The Obama-Kerry State Department comes out in favor of BDS
Read the statement in the tweet below, and it becomes quite clear that the Obama administration has come out in favor of boycotting, divesting from and sanctioning Israel.
No, this administration is different than previous administrations. Previous administrations (with the exception of Carter) may have referred to Jewish settlement of Judea and Samaria as 'unwise' and may have called it 'illegitimate.' But only the Obama and Carter administrations have called it 'illegal.' (Which it's not). And the Bush administration did support some Israeli 'settlement' and did issue a letter saying that it expected that some of those 'settlements' would be made apart of Israel as part of a final agreement with the 'Palestinians.' But then came the Obama administration and disavowed the letter.
More importantly, every administration until the Obama administration has said that peace between Israel and the 'Palestinians' must come about as a result of a negotiated solution. Only the Obama administration - in a mad rush for a 'Palestinian state' that would immediately be consumed by terrorists - has attempted to impose a solution on Israel. Only the Obama administration has forced Israel to release terrorist murderers from its jail. And only the Obama administration has forced a 'settlement freeze' on Israel.
No, this is not the same as every other US administration.
The U.S. State Department on Tuesday punched a big hole in Israel-led
efforts to induce the Obama administration to regard boycotts of
settlements as identical to boycott
of Israel proper. In doing so, it provided the Israeli government and
the pro-Israel lobby with yet another painful lesson in the pitfalls of
being too clever by half and biting off more than one should chew.
A special statement issued by the State Department
Press Office on Tuesday afternoon made clear that while the
administration “strongly opposes” any boycott, divestment or sanctions
against the State of Israel, it does not extend the same protection to
“Israel-controlled territories.” Rather than weakening efforts to
boycott Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, as Israel
supporters had planned, the State Department was actually granting them
unprecedented legitimacy.
The statement came in the wake of President Obama’s
signing of the Trade Promotion Authority bill, which grants him the
authority he had sought to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership
accord. But as the bill deals with free trade agreements in general, a
clause was inserted in the Senate by Democratic Senator Ben Cardin and
Republican Senator Rob Portman and by Representative Peter Roskam in the
House of Representative that instructs American diplomats to include
opposition to any boycott of Israel - or of persons from “territories
controlled by Israel” - in their free trade negotiations with the
European Union.
The State Department statement, however, makes clear
that the bill will not change U.S. policy towards the settlements. “The
U.S. government has never defended or supported Israeli settlements or
activity associated with them, and, by extension, does not pursue
policies or activities that would legitimize them,” it said. It went on
to note: “Administrations of both parties have long recognized that
settlement activity and efforts to change facts on the ground undermine
the goal of a two-state solution.”
This anti-Israel administration cannot end soon enough. 'Most pro-Israel administration evah' my tuches.
How the American Studies Association shot itself and the BDS movement in the foot
Greetings from Boston, where I am working for the next week or so.
The US House and Senate passed and sent to President Obama on Wednesday Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) which constitute by far the most effective way of combating BDS: They bar trade agreements with countries that boycott Israel. That's you, Europe!
Congressman Peter Roskam (R-IL), who has been instrumental in anti-BDS legislation, issued the following statement today:
Today, Congressman Peter Roskam (IL-06), co-chair of the
House Republican Israel Caucus, released the following statement after
House and Senate passage of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation,
which includes bipartisan language Roskam authored to combat the
Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. These
provisions, which were originally introduced as Roskam’s H.R. 825, the
U.S.-Israel Trade and Commercial Enhancement Act, were unanimously
adopted into the House and Senate versions of TPA in April.
“Today, for the first time in nearly four decades, Congress sent
legislation to the President’s desk to combat efforts to isolate and
delegitimize the State of Israel. The recent wave of boycotts
originating in Europe, including French telecom company Orange’s
decision this month to sever ties with Israel, demands a robust response
from the United States. This is that response. The bipartisan TPA
provisions I authored are simple: if you want free trade with the United
States, you can’t boycott Israel. After today, discouraging economic
warfare against Israel will be central to our free trade negotiations
with the European Union. Congress will not be complicit in the
marginalization of our ally Israel by watching these attacks from the
sidelines. Instead, we have decided to fight back against the BDS
movement and ensure the continued strength of the U.S.-Israel
relationship.”
Those trade provisions, however, did not just happen.
The Jerusalem Post
accurately traces the passage today of trade legislation with strong
anti-boycott language directly to the ASA boycott (emphasis added):
“Four decades have passed since Congress last agreed on a
law pushing back against boycotts of Israel worldwide. That streak was
broken by the Senate Wednesday, at a moment perhaps prescient, as
European capitals consider new measures to highlight and punish Israel’s
continued “occupation” of the West Bank….
TPA, which passed through the Senate and landed on the president’s
desk, includes roughly 150 trade negotiating objectives – requirements
of the president, as mandated by Congress, to raise specific US
priorities in its negotiations.
One of those objectives is to push back against efforts within the EU
to sponsor the growing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement
against Israel….
