U.S. Lawmakers Seek to Criminally Outlaw Support for Boycotting Israel(theintercept.com)
theintercept.com
U.S. Lawmakers Seek to Criminally Outlaw Support for Boycotting Israel
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/19/u-s-lawmakers-seek-to-criminally-outlaw-support-for-boycott-campaign-against-israel/
49 comments
I clicked through to the actual bills decsription and would agree this is pretty ridiculous. However us support for Israel is important because they will do a much better job of handling the Iranian threat than the us government.
Even if passed, could this law withstand a challenge in court?
Considering that boycott won't as it violates WTO rules and and the bilateral trade agreements between the US and Israel it can.
Canada's court just a few weeks ago had to strike out few BDS pushed resolutions because the boycott violated the existing trade agreements.
For the most part boycotting is already illegal this is just a political statement that won't change the reality on the ground.
Canada's court just a few weeks ago had to strike out few BDS pushed resolutions because the boycott violated the existing trade agreements.
For the most part boycotting is already illegal this is just a political statement that won't change the reality on the ground.
I think the fact that both the left and right agree on this is insane and goes to show how little regard either wing has for actual liberty. Although I support Israel, trying to "protect" their country by stop individual actions is mind-blowing how backwards that action is.
For me, it just reiterates that politicians needs less time in office with less things to govern. I hope that this bill receives the attention it deserves to defeat it.
For me, it just reiterates that politicians needs less time in office with less things to govern. I hope that this bill receives the attention it deserves to defeat it.
How can they force citizens to spend their money on Israeli goods and services? Or is it rather a ban on the promotion of such a boycott, rather than the act of boycotting?
If the latter, surely this can be still promulgated through a call to boycott apartheid states, or states that engage in illegal occupation, rather than explicitly naming Israel?
If the latter, surely this can be still promulgated through a call to boycott apartheid states, or states that engage in illegal occupation, rather than explicitly naming Israel?
How can they force citizens to spend their money on health insurance?
The Supreme Court argued that it's cobstitutional to impose a tax on everyone and have a deduction if you have health insurance.
It's entirely equivalent to a fine for not having healthcare, in that the result of both policies is that it forces people to pay a private company for a good to avoid paying the government a set amount.
It's entirely equivalent to a fine for not having healthcare, in that the result of both policies is that it forces people to pay a private company for a good to avoid paying the government a set amount.
The Gödel loophole in the Constitution. The same loophole by which every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights has been legally nullified.
As opposed to forcing citizens to pay for social security(old folks insurance), Medicare, etc.?
If you don't believe that you should be forced to pay for insurance, do you believe that the government should force hospital emergency rooms to care for anyone who comes in regardless of ability to pay?
If you don't believe that you should be forced to pay for insurance, do you believe that the government should force hospital emergency rooms to care for anyone who comes in regardless of ability to pay?
[deleted]
I'm not in favor of this law at all.
But when groups use pressure tactics to try to get stores and organizations to boycott Israel, it goes to a whole new level.
And that level is virtually indistinguishable from anti-Semitism. And outlawing that, that I would support.
But when groups use pressure tactics to try to get stores and organizations to boycott Israel, it goes to a whole new level.
And that level is virtually indistinguishable from anti-Semitism. And outlawing that, that I would support.
Boycotting Israel is completely different from anti-semitism. Israel and Jews are separate things, and there are more of us outside of Israel than in it.
It can be separate, yes.
But in the real world it virtually never is.
But in the real world it virtually never is.
That's an outrageous statement. The majority of jewish people I know do not support Israel's policies/actions (which, by the way, not supporting its policies/actions does not equate to not supporting its right to exist), and I know many. Are they all anti-semites? I've been to Israel, and many (jewish and not) Israelis I met don't support their nation's policies.
So, can confirm, in the real world it sometimes is and sometimes isn't.
So, can confirm, in the real world it sometimes is and sometimes isn't.
From what I've seen, it virtually always is.
How is it racist to have reservations about a nation that's implementing a modern and even more violent version of apartheid?
Your comment proves my point.
Israel is not apartheid at all, the only reason people say that is anti-Semitism.
So thank you for proving my point.
Israel is not apartheid at all, the only reason people say that is anti-Semitism.
So thank you for proving my point.
The only point you're proving is that people claim anti-Semitism way more often than is appropriate.
