Anti-Boycott Bill

[curlyg]

Why isn't that a viable question? Israel is a democracy *and* the Oslo regime... wait for it...failed. Even though the Oslo criminals failed they and their ilk continue to impose, by hook and by crook, their craven notions on the majority of the population, who have rejected those ideas.

As the left is morally and ideologically bankrupt, and spinning moribund into the red soil, they attack more violently. For those attacks to be somewhat successful they need lots of capital and foreign leverage to force their agenda down the throats of Right Wing Zionists, who still comprise the majority of the country. This is exactly what the proposed law decries and attempts to tackle on behalf of the Zionist population who do not believe in capitulation to an irredentist, zero sum, enemy.

I didn't say it wasn't a viable question, I said it wasn't a relevant question, much like the rest of the post. I don't want to be drawn into questions of policy. A person's political views might be really really bad. But this is not the issue. The question is whether it is legitimate for this law to infringe on the basic rights of Israeli citizens in a democracy.

If we are concerned by foreign influence on Israeli politics, there are ways to fight that phenomenon without infringing on the rights of Israelis (see my posts above). But we all know that's not what is really going on here, as you make clear later in your post.

The Supreme Court proscribes a bunch of unelected Leftism down the throats of Israelis who try to elect parties to effect platforms that those parties advocate. Like most of the Leftist positions (I'll assume for this duration that you are playing devils advocate, since there is no reason to get "personal") it is conclusive hypocrisy saying what you just said.

So let me remove the ambiguity. I am not playing devil's advocate. I do believe this law is wrong and that it's not the Knesset's job to legislate compulsory political views on contentious policy issues.

Sure, but they are not to be allowed to use fear tactics funded by Leftist sellouts and Arab money. They do not get those tools in their bag, because the rest of us said so, we the majority:Zionist Jews, unwilling to capitulate to the enemy.

1) Are boycotts "fear tactics funded by Leftist sellouts and Arab money"?
2) Do you have proof of this claim of Arab funding to Israeli pro-boycott groups?
3) Does this principle apply more generally? Can the majority of Zionist Jews claim that homosexuality represents an unacceptable level of moral degeneracy and prohibit gay political activists from importing distorted liberal European morality to Israel? i.e. do you not see the majoritarian slippery slope you are advocating?

Funny word that, "universally" since you are trying to augment the position of the small, yet vociferous, left in the country otherwise.

Fair enough. Then how about this: their property rights and rights to residence are uncontested as a matter of Israeli and international law.

Furthermore, just like the Fakestinian nation was born overnight, and every day we have a new demand or a variation of a demand, that if not politely accepted results in dead Jewish children and rain of metal parts dipped in rat poison, it is not beyond any moral guide stick to check the comfort level of the Israeli 5th column. Are we not living in a democratic state? Are we not playing block politics where the Leftists come and harass not individuals but whole communities... again whats good for the gander, will be good for the goose. The Left has abused its position for so long, we will bring the same response, the same level of stress on them and theirs.

You're going to have to state that in plainer English if you expect a response.

We hear your position, and the position of the Leftists who utter these words. And we politely disagree. Next. That does not mean you coordinate with foreign governments and entities and destroy the Israeli economy in order for us to capitulate. You do not use the latters funding on distributing said entities propaganda to our fearful population. You do not supplant grassroots value systems, and our national consensus with foreign help. Thats Sedition Curly, and I hope the law after this one puts people into prison on anything that even smells of foreign agents causing insurrection in our land.

You speak of "grassroots value systems" and "national consensus" as though all "real" Israelis agree with you, and only the traitors disagree. It's worthwhile to test those claims of yours.

Here are the results of a 2010 poll conducted by ynet:

"The poll also found widespread support for settlements. Despite the fact that just 6% of those polled have lived or had family living beyond the 1967 borders, 47% objected to the evacuation of all West Bank settlements in favor of an agreement with the Palestinians.

Among supporters of negotiations with the Palestinians, however, 48% supported the evacuation of all settlements in exchange for an agreement, while 75% of those opposed to the relaunching of talks objected to evacuations.

A majority of 58% supported a partial evacuation of settlements, but 47% agreed with previous governments' decisions to found settlements in the West Bank, while 40% did not. The figures show a waning support for settlements, as the same poll conducted in 2001 found that 61% agreed with the decision, while just 28% did not.

Opinions were split on whether the government should offer compensation to settlers willing to leave the West Bank of their own accord, with 49% supporting the move and 42% objecting.

However there was a relative consensus on support for the two-state solution. Only a small minority of 14% supported a plan founding a bi-national state west of Jordan, in which Israelis and Palestinians would have equal rights.

A majority of 66% supported the founding of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders with land-swaps allowing Israel to keep large settlement blocs."