The process began
with a December 2013 op-ed in Politico Magazine written by Michael Oren,
then Israel’s ambassador to the United States, which challenged
Congress to respond to the American Studies Association’s decision to
boycott Israel – by no means the first protest of its kind, but an early sign of what was to come from similar organizations based in Europe.
A letter of support circulated around Capitol Hill, signatures were
collected, and a bill was ultimately passed reinforcing Congress’s
commitment to academic freedom. But the concern lay in the tactic.
What if measures taken by ASA were used by other organizations
against Israel as a form of economic warfare? Several congressmen,
including Roskam, made note that the first free trade agreement signed
by the US was with Israel. They sought a legislative solution with
teeth: a bill that would establish any future trade pact with foreign
nations boycotting Israel as being in direct contravention of the
existing US-Israel Free Trade Agreement.
That’s right folks, the ASA boycott may not have hurt Israel much,
but it led directly to the trade legislation which has dealt a damaging
blow to the BDS movement.
The recent uproar over remarks (later walkedback) by the President of the French international phone conglomerate Orange about how he would shut down operations in Israel if he could, was the result of pressure applied by Leftist Israeli NGO's financed (via the New Israel Fund) by European governments and American Jewish Federations. Ronn Torossian reports (Hat Tip: Richard A).
What prompted these statements? Several NGOs that lead the boycott
against Israel in Europe, including the Israeli organization “Who
Profits from the Occupation?” issued a report in France intended to
pressure Orange.
In
2013, following the growth and establishment of a research center under
the auspices of "Who Profits", the project registered as an independent
organization, and today they run joint activities as sister organizations. "Who Profits" is one of the leading organizations in the Anti-Israel boycott campaign and manages a website with a database on companies that invest or are
involved in projects located over the Green Line or in Israeli security
companies.The website encourages international companies and foreign countries to divest themselves of such investments.
...
In short, the NIF provided funding to Coalition of Women for Peace
during the launch of the "Who Profits" project, one of the leading
organizations in the boycott campaign against Israel. The damage caused
by the activities of Coalition of Women for Peace continues to have
repercussions to this day.
Shamefully, certain American Jewish extremists including The Jewish Communal Fund, Alisa Doctoroff, President of UJA-Federation,
the Leichtag Foundation and others donate significantly to The New
Israel Fund, thus supporting and encouraging boycotts against Israel.
And then there were two: South Carolina says 'no' to BDS (and Orange stays in Israel)
Jews make up a mere 0.3% of its population, so they obviously have little or nothing to do with it, but the State of South Carolina has become the second American state to ban BDS.
Last month, the Illinois state legislature unanimously approved
a bill barring the state from investing its pension funds in companies
that boycott Israel. The legislation put a hefty price tag on
participation in BDS: It ensured that taxpayer money would not go toward
supporting companies that join forces with a movement widely understood as seeking to abolish the world’s only Jewish state.
Yesterday, South Carolina became the second state to join this anti-BDS brigade by passing a law
that bars state agencies from contracting with any business that
boycotts others “based on race, color, religion, gender, or national
origin.” The last item on the list—”national origin”—effectively
encompasses boycotts of the state of Israel, but is not limited to
them. Both bills enable citizens to ensure that their taxes are not used
to indirectly bolster a movement they oppose.
Eugene Kontorovich, a professor at Northwestern University School of
Law who consulted with the drafters of South Carolina’s bill, explained the rationale for this sort of legislation in The Washington Post:
A major tactic of BDS is to attempt to get state
universities and other governmental entities to cut ties with Israel.
There is no doubt that BDS proponents are within their constitutional
rights to seek governmental action against companies in response to the
alleged bad deeds of Israel’s government. But this constitutional
protection is not one-sided, and cuts both ways. Supporters of Israel
can seek government action in response to the alleged bad deeds of the
boycotters.
Given the ease with which Illinois and South Carolina passed their
laws, it seems likely that similar pro-Israel bills will be brought to
the floors of other state legislatures in the future. At the same time,
Congress has approved an anti-BDS amendment to the negotiating guidelines for the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty it is currently debating.
"Orange does not support any form of boycott, in Israel or anywhere
else in the world," Richard said in comments emailed to news agency
Agence France Presse and confirmed by an Orange spokesman.
"Our decision on the use of the brand is motivated - as it is all
over the world - solely by our brand strategy. Let me make it very clear
that the Orange Group is in Israel to stay."
Orange is present in Israel via Orange Business Services, Internet television unit Viaccess-Orca, and Orange laboratories.
Richard had been quoted by media reports as saying at a news
conference in Cairo on Wednesday that he was willing to withdraw the
Orange brand from Israel "tomorrow morning".
An Orange spokesman said there had been a "huge misunderstanding",
and that Richard had not been referring to exiting the country.
In a recording of excerpts of the conference emailed by the
spokesman, Richard said Orange had negotiated a termination date in the
contract regarding the use of the Orange brand.