A boycott can be justified if it applies on specific brands, or specific products, or specific ingredients...
When it applies on every products based only on their origin, it's ludicrous.
When it applies on every products from a democratic country where people just want to live of their production without political interest, it's stupid.
When it applies on every products from Israel based on apartheid allegations shouted by BDS, whereas it doesn't apply also on every products of Syria, Iran, Tchechenia... it's antisemitism
No the most you can say is it's anti-Israel.
Imputing racist motives on those holding those views cannot be justified based purely on those actions.
The reality is you're projecting your own political views on the motives of others, in such a way that it leaves Israel immune from any and all criticism. It's anti-intellectual and frankly dangerous.
Imputing racist motives on those holding those views cannot be justified based purely on those actions.
The reality is you're projecting your own political views on the motives of others, in such a way that it leaves Israel immune from any and all criticism. It's anti-intellectual and frankly dangerous.
You are not helping your case with these statements.
Discrimination on religious grounds is already illegal, which would include antisemitism.
> Discrimination on religious grounds is already illegal, which would include antisemitism.
It shouldn't be. If you think that it's unconstitutional to prohibit boycotting a country, you should believe the same about boycotting an individual. I'm a Jew and a Zionist, but I believe that it should be legal to decline to do business with me out of antisemitism. For one thing, it gives me the data that I need to reciprocate.
It shouldn't be. If you think that it's unconstitutional to prohibit boycotting a country, you should believe the same about boycotting an individual. I'm a Jew and a Zionist, but I believe that it should be legal to decline to do business with me out of antisemitism. For one thing, it gives me the data that I need to reciprocate.
Nations and individuals are not equivalent by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.
Or do you genuinely think all rectangles are squares as well? Simply because one is a subset of the other does not make the equivalent things that should be treated identically in all circumstances.
Permitting individuals to make their choices (i.e. On the basis of religion or any other philosophical belief) without fear of discrimination in a Democracy is critical to the proper function of a Democracy. Otherwise, oppression of minority positions is too easily used to destroy that minority's ability to exercise their franchise.
Preventing the boycotting of nation states is not equivalently necessary to the proper function of civilized society. Nations are the outcomes of decisions made by very, very large numbers of people in aggregate combined with centuries of history. Opposing those outcomes are sometimes politically necessary.
Or do you genuinely think all rectangles are squares as well? Simply because one is a subset of the other does not make the equivalent things that should be treated identically in all circumstances.
Permitting individuals to make their choices (i.e. On the basis of religion or any other philosophical belief) without fear of discrimination in a Democracy is critical to the proper function of a Democracy. Otherwise, oppression of minority positions is too easily used to destroy that minority's ability to exercise their franchise.
Preventing the boycotting of nation states is not equivalently necessary to the proper function of civilized society. Nations are the outcomes of decisions made by very, very large numbers of people in aggregate combined with centuries of history. Opposing those outcomes are sometimes politically necessary.
You're one of those people who thinks "Muslim" is code for "Arab", aren't you?
That is uncivil and crosses into personal attack. We've had to ask you before not to do this.
Please don't take a thread further into flamewar.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14828732 and marked it off-topic.
Please don't take a thread further into flamewar.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14828732 and marked it off-topic.
It's like when Israel says jump, the USA asks how high.
The USA's unconditional support for Israel despite its oppression of the Palestinians has poisoned its reputation in the entire Muslim world.
The USA's unconditional support for Israel despite its oppression of the Palestinians has poisoned its reputation in the entire Muslim world.
Given what's be happening recently I don't think that supporting Israel even ranks in the top 10.
There are a lot of legitimate criticisms of the Israeli government. If you think these are all just because it's a Jewish state, I don't think you're being intellectually honest.
> I don't think you're being intellectually honest
Please don't cross into personal attack. I realize you said "if", but the nervous system involved in flamewars isn't palliated by "if".
HN discussions need to be civil and substantive and that requires not posting things like this.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14828732 and marked it off-topic.
Please don't cross into personal attack. I realize you said "if", but the nervous system involved in flamewars isn't palliated by "if".
HN discussions need to be civil and substantive and that requires not posting things like this.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14828732 and marked it off-topic.
there is some kind of exceptional treatment regarding israel at every un organizations that makes you wonder what is this state doing that is so repulsive that no other country in the world deserve such finger pointing.
