Haaretz reports on a bill which would make it illegal for an Israeli to "launch or incite" a boycott against Israel:
Under the new law, any group could sue damages of up to NIS 30,000 from anyone who launched a boycott against them, or incited a boycott, without having to prove that damage was indeed caused. An additional sum could then be demanded once damages were proven.
The bill comes in response to a wide range of boycotts – financial, academic, and others – that have recently been encountered in Israel. Elkin said Tuesday that "we mustn't accept boycotts against Israel, whether academic or economic. The state must protect itself from the increasing processes of delegitimization, and provide compensation to those harmed by it."
"The wall-to-wall support of this bill proves that members of Knesset recognize the need to maintain a balance between democratic rights and the premeditated targeting of Israeli bodies," Elkin went on to say.
The article references a U.S. law "forbidding Americans from participating in boycotts on U.S. allies, including Israel." I don't think this is factually correct. My guess is that it's referring to the 1977 law making it illegal for U.S. citizens to participate in the Arab League boycott of Israel. This law is irrelevant to today's BDS movement as the BDS call is not related to the Arab League boycott, or called for by a foreign country. For more on this issue see this resource from the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation - Impact of Federal Anti-Boycott And Other Laws On BDS Campaigns (PDF).
Of course this Bill can make its way through the Knesset.
Israel does not have a Constitution. It has no state law protecting freedom or speech or religion. It has no democratic construct to protect its citizens with the right of free assembly.
What constitutes “incitement” of a boycott? Would merely expressing support be enough?
I believe there is a Department of Commerce regulation that specifically forbids US companies and individuals from boycotting Israel or Israeli companies. I’ll see if I can locate it online.
Turkey is of course a U.S. ally, via the NATO alliance.
I don’t believe there is any treaty of alliance between the U.S. and Israel.
OK. Ignore what I wrote above. I was thinking of the Arab League boycott. Apparently, if the boycott originates domestically in the US, it’s not covered by that restriction.
I believe that in late June some nutcase CA congressman was citing the ’77 law, perhaps right after the Oakland action against the Israeli-contracted freighter docking. Sorry – no time to look it up right now. Also, there are no items on Youtube for the past two weeks on Hanin Zoabi. The Knesset move against her yesterday was covered this morning on Democracy Now. You’d think some news outlet would have something up on her travel ban at Youtube by now.
I have a blog post on Hanin Zoabi at :
link to levantnotes.blogspot.com
Avi, I’m sure I’ve read or heard something similar lately, that a) Israel is the only foreign country whose companies are permitted to bid along with US co.s for certain Defence/Pentagon contracts, and b) that other US companies are not allowed to prejudicially refuse to accept Israeli company bids (ie, I presume, favor a local co over this particular foreign country’s bid). Wish I could remember where it was!
RE: “Ignore what I wrote above. I was thinking of the Arab League boycott…if the boycott originates domestically in the US, it’s not covered…” ~ Avi
MY COMMENT: Yes, I believe this is the current situation. I have checked in the past and reached the same conclusion you reached. Of course, I suppose an extremely pro-Israel judge could try to rule otherwise.
Note that as part of their campaign of “lawfare”, Israelis just filed a lawsuit in Manhattan against Al Jazeera for violating Israeli military censorship rules! (lol)
SEE: Israelis file $1.2 billion suit against Al Jazeera ~ JTA, 07/13/10
(excerpt) JERUSALEM (JTA) — A group of Israelis has filed a $1.2 billion lawsuit in U.S. federal court against the Al Jazeera news network.
Ninety-one Israeli plaintiffs, civilians who were injured during the monthlong 2006 Second Lebanon War or are relatives of victims, are charging in their suit that the Qatar-based network’s war coverage was designed to help Hezbollah. Al Jazeera has offices in New York.
The suit filed Monday in Manhattan Federal Court says that Al Jazeera, in violation of the Israeli military censorship rules, reported during live coverage the location of missile strikes on Israel, enabling Hezbollah to better aim ensuing missiles…
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to jta.org
From the US Campaign/NLG resource Adam mentions:
“BDS campaigns that are conceived independently, rather than as support for or in response to pressure by a hostile foreign government or in concert with the Arab League’s boycott of Israel, do not violate the anti-boycott laws. This is because the Act specifically defines an “unsanctioned” foreign boycott as one that is “fostered or imposed by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States and which is not itself the object of any form of boycott pursuant to United States law or regulation.” 50 U.S.C. App. § 2407(a)(1). A boycott against the State of Israel or an Israeli company or concern would be prohibited under the EAA only if the boycott is specifically intended to support or comply with boycotts initiated by foreign countries. The phrase “foreign country” refers to the official
government of the country and does not encompass NGOs.”
Additionally: “Apart from the limited reach of the anti-boycott provisions, the Act that contains the antiboycott provisions, the Export Administration Act, has expired. It is our opinion that the Act’s antiboycott provisions cannot lawfully be enforced unless the EAA is reenacted by Congress. Presidential Executive Orders purport to continue the Act, but this is, in our opinion, dubious authority for imposing sanctions for violation of the anti-boycott provisions. Nevertheless, the Act could be reenacted by Congress at any time. Therefore, our advice rests on an analysis of the Act as though it were still in effect.’
“Anti-BDS bill makes its way through the Knesset”
Sounds like more of that friendly zionist imitation of nazism or mccarthyism to me. The move of the desperate facing their own certain demise.
The israelis are getting more fanatic by the day. The country needs to be denuked – one way or another. One doesn’t leave nukes in the hands of deranged psychotics with a masada complex.