"Now...we have the capacity to terminate this contract in the
future," he said. "Our intention is to terminate the contract. Our
intention is as soon as possible from a contractual point of view and
preserving our interests of course, our intention is to withdraw Orange
brand from Israel."
He added: "Our group policy is not to license our brand when we're
not the operator... There isn't a single country in the world where we
do that, so there's no reason to do it in Israel either... We want to
control our brand."
Partner said the only link between it and Orange was the brand, used by the Israeli company since 1998.
But the cellular phone company brand will not be known as 'Orange' anymore. Fine with me.
The Virginia State Bar Association is looking worse by the hour. The bar's putrid leadership has apparently hijacked the entire organization without seeking anyone else's opinion (Hat Tip: Leah P).
Let me make five general points:
1) I’m proud to say that many, inside the State Bar and beyond,
reacted with vigor to the timing and content of the announcement.
Several petitions have been organized, to rescind the cancellation (I
think it’s too late for that), to obtain the resignation of the VSB
president, or at least to elicit a full apology. B’Nai Brith
International, among many other groups, has condemned the State Bar for its action. Even the Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates has chimed in.
Most importantly, many individual VSB members have written to the Bar
to express their outrage; several have been kind enough to send me
copies of their letters. Here’s an excellent example, from Jonathan
Schraub, an attorney in McLean whom I did not have the honor of knowing
before this episode brought us together. Mr. Schraub’s letter will be
published in the next issue of the Virginia Lawyers’ Weekly and thereby brought to the attention of every member of our state Bar:
AN OPEN LETTER TO VIRGINIA STATE BAR PRESIDENT KEVIN E. MARTINGAYLE Re: Your decision to cancel the mid-year meeting in Israel Dear President Martingayle Along with many others I was shocked, outraged and deeply disappointed to receive your blast e-mail late Friday evening
announcing a previously undisclosed intention by the leadership of the
VSB to cancel the planned, mid-year meeting in Jerusalem, Israel. The
substance of the decision, the secretive manner in which it was arrived
at and the cavalier manner in which it was announced all merit
condemnation and call into question your continued ability to serve as
President of the Bar. According to your email, the decision to cancel
the planned trip was based on “objections” by “certain members of the
Virginia State Bar and other individuals.” Neither the Bar members nor
the “certain other individuals”, presumably not Bar members, are
identified. Indeed, this entire decision is cloaked in a veil of secrecy
and opacity unbecoming of the Bar. Had you provided any measure of
disclosure regarding your decision, you would have advised VSB members
that the decision was based on a petition that, at last report, had 33
signatures. (The Virginia State Bar has over 50,000 members). The
petition, although citing reports form the US State Department regarding
border security measures in Israel, reaches inflammatory conclusions
regarding discrimination based on citations to such marginal, committed
anti-Israeli sources as the website “Electronic Intifada”. Choosing to announce it late on a Friday evening and
without any prior hint that the matter was even being considered and
without any input from VSB members, speaks loudly to the underlying
discomfort that VSB leadership must have (and should have) felt at
adopting this position. What exactly was the influence that the 33
signatories to the petition had over the VSB leadership – not to mention
the “others” who presumably are not even constituents of the VSB? The
VSB is an arm of the Virginia Supreme Court and the Virginia
Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has a state sponsored commission to
promote the expansion of Virginia/Israeli ties (i.e., The Virginia
Israel Advisory Board). What exactly was the mandate that the VSB felt
it was under to unilaterally sever the ties of the Virginia mandatory
bar association with the State of Israel and announce it as a fait
accompli? Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate, if the issue was to
be considered at all, to publicly announce it, and put in place a method
for debating and ultimately voting to secure the clear sense of the
membership of the VSB? Instead, the decision was made in secret, with
no disclosure in the letter announcing the decision as to what the
thought process (if any) had been, who had been involved and what
competing arguments (if any) were considered. Nothing. Just an
intentionally vague communique that reeked of secrecy, politics and fear
of full disclosure and debate.
Many of us are left to wonder if this decision is
intended as a deliberate endorsement of the “Boycott, Divestment, and
Sanctions” (BDS) movement targeting the state of Israel. Certain
elements—the complete lack of transparency or open deliberation, the
late Friday afternoon announcement, and the reliance on
unabashed organs of the BDS movement like “Electronic Intifada”—point in
that direction. The BDS campaign is biased, unapologetically one-sided,
naïve at best and, other than the reckless participation by an
established group such as the VSB, historically viewed as marginal,
unsuccessful and for many who promote it, anti-Semitism in a thinly
disguised, modern costume. If endorsing the BDS campaign was your intention, then the VSB
has elected to join hands with a truly radical movement whose openly
declared ambition is the end of the state of Israel. We know that the
BDS movement has no concern for promoting any objective, fairly applied
standard of concern over “unacceptable” practices to any state or
country other than Israel and the question is always, “why is that the
case?” Sadly, history tells us that the concern is not over
humanitarian or moral issues at all but is thinly disguised anti-Jewish,
anti-Semitic and anti- Israel propaganda. And with respect to the BDS
movement in particular, there is no need to rely on historical
inference. From a resolution urging expulsion of all Jewish students at a
South African university, to the removal of all Israeli academics from a
journal in the UK, to efforts to block the appointment of a Jewish
student to a university government position in California, to
accusations that Jewish organizations were funded by money supposedly
embezzled from failing financial firms, the BDS movement has been
implicated in naked anti-Semitism on too many occasions across too long a
period for there to remain any doubt about its character. In each of
the above situations BDS defenders rushed to complain that it was only
being accused of anti-Semitism because they were “critical of Israel.”
