Argument · heard from pro-Palestinian voices
“The people who cheered crippling sanctions on Iran suddenly call economic pressure on Israel 'collective punishment'.”
Pro-Israel voices are hypocrites: they support sanctions and blockades against others but call boycotts and sanctions against Israel illegitimate or antisemitic.
Traps in play:◆ "What about you?"
Why people find it convincing
- Many strong supporters of Israel also back sanctions on Iran and supported the Gaza blockade, yet treat boycotts or sanctions against Israel as beyond the pale.
- The Gaza closure itself has been described as collective punishment by the International Committee of the Red Cross (2010) and by UN bodies.
- Economic pressure helped end South African apartheid; singling Israel out as immune looks like special treatment.
- Anti-BDS laws in several US states penalise boycotts of Israel specifically.
What's true
Inconsistency is real, and the Gaza closure has been called collective punishment by humanitarian bodies.
Some people do hold both 'sanctions on Iran are necessary' and 'any pressure on Israel is antisemitic'. That is inconsistent, and saying so is fair. The ICRC described the Gaza closure as collective punishment in 2010. Economic pressure is a legitimate, non-violent political tool in principle, and anti-boycott laws aimed at one country raise real free-speech questions.
primary documentICRC, 'Gaza closure: not another year!' (news release) (2010)
States the closure constitutes collective punishment; quote exactly.
What's left out
A tu quoque answers nothing — and the objection is often to the aim, not the tool.
Pointing at the other side's inconsistency doesn't show that pressure on Israel is right or wrong; each case has to be judged on target, aim and proportionality. The Iran sanctions were largely multilateral UN Security Council measures (2006–2015) tied to a nuclear programme. BDS's own founding call (2005) has three demands, one being return of refugees under UNGA 194 — which, applied to ~5.9 million registered refugees, would end the Jewish majority; and 'ending the occupation of all Arab lands' is read by many supporters as including Israel within the 1949 lines. Much opposition to BDS is to that aim, not to economic pressure as such. The consistency test also cuts the other way: many who call Iran sanctions 'collective punishment of the Iranian people' support sanctions on Israel.
Traps here:◆ "What about you?"
law / courtUN Security Council Resolution 1737 (and successors 1747, 1803, 1929) (2006)
Iran nuclear sanctions.
primary documentPalestinian Civil Society Call for BDS (2005)
Three demands; quote the text of each.
primary documentUN General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) (1948)
Paragraph 11 on refugees.
Where it leads if pressed
One rule for every case.
A consistent position is available: economic pressure is legitimate when it targets specific policies, with clear, achievable aims, and minimises harm to civilians — applied to Iran, Israel, Russia and everyone else alike. Measured that way, targeted measures against West Bank settlement activity (as the EU and others have applied) look very different from a boycott whose stated demands would end the state.