date, but we really should seek full implementation now' I say you're being Aroubi.

I'm not sure what you mean by Aroubi?
As for my argument, I'm just thinking out loud. To be honest, I don't know. I mean, Arabs sure have other priorities, even if the only goal was bugging Israel in itself, they don't even meet the most basic pre-requesites. I'm aware of that. But, your line of thought strikes me as throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Not anymore than the stupid American boycott of Cuba

Oh come on. Are you telling me that it didn't affect Cuba in any way?

I'd start working on being less incompetent. Lose the boycott.

Again, I don't see the connection. I see them as two unrelated issues.

Well, getting the economies of the region straight should be a major goal. Take the WB data on business processes, it's shameful. There is a lot of work to be done to remove the rentier mentality and free up the energy of the average Mohammed. Or Shaheen as the case may be.

(Shaheen's doing fine thanks:)). More seriously, I've done some business in the MENA region, and I can tell you it's not just the WB. The whole region is pathetic. Still, I fail to see the connection with the boycott.

If you are hot to trot for a civil society driven boycott of Israel, well feel free.

I'm not. And I'm not talking about civil society. Mind you, I've done business with Israelis. I'm talking about the current "official" boycott here. More in the line of Helms Burton or China re Taiwan - if Arabs weren't so nothing that is. My impression is that your argument goes somehow along "since Arabs are so unsignificant, they should give up on the boycott and work on becoming something". I fail to see what the boycott has to do with Arabs working on becoming something.

More later but to clarify, my note re WB was re a database they have regarding business practices etc, not accusing them of causing the problems. My opinions are exactely the opposite. Once one goes through the DB, one sees why growth has been fucked in MENA.

Jerry Lewis gets in on this farce! I swear, I am not making this up. From CNN:

Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, worked with other GOP leaders to amend the $68 billion Iraq war spending bill to include language that addresses security concerns raised by the deal.

Perfect name for the guy. Just perfect.
Also, according to the story, there were only two votes against the above amendment: one Dem, and one Rep.
Every time I see bipartisan agreement like this, I remember that The Gulf of Tonkin resolution had overwhelming bipartisan support, too.
Sigh.