This is nonsense. Being part of an organization like the VSB which as
you state is “an agency that strives for maximum inclusion and equality”
means having at least a minimal understanding that deciding to stand
shoulder-to-shoulder with a movement that the global Jewish community
has long warned stands as amongst the primary purveyors of anti-Semitic
hatred, is a serious, indeed defining, step for the VSB. Did you give
any thought as to whether the BDS position fairly reflects the views and
beliefs of your membership? Or were you simply pandering to the 33
members and “others” who for whatever reason had your ear? Your letter references “unacceptable discriminatory policies and
practices pertaining to border security” in Israel. These “policies and
practices”, according to your letter, “affect travelers to the nation”
Is it really your contention (and now that of the VSB) that meetings are
not held on a regular basis in Israel by hundreds of groups – including
the ABA and academic groups with Arab participants? What did you do to
determine whether the proposed VSB meeting would, in fact, have faced
any “discrimination” with regard to access by any and all participants?
With whom did you speak before reaching your conclusion that there is in
fact “unacceptable discriminatory practices”? To whom and in what
manner is it “unacceptable”? While there is no question but that Israel
has strict policies and procedures regarding access to the country, is
it really your position (and now the position of the VSB) that such
measures are so obviously unnecessary to protect legitimate security
concerns such that they can be dismissed as a mere pretext for
discrimination? Do you similarly demand that all policies and procedures
and laws and social mores of each state in the United States and each
country overseas in which the VSB holds meetings or sponsors trips be
vetted for “objectionable” content? Or is it just Israel? Israel
remains the most vibrant democracy in the Middle East. The Arab-Israeli
political party coalition now occupies the third largest voting bloc in
the Knesset. While that society is not perfect and many of us do not
agree with the policies of the present Israeli administration (and feel
free to say so), anyone who maintains a modicum of objectivity and is
not fronting for an ideologically anti-Israel position, will recognize
that Israeli policies are borne of the real politick faced by that
country. If they are more stringent and focused than those of
Switzerland or Sweden or Canada, it is because the reality of life is
different in Israel than in most other places. This, of course, raises the other possibility—that the
endorsement was unintentional, and that you did not realize what this
decision would mean in the context of placing the VSB imprimatur on a
global movement seeking to isolate and dismantle the world’s sole Jewish
state. This possibility, too, does not inspire confidence. Had you
simply raised this issue publicly with the Virginia Bar, deliberated
openly rather than issue a back-office decree, these concerns would have
raised and the Bar could have avoided this catastrophe altogether. To
be blunt, this is why transparency matters—so one does not blunder into
controversies that could easily be avoided, so that genuine problems can
be resolved in a manner attentive to the concerns of all the relevant
stakeholders, and so that when the decision is finally made everybody
can feel that their voice was heard and their views fairly considered.
That did not occur here, by all appearances because you knew that your
decision would be met with justified outrage. By adopting this position, the VSB has jumped with both feet into
the most extreme edges of the political spectrum on the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Either it intended this result, or it
didn’t. Neither possibility has anything positive to say about VSB
leadership. And regardless of what your intentions were, the VSB, by
aligning itself with the BDS movement which seeks to isolate Israel –
and only Israel - has instead succeeded in isolating itself. Although
it did not have the courage to debate the issue before deciding, the
position it has taken is far removed from the mainstream of public
opinion in this country and, without any doubt that of the Commonwealth
of Virginia and the rank and file VSB members. It is beyond sad that, if allowed to stand, this will be the
legacy of the VSB – and of the Martingayle administration in
particular. It is outrageous form the point of view that the VSB is a
mandatory membership organization. As a practicing attorney, I am
obligated to be a member. I am obligated to pay dues to support the
policies and programs administered by you and your administration. But
I, along with many others I am sure, will now do all we can to distance
ourselves from the VSB and to cease any and all participation in VSB
programs. It is simply no longer an association that merits the support
of its members. Shame on you President Martingayle and on the very small clique
of radical supporters with whom you have chosen to throw your lot and
reputation – and by coerced reference, the lot and reputation of the
VSB.
Jewish Community Federation of Richmond (Virginia) blasts State Bar Association for boycotting Israel
The Jewish Community Federation of Richmond (Virginia) has issued a powerful response to the State's Bar Association's decision to cancel a trip to Israel, essentially abiding by the diktat of the European-Arab-Muslim Boycott-Divest-Sanction movement.
I've been way too busy with work to post very much. But this morning, I awoke to an email from one of my law colleagues that was a bit surprising.