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...866367,00.html

continued...

[curlyg]

That doesn't seem like a national consensus to me. It seems like a contentious political issue.

Sure it has. That is why I write on an American forum, run by an American and use a pseudonym. Why? Because the Leftist owned and run state security apparatus, Attorney General and craven Supreme Court will investigate me for incitement.

And yet Baruch Marzel sits in the Knesset and marches through Umm el-Fahem.

BTW, given that you're such a Libertarian now,

I am not a libertarian - but I am a democrat (small d), like others on this forum, and think that democracy is actually worth something. Presumably you don't associate Aliyah with The Left, but he also seems to think that freedom of speech should prevail in this instance. I've said this before: you can't just label everyone who disagrees with you a traitor or foreign agent.

whats your feeling on the laws passed after Rabin on incitement? There was at least one, if memory doesn't fail me.

I'm not familiar with them. Generally speaking I'm opposed to censorship laws, whether that be regulation of the internet and talkbacks, or holocaust denial laws, or even racist speech. You don't defeat ideas by outlawing them - that only gives them legitimacy. You defeat ideas by speaking about them.

Having said that, I would be in favour of anti-incitement laws provided they were very restricted. I.e. as a matter of public safety, we can't have people calling for the mass murder of settlers or arabs or foreign workers.

Moreover, recently a Professor at Bersheeba called for mass murder of Jews in Judea and Samaria without so much as a slap on the wrist, whilst there is a witch hunt on the religious Zionist establishment who dare identify the Arab enemy as Amelek in an abstract volume of halacha.

I haven't heard of it. But my mother taught me 'two wrongs don't make a right.'

You see we (on the Right) don't take your line of reasoning seriously, and mostly because it doesn't come in good faith. The principles are vaunted, but what ever the Left can muster legally against the will of the majority, or perhaps other minorities (like the religious Zionist establishment) is used as a bludgeon to harass, silence and sometimes outright incarcerate people. Those are political crimes executed by a small Leftist elite, Curly, and I as a survivor of the Soviet method, will not stand by it. I support Lieberman in his attempt to at least balance the institutional bias, and ultimately make it proportional to a great extent to the national consensus.

And this is the truth. This is not really about "foreign influence." What you are concerned about is the destruction of your enemy, The Left™ (and, by the way, you still haven't defined who you consider to fall within this category), even if it means sacrificing democracy. We constantly hear about the crimes of this small leftist elite, and all the while a right wing government sits in power, with the unrestricted authority to change laws and elect a president which has the power to pardon anyone who is supposedly convicted on political grounds. And yet we don't see them doing a whole lot of this - it's purely a populist campaign of persecuting a political minority and attributing to them powers far beyond what they actually have.

Are we hearing sour grapes Curly? Too bad the Left lost.

Sour grapes? Absolutely. It's democracy that lost, not the left.

If they want to have their opinion they have it, they have no right to attack our country with foreign agency and capital in tow. They need to show that they are not foreign agents, one and all.

You're going to tell me that Yvette doesn't get foreign funding? And the Likud certainly receives no donations from US nationals, right? So let's be quite frank here, this is not an issue of foreign influence. If it were, we could deal with it very simply: outlaw all foreign funding. Then we wouldn't need parliamentary inquiries into the funding of leftist groups, or laws which violate the political freedoms of citizens.

In a perfect world I certainly would be agitated by it. I'm a Jew before I'm a godless capitalist though. As such I dont like other people pushing our buttons and making decisions for us.

Neither do I. But I think we can address that problem without resorting to anti-democratic laws.

[Mediocrates]

One state does have a similar law. The US.
http://daledamos.blogspot.com/2011/0...-anti.html?m=1

The Antiboycott laws under the U.S. Export Administration Act of 1979 [as amended in August 1999] were written specifically to protect Israel from the Arab League and other Moslem countries.

On Monday, July 11, 2011 the Knesset [the Israeli Parliament] passed an Antiboycott law against those who promote and call to boycott Israel.

Israel's Attorney-General claims that the Israeli boycott laws' border on unconstitutionality. A look at the U.S. Antiboycott laws objectives, should be helpful in defending the Israeli law.

"The [U.S.] Antiboycott laws discourage, and in some circumstances, prohibit U.S. companies from furthering or supporting the boycott of Israel sponsored by the Arab League, and certain Moslem countries, including complying with certain requests for information designed to verify compliance with the boycott. Compliance with such requests may be prohibited by the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and may be reportable to the Bureau."

The U.S. Laws Prohibits among others:

• "Agreements to refuse or actual refusal to do business with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.

• "Agreements to discriminate or actual discrimination against other persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin or nationality.

• "Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about business relationships with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.

• "Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person."