One of my law firms is having a meeting in May, part of which is scheduled to take place in Virginia. This morning, I had an email from one of my colleagues attaching a link to this article from the Times of Israel reporting that the State Bar Association of Virginia has canceled a November seminar in Israel, claiming that 'many' of its members will not be allowed in because... wait for it... they are Arabs or Muslims.
In a letter sent late Friday night, Kevin Martingayle, president of the Virginia State Bar, wrote, “Upon review of US State Department advisories and other research, and after consultation with our leaders, it has been determined that there is enough legitimate concern to warrant cancellation of the Israel trip and exploration of alternative locations.”
Martingayle told the Washington Times that the trip was canceled due to concerns that “many of its members” would not be let in to Israel.
The concerns appear to stem from a change.org petition by the Concerned Members of the Virginia State Bar, which said, “It is without question that Israel employs discriminatory entry and exit policies for US citizens, particularly against visiting Arab- and Muslim-Americans.”
The petition also said, “As members of the VSB, we have taken an oath to uphold our profession’s highest ideals. At the core of these ideals is the belief that no person or group should be subjected to differential treatment on the basis of their immutable characteristics. The location of this year’s Seminar, however, strikes at the heart of our profession’s ideals.”
The petition was closed after the decision to cancel the trip. It had 39 signatures.
Writing in his group blog in the Washington Post, the Volokh Conspiracy's David Bernstein has a few reactions.
(1) The American Bar Association has recently held meetings in Israel, for example here and here [update: along with hundreds of international conferences that are held in Israel every year, including, for example, a conference on Arabic literature with Muslim attendees from abroad.] Virginia has a state agency called the Virginia Israel Advisory Board “that
proactively serves as the bridge and facilitator between Israeli
companies and the Commonwealth of Virginia.” The idea that either the
state bar as an attorney organization or as a state agency has some
obligation to avoid Israel is nonsense. Surely Martingayle and
colleagues can’t be so naive and out-of-touch to think that the concerns
raised are not part of the broader divestment, sanctions, and boycott
movement meant to delegitimize Israel.
(2)
If the Virginia State Bar is in effect boycotting Israel, I, and I
suspect many others, will henceforth be boycotting the State Bar, in my
case beyond what is necessary to assist my students, which is my
professional obligation. I would hope that no Virginia attorneys who are
supporters of Israel will attend whatever alternative venue the State
Bar settles on.
(3) As near as I can tell, the only public discussion of all this before Martingayle’s letter was a petition circulated three days ago by anonymous “Concerned Members of the Virginia State Bar”
that, as of this writing, has received a grand total of thirty-four
signatures. It’s hard to imagine that the Martingayle and colleagues
canceled a planned event that already had a hotel booked, a CLE program, and even optional tours set up based on those objections. Who are the “other individuals” mentioned by Martingayle who objected?
(4) Relatedly, as a state agency, the Virginia State Bar is subject to FOIA.
If no enterprising journalist is already FOIAing the relevant
correspondence that led to this decision, I’m sure somebody else will
be.
UPDATE: The email Martingayle sent
out is timestamped 9:59 pm on March 27. Yet somehow the virulently
anti-Israel “Electronic Intifada” managed to have a copy of the letter
on its Facebook page and
website more than two hours earlier. Inquiring minds want to know who
had a copy of this letter before it was sent out to bar members at
large, and why. [Comments below suggest that while I and several others I
know received the 9:59 time stamp, other members of the bar received
the same message time-stamped earlier. If so, mystery solved.]
Danish Bank boycotting Israeli bank, Swedish bank on its way to doing the same
A Danish bank is boycotting Bank HaPoalim because its mortgage branch lends money for construction in Judea and Samaria, and a Swedish bank has asked for 'clarifications' from Bank Leumi and Mizrachi Tefahot regarding the same issue.
Sweden’s Nordea Bank and Denmark’s Danske Bank have both taken steps
against Israeli banks involved in construction in the settlements,
Walla reported on Saturday.
Danske bank, the largest in Denmark, recently said on its website
that it was boycotting Bank Hapoalim for “legal and ethical” reasons.
And Nordea Bank, the largest in Scandinavia, has asked for
clarifications from Bank Leumi and Mizrahi- Tefahot Bank regarding their
activities beyond the Green Line.
The ministerial meeting to
discuss the boycotts was canceled last week, because of tension between
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Economy Minister Naftali
Bennett.
But the truth is that something much more significant happened in New York last week. This is from the first link.
Over the weekend, Bennett – citing a New York State legislative
initiative – said that it was “possible to boycott the boycotters.” His
remark came in a conversation with New York State Sen. Jeffrey Klein,
who sponsored a bill that would suspend funding to educational
institutions that fund groups that boycott Israel.
The
legislation passed the chamber by a 56-4 vote, and would ban state
funding to colleges that fund organizations boycotting “countries that
host higher education institutions chartered by the Board of Regents of
the University of the State of New York.”