Acting against the U.S. laws is considered a criminal behavior and carry with it penalties of up to $1 million and 20 years imprisonment per violation.

[curlyg]

One state does have a similar law. The US.
http://daledamos.blogspot.com/2011/0...-anti.html?m=1

The Antiboycott laws under the U.S. Export Administration Act of 1979 [as amended in August 1999] were written specifically to protect Israel from the Arab League and other Moslem countries.

On Monday, July 11, 2011 the Knesset [the Israeli Parliament] passed an Antiboycott law against those who promote and call to boycott Israel.

Israel's Attorney-General claims that the Israeli boycott laws' border on unconstitutionality. A look at the U.S. Antiboycott laws objectives, should be helpful in defending the Israeli law.

"The [U.S.] Antiboycott laws discourage, and in some circumstances, prohibit U.S. companies from furthering or supporting the boycott of Israel sponsored by the Arab League, and certain Moslem countries, including complying with certain requests for information designed to verify compliance with the boycott. Compliance with such requests may be prohibited by the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and may be reportable to the Bureau."

The U.S. Laws Prohibits among others:

• "Agreements to refuse or actual refusal to do business with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.

• "Agreements to discriminate or actual discrimination against other persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin or nationality.

• "Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about business relationships with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.

• "Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person."

Acting against the U.S. laws is considered a criminal behavior and carry with it penalties of up to $1 million and 20 years imprisonment per violation.

Reffo made this point above, I responded to it.

[curlyg]

You are painfully naive if you thing that domestic BDS groups and foreign BDS groups are different from one another. For god's sake most of them are papered over versions of one another share funding and organization.

I'm not disputing the fact that they are connected, I'm asking what came first: the chicken or the egg. i.e. which caused which.

Also I'm sure there are Israeli boycotters which aren't connected to some overseas boycott group...

[Mediocrates]

The American law (1979) targets specifically Arab states which is clearly an abomination to the left. I say let's tear up that law too. Let Israel be starved out of existence if that will make the left happy.

[Aliyah1995]

If the radical left is as small a minority as you say it is, why does it seem as though you are attributing so much power to them?

The argument can't run both ways. Either these Israelis are foreign agents being exploited by racist European groups, or these European groups have been brought about by the influence of a radical Israeli minority which is promoting boycotts of Israel abroad.

The issue of foreign boycotts is not addressed by this law. Obviously a French or British group which boycotts Israel is not going to stop because Israel has passed this law, and they aren't subject to its penalties. The only people which this law affects are Israelis. If we are concerned by the impact foreigners are having on the Israeli political discourse and process, I'd be al for a law that bans all foreign sources of funding to all political groups (including political parties). I think that would be an excellent development.

Precisely because the Israeli radical-left is a small minority (in Israel), they are teaming up with overseas groups who have a notorious anti-Israel agenda (not to be confused with being critical of Israel, but being opposed to Israeli's very existence and believing the world would be a better place w/o Israel).

Like I said above, French or British nationals are not expected to have red-lines when it comes to attacking Israel (via boycotting Israel), but Israeli citizens should be. Look at it this way, I think we all agree that Hezbolla is an enemy of Israel. Therefore, any group in Israel that is receiving funds from Hezbolla or conspiring with them would be held accountable. I say that groups like BDS are also enemies of Israel because boycotting a country is a form of war (w/o the tanks and missiles). So any group that receives funds from BDS (and the like) or conspired with them should also be held accountable.

I think ALL political groups (left, right, or center) should be held to transparency and if they are receiving funding or working hand in hand with enemies of Israel (whether Hezbolla or BDS) then they should be held accountable.

[curlyg]

Precisely because the Israeli radical-left is a small minority (in Israel), they are teaming up with overseas groups who have a notorious anti-Israel agenda (not to be confused with being critical of Israel, but being opposed to Israeli's very existence and believing the world would be a better place w/o Israel).

Like I said above, French or British nationals are not expected to have red-lines when it comes to attacking Israel (via boycotting Israel), but Israeli citizens should be. Look at it this way, I think we all agree that Hezbolla is an enemy of Israel. Therefore, any group in Israel that is receiving funds from Hezbolla or conspiring with them would be held accountable. I say that groups like BDS are also enemies of Israel because boycotting a country is a form of war (w/o the tanks and missiles). So any group that receives funds from BDS (and the like) or conspired with them should also be held accountable.

I think ALL political groups (left, right, or center) should be held to transparency and if they are receiving funding or working hand in hand with enemies of Israel (whether Hezbolla or BDS) then they should be held accountable.

I'm in favour of the principle, obviously: that Israelis should be prohibited from cooperating with Israel's enemies in time of war. The question is how that principle operates. I think the example of Hezbollah is a fairly clear cut one, in that it is an armed hostile entity which has engaged in multiple wars with Israel and remains committed to Israel's destruction. Obviously any cooperation with that organisation, or getting funding from it, should be illegal. But I'm extremely reluctant to lump Israeli citizens who object to settlements in the same group with Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda supporters. I think there are Israelis who oppose settlements in good faith, not because they're part of some global movement aimed at delegitimising Israel, and those citizens should be allowed to organise a boycott if they so wish. I gave the example above of the Arizona immigration law, which has sparked a number of calls for boycotts in the US. Surely you don't consider these Americans as having declared war on the US. Boycott is, as Medio put it above, a means of "voting with your pocket book" - a way of expressing opposition to some policy or state of affairs. In principle, it's a perfectly legitimate tool for promoting change.

I also agree with Bara's point at the most general level: as a democrat I think Israeli politics should reflect the views and interests of Israelis rather than foreigners, and foreign funding is problematic in that regard. I would personally be supportive of a blanket ban on foreign funding to all political groups/organisations in Israel.

[Aliyah1995]

Curlyg-

But I'm extremely reluctant to lump Israeli citizens who object to settlements in the same group with Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda supporters. I think there are Israelis who oppose settlements in good faith, not because they're part of some global movement aimed at delegitimising Israel, and those citizens should be allowed to organise a boycott if they so wish.

Please read this part of my above post:

Precisely because the Israeli radical-left is a small minority (in Israel), they are teaming up with overseas groups who have a notorious anti-Israel agenda (not to be confused with being critical of Israel, but being opposed to Israeli's very existence and believing the world would be a better place w/o Israel).

Again, this is NOT about the "settlements", but BLANKETLY boycotting Israel and anything Israeli. THESE groups I would lump with Hezbolla, but w/o the missiles.

[curlyg]

I'd say that is still borderline, but much more defensible than the current law.

By the way for people who are interested, NGO Monitor has translated the law into English (and comments on it):

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/b...i_boycott_law_

[Mediocrates]

Of course these silly boycotts hurt the West bank Arabs more than anyone. So if anyone truly wants to shutter businesses in YESHA which employ Arabs, then fine. Arab employment in Jewish towns and businesses in YESHA are the backbone of economic survival for them. I am nearly 100% sure those insipid western 'liberal' activists like Greta Berlin will make up the difference.

[curlyg]

Of course these silly boycotts hurt the West bank Arabs more than anyone. So if anyone truly wants to shutter businesses in YESHA which employ Arabs, then fine. Arab employment in Jewish towns and businesses in YESHA are the backbone of economic survival for them. I am nearly 100% sure those insipid western 'liberal' activists like Greta Berlin will make up the difference.

Arent they mostly employed in construction? I cant imagine these consumer boycotts have much of an effect on them

[Aliyah1995]

Regarding the Arizona boycott law, I CERTAINLY consider this collective punishment. However, this is not quite the same comparison with Israelis joining the ranks of groups overseas to boycott Israel. A more accurate comparison would be if Americans were joining ranks of non-Americans overseas in calling for a boycott of America out of criticism over Arizona's immigration law or whatever other policy. That would, indeed, be joining foreign, hostile entities in declaring an economic war on America (an act of treason IMO).

[Mediocrates]

Agriculture and construction. Harm the industries, harm the people who live there. Kill growth kill spending.

[Mediocrates]

So it calls for a tort action following an evidentiary hearing and one would expect, a hearing on the appropriateness of the laws application to the definitions of the parties involved as well as legal standing. Seems like more or less a big nothing. I mean it would silly to bring a suit against Barghouti for calling for an academic boycott of Israel WHILE he's enrolled in university and getting his doctorate in that Israeli University. That would silly. Precious, yes, but silly.

In fact I would say that the anti-law people have one gigantic leg to stand on; that they themselves RARELY IF EVER boycott anything themselves in fact they often benefit in many ways from ignoring their own calls for boycotts. Their defense could be that a) they aren't harming anyone and b) it's both a meaningless boycott and a meaningless law as well. Israel could just as well pass a law declaring nighttime to be dark and the left and all the Arabs would protest that, as if either that declaration OR the protests actually meant anything.

None the less, a state has to take a stand somewhere, about something. Israel barely bothers to prosecute their own MK's who openly work with Hezbollah and Hamas and the flotards. The state isn't going to bother with this law UNLESS they can apply it to Israeli Jews alone. And everyone understands that laws applied only to Jews aren't racist or discriminatory in the modern world we live in.

I think in the end, the real objection of the left is that this law takes away a tool they like - the sit in, the protest, the being dragged out of the airport in handcuffs and relegates their nonsense to the courtroom away from al Jazeera and BBC and Ma'An and Press TV cameras.