The bill was in response to the American Studies Association’s recent boycott of Israeli universities.
Bennett
told Klein, who represents parts of Bronx and Westchester counties,
that this legislation was an “expression of moral clarity and moral
courage at a time when most of the world is silent in the face of
actions taken against Israel.”
A similar bill introduced in the
State Assembly last month by Speaker Sheldon Silver has 48 sponsors
among the chamber’s 150 members.
If it passes there, it will go to Gov. Andrew Cuomo for his signature before becoming a New York State law.
I think that we ought to make sure that those who boycott us do so completely.
Let's go to the videotape (which is desperately in need of updating - this is from 2008!).
Report: Kerry orchestrating European boycott threats
Israel's Army Radio is reporting that US Secretary of State John FN Kerry is behind European threats to boycott Israel over Judea and Samaria. According to the reports, Kerry is keeping the boycott threats in check while 'negotiations' continue, but will activate them in the (inevitable) event that the 'negotiations' fail.
The EU published its guidelines last July, boycotting Israeli companies operating over the 1949 Armistice lines.
At the moment, Kerry is making sure the threats stay in check, but as
soon as the peace talks fail he intends to open the floodgates and spur
on full-blown international boycotts on Israel, reports Galei Tzahal (IDF Radio).
Palestinian Authority (PA) officials reported last September that Kerry was putting pressure on the EU to delay boycotts
so as to give him an opportunity to push Israel into peace talks. That
report also appears to support the new revelations regarding Kerry's
manipulation of anti-Israel boycotts.
Defense Secretary Moshe Ya'alon said Tuesday that Israel was trying to extend the peace talks beyond the determined 9 months.
Israel's Knesset passed the so-called 'Boycott Law' on Monday night by a vote of 47-38. Four 'human rights' groups have already appealed the law's constitutionality to Israel's Supreme Court. This is from the first link.
The new law allows citizens to bring civil suits against persons and organizations that call for economic, cultural or academic boycotts against Israel, Israeli institutions or regions under Israeli control. It also prevents the government from doing business with companies that initiate or comply with such boycotts.
Elkin defended the measure, calling it “vegetarian” and saying that its meat was removed when the clause making boycotts a criminal offense was removed.
“The law says that if you harm me [with a boycott], I have the right to ask for damages, and if you boycott the State of Israel, don’t ask it for benefits,” he said. “It was significantly softened.”
But the law may not stand up to judicial scrutiny.
MK Yohanan Plesner (Kadima), one of the bill’s most vocal opponents, sent a letter to Knesset legal adviser Eyal Yinon on Sunday, complaining that the bill may be unconstitutional.
In response, Yinon said the legislation was “borderline illegal,” but that he would not stop the Knesset from voting on it.
“The broad definition [in the law] of a boycott on the State of Israel is a violation of the core tenet of freedom of political expression,” Yinon wrote.
He added that the law’s “goal is to affect the political debate on the future of Judea and Samaria, a debate that has been at the heart of the political debate in the State of Israel for over 40 years.”
Four 'human rights' organizations have already challenged the law in the Supreme Court.
Groups participating in the appeal include Adalah - the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, Physicians for Human Rights and Coalition of Women for Peace. The four organizations sent a letter to Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin, Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman and Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz demanding a halt in the approval process of the law.
According to the rights organizations, the "Boycott Bill" is "completely unlawful which limits freedom of political expression and is contrary to international law."
Furthermore, the groups allege that the law also "forces residents of east Jerusalem to cooperate with the occupation" and "violates the principle of equality by attempting to defend one political position while limiting other positions."
"Not only is the Israeli Knesset trying to silence the protest against the occupation - it is also trying to impose on victims and those in opposition to the occupation, to cooperate and actively support it," Director-General of Adalah Attorney Hassan Jubrin said. "[The bill] does not meet any criteria of international law and we believe that [the bill] will not receive the approval of the Supreme Court."
It is impossible to distinguish between a boycott which is unlawful and punishable, with another boycott against an industrial company or a municipality of some sort, Jubrin continued. "The distinction between different types of damaging protests exposes the unacceptable political intention of this law, which seeks to benefit only one side of the political spectrum and to silence public debate on a central and controversial issue," Jubrin added.
But what's most curious is the way the New York Times covers this story. If you buy the Times in New York State on Tuesday morning, you will get a different version than the one that's online and linked above. And it's too bad that the version in New York State has two key sentences that the Times didn't want the rest of you to see (Hat Tip: Soccer Dad).
“For years now there have been laws in the United States that come with fines and prison sentences for anyone who calls for a boycott of Israel, and yet the Israeli who persuades American companies to boycott us is completely exempt. That is ludicrous,” Mr. Elkin was quoted as saying in the popular Yediot Aharonot newspaper.
He was referring to a federal law in the United States that forbids Americans from complying with, furthering or supporting a boycott of a country that is friendly to the United States.
But of course the Times omits those two sentences, which make those Israelis sound a little less crazy, don't they?
150 Israeli 'academics' have signed a petition calling for the boycott of Israel's newest university because it is located in Ariel.
The petition, initiated by Professor Nir Gov of the Weizmann Institute's Department of Chemical Physics, states that the Ariel was established on occupied land and is within proximity to Palestinians forced to live in harsh conditions and lacking basic human rights.
In addition, the petition states that the settlement is a key factor preventing Israelis from living in peace with its neighbors. Therefore, signatories expressed refusal to engage in any academic activity at the center in Ariel.
Professor Ron Naaman of the Weizmann Institute, a signatory of the petition, said during an interview Sunday with Israel Radio that the academic activities carried out in the West Bank hurt the State of Israel.
The goal of the protest, Naaman claimed, was to differentiate between academics at the Ariel center and the academics in the rest of Israel. This, Naaman concluded, would help combat the de-legitimization of Israeli academia in the rest of the world.
Other academic factions in Israel have come out with statements discouraging such protest.
Professor Rivka Carmi, chair of the Heads of University Committee, has urged fellow faculty members to oppose the boycotts, claiming that such protests do not represent any academic institutions in Israel, and that the boycotts are irrelevant to other academic boycotts taking place around the world.
Indeed, they are. But it's rather curious to hear Carmi, the Dean of Ben Gurion University, say so.
I wonder if she learned anything from what happened on her own campus last year.
Coming soon to a Best Buy near you.... a pro-'Palestinian' 'flash mob' protests against Motorola.
Let's go to the videotape.
Members of the St Louis Palestine Solidarity Committee performed their well-coordinated piece to the tune of Lady Gaga's 'Telephone', having replaced the lyrics with anti-Israel rhetoric.
Among the dancers, many of whom appeared in traditional Muslim dress, was the 86-year old Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein, who has previously tried to enter the Gaza Strip and went on a hunger strike when entrance was denied.
Don't these morons have anything better to do with their time?
By the way, 'Holocaust survivor' should be in scare quotes - she spent most of the war in England.
Israeli industrialist Dov Lautman supports the New Israel Fund (NIF) - and his son is a member of its board - despite the fact that three of the ten industrial plants the NIF has urged boycotting were founded by none other than Dov Lautman.
The embarrassing situation was exposed by journalist Ben-Dror Yemini of Ma'ariv, who sees it as symptomatic of leftist "blindness."
As the holiday season drew near, Yemini reported in his Hebrew-language blog, haters of Israel published a list of "Top Ten Brands to Boycott this Christmas." Lautman's "Delta Galilee," a manufacturer of undergarments, is in second place on the blacklist, which is part of the so-called "BDS" ("boycott, divestment and sanctions") campaign against Israel. Lautman is also responsible for the creation of two other firms on the list, Yemini wrote.
Absurdly, however, Lautman also identifies with the controversial New Israel Fund, which supports the global boycott, the journalist explained. Lautman was listed among the signatories of an advertisement in support of the NIF in February, when the Fund came under attack for its support of groups that libeled the IDF following the Cast Lead counter-terror campaign. His son, Noam Lautman, who sits on the board of the Lautman Fund along with his father, is a board member of the Fund, and of Shatil, its "operational arm."
The NIF claims that it does not support organizations that support the BDS movement. However, Yemini said, this claim is a lie: "A group of bodies that enjoy the Fund's support are signatories on a petition calling on the government of Norway to suspend investments in Israel. This is an action that is at the heart of the BDS campaign. Women's Coalition for Peace, which is supported by the Fund, supports BDS activities. We are not talking about one activity, but a set of activities, including active support of the Palestinian version of the boycott."
The Coalition of Women for Peace, added the reporter, collects donations for its own boycott project against Israeli firms through NIF branches worldwide. The Coalition does not enjoy tax-free status, he wrote, but the Fund does.
Delta has no connection to Judea and Samaria or the "occupation" of these Biblical provinces, Yemini noted. The same is true of all but one of the ten blacklisted companies.
Lautman responded to Yemini's expose by saying that he finds the BDS movement "revolting." And yet, he said, "I am proud of my support for the New Israel Fund, and of my son's involvement in the Fund as a board member."
Arab states and the Palestinian Authority are drafting a statement they plan to submit to the U.N. Security Council in the form of a resolution denouncing Israeli construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and calling for international pressure on Israel to halt construction.
Israeli officials fear that Washington will not rush to exercise its veto power against such a resolution.
According to a senior figure in the Foreign Ministry, representatives of the Arab bloc in the United Nations convened in New York on Friday and Saturday to start framing the resolution. The meetings are expected to continue and could produce a draft that will be distributed to Security Council members by the end of this week.
Some analysts believe the resolution will contain not only denunciations of Israel but also calls for international sanctions against the Jewish settlements, in the form of a boycott of businesses based there. Officials in Jerusalem are concerned that even if the resolution does not go that far, it could nonetheless encourage Western states to impose their own sanctions against the settlements.
Israel's Foreign Ministry is doing its best to keep this out of the media. But what's behind it is actually something that's not such bad news for Israel.
"The Palestinian issue, which until recently was at the top of the administration's agenda in the Middle East has now become unimportant to them," one Palestinian official said. The officials said that last week's meeting between Mahmoud Abbas and U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell was difficult and that the PA president was disappointed by the results.
Mitchell presented to the Palestinians a "non-paper," an unofficial document, related to the talks with Israel that shocked the Palestinians.
The Palestinians said that the positions in the non-paper constituted a step back and that even the previous administration of President George W. Bush had presented a more pro-Palestinian position. They were particularly incensed by a clause stating that the negotiations were to be over the borders of the Palestinian state with Jordan, Egypt and Israel - excluding the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, the Dead Sea, the Jordan Valley and the no-man's-lands from 1948, which they say the Bush administration had agreed to.
If the 'Palestinians' are complaining, things can't be that bad, can they?
I would guess that the resolution passes - provided that it has no real teeth. No Chapter 7 sanctions. It wouldn't be the first time that the Security Council condemns us for allowing Jews to live in the liberated territories, and it probably won't be the last.
Here's a video of a BDS (boycott, divest, sanctions) protest in and around a Carrefour store in Mulhouse, France. Mulhouse is on the Swiss border - I've actually visited the community of Basel (where the first Zionist conference took place) just across the border.
Once again, you're going to watch a video of a protest and wonder why no one calls the police. Good question and I don't have an answer.
Last Thursday, I told you about a Buycott Israel event in Boston that was meant to counter an anti-Israel shutdown of an Ahava cosmetics store. I asked that those who could please support the buycott. Now, I am pleased to tell you that the Buycott was a huge success (Hat Tip: Lance K via email).
Dec. 13, 2010
Dear Fred,
We're pleased to report another BUYcott Israel success story! Ahava products sold out at Lord and Taylor in Boston this weekend.
Congratulations to Israel supporters in Boston and across the U.S. who participated in this BUYcott Israel event. BDS fails...again!
Sara Saber-Freedman Executive Vice President, Canada-Israel Committee, for the BUYcott Israel Team
There's a buycott of Ahava products taking place in Boston on Thursday (Hat Tip: Lance K).
Code Pink is organizing a boycott of Israeli products at Lord & Taylor (760 Boylston St, Boston, MA) this Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010, 1:00 - 2:00 pm. The boycott is aimed at Ahava products.
Please join AJC Boston for a BUYCOTT.
Hurry down to Lord & Taylor at any point this week or meet up with AJC Boston TOMORROW, Thursday, December 9th at 1:00 p.m. to buy as many Ahava products as you can - it's great for gifts! Please let us know if you plan to join us by emailing Boston@ajc.org.
“Our collective response to the haters of Israel is to shop,” said AJC Executive Director David Harris, who led a large Buycott group to Ricky’s, a store in New York’s Union Square, last week. Major retailers across the country have been subjected to protests by the anti-Israel BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) movement.
“Hanukkah, when we celebrate our freedom as Jews, is the perfect time to show our support for Israel by purchasing Israeli products,” said Harris. “We need to speak out and act. Shopping for Israel is the right thing to do."
"By the way, I can't help but wonder if the anti-Israel boycotters, for consistency's sake, also ensure before using their computers and cell phones, or seeking life-saving medical care, that there are no Israeli products or innovations involved,” Harris said.
Hundreds of AJC activists across the country, including in Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Seattle, among other locations, continue to organize groups to visit Costco, Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods and other stores to buy Israeli products.
“This is a dynamic demonstration of solidarity with Israel,” said Harris. “Butthis is not a one-day event. Our commitment to buy from Israel is ongoing, as part of our global effort to mobilize support and understanding for the Jewish state.”
Princeton students vote down boycott of Strauss hummus
You may recall the story of Israel's Strauss food conglomerate taking its support for the IDF off its English-language website in a bid to get the BDS'ers off its case. Strauss won a victory at Princeton University at the end of last week, although I'd be much happier if they hadn't compromised their principles while doing it.
With a vote count of 1014 to 699, the Princeton undergraduate student body voted down a referendum asking for the University to provide alternatives to Sabra hummus on campus shelves, Undergraduate Student Government President Mike Yaroshefsky ‘12 said in an email this afternoon.
The referendum, introduced last week by the Princeton Committee on Palestine, had faced some stumbling blocks between the initial petition and the official referendum. They sought the referendum due to allegations that the Strauss Group, co-owners of Sabra Hummus, were providing aid to an Israeli defense force that has allegedly committed human rights violations.
This story is developing, so we’ll let you know more as soon as we can.
Like I said, I'd be a lot happier if they had won this victory without compromising their principles.
Why Strauss took support of the IDF off its English-language website
Earlier, I reported that Strauss had taken an affirmation of support for the IDF off its website. Well, here's why - this is a videotape from Philadelphia.
Let's go to the videotape.
Sickening, isn't it? Where are the police?
No, I don't think Strauss was right. But we must have a response. Remember the buycott of Israeli wine in Toronto a year and a half ago? That's a response.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