The fact that this state is the only jewish state and that the jewish people historically never truely had the same rights except for some exceptional times and places, could be a hint that antisemitism does in fact play a role here...
The fact that this state is the only jewish state and that the jewish people historically never truely had the same rights except for some exceptional times and places, could be a hint that antisemitism does in fact play a role here...
That's bad. The US has never criminalized a political position before. Even at the height of of anti-Communism in the 1950s, there was a Communist Party of the USA, and its leader, Gus Hall, wasn't in prison. He lived until 2000, outliving the USSR, and died at age 90, in the US.
Support for Israel is getting weird. AIPAC is no longer the biggest supporter of Israel in the US. Christians United for Israel, which is an operation of John Hagee, the evangelical preacher, is. They have around 3 million members. (The US has only around 4 million Jews, many of whom don't support AIPAC.)
There's a theological basis for Christian support of Israel.[1] It's kind of strange, but some people take it seriously.
[1] https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-10-24/why-american-evangeli...
Support for Israel is getting weird. AIPAC is no longer the biggest supporter of Israel in the US. Christians United for Israel, which is an operation of John Hagee, the evangelical preacher, is. They have around 3 million members. (The US has only around 4 million Jews, many of whom don't support AIPAC.)
There's a theological basis for Christian support of Israel.[1] It's kind of strange, but some people take it seriously.
[1] https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-10-24/why-american-evangeli...
There's a good write-up here, which claims the bill only applies to corporations and not individuals. (Which is still inexcusable of course).
http://www.thedailybeast.com/pay-no-mind-to-the-fake-ruckus-...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/pay-no-mind-to-the-fake-ruckus-...
What makes you think this is a good writeup? It seems pretty incoherent.
* It claims that the Office of Antiboycott Compliance explains that the law affects only corporations. Setting aside the fact that a prohibition on commercial boycotts is no more constitutional than one on individual persons, the OAC explains no such thing; it in fact says the opposite: "The term "U.S. person" includes all individuals, corporations and unincorporated associations resident in the United States... (and so on)".
* In pointing to OAC, Michaelson is relying on Commerce's regulatory authority to explain the meaning of a statute. But the whole point of regulatory authority is that the executive branch controls it: the "Foreign Boycotts Prohibition" yields to President Donald J. Trump the authority to issue regulations within his Foreign Boycott authority as he sees fit and without Congressional approval.
* It says the proposed law is a "nothingburger" because similar regulation had already been on the books since the 1970s. Leaving aside the fact that the new law makes it statutorily unlawful to respond to a foreign or UN call to boycott Israel, the old law is also horrible and unconstitutional. We don't worry about it because it's rarely enforced. The Senate proposes to breathe new life into it.
* The notion that the law will in reality only bind on corporations is undermined by the fact that the law has been used to prosecute labor unions.
* Even the specific correction about "furnishing information" makes little sense. The ACLU claims the law penalizes requests for information about boycotts. Michaelson corrects the ACLU: the law only penalizes asking the UN for information about the commercial activities of others --- in other words, the law targets boycotts arranged by the UN and penalizes requests for the UN to supply information... about boycotts.
In other words, everyone is wrong: the ACLU, Greenwald, AIPAC and the bill’s sponsors, and Jay Michaelson. But things still appear to be extremely bad.
* It claims that the Office of Antiboycott Compliance explains that the law affects only corporations. Setting aside the fact that a prohibition on commercial boycotts is no more constitutional than one on individual persons, the OAC explains no such thing; it in fact says the opposite: "The term "U.S. person" includes all individuals, corporations and unincorporated associations resident in the United States... (and so on)".
* In pointing to OAC, Michaelson is relying on Commerce's regulatory authority to explain the meaning of a statute. But the whole point of regulatory authority is that the executive branch controls it: the "Foreign Boycotts Prohibition" yields to President Donald J. Trump the authority to issue regulations within his Foreign Boycott authority as he sees fit and without Congressional approval.
* It says the proposed law is a "nothingburger" because similar regulation had already been on the books since the 1970s. Leaving aside the fact that the new law makes it statutorily unlawful to respond to a foreign or UN call to boycott Israel, the old law is also horrible and unconstitutional. We don't worry about it because it's rarely enforced. The Senate proposes to breathe new life into it.
* The notion that the law will in reality only bind on corporations is undermined by the fact that the law has been used to prosecute labor unions.
* Even the specific correction about "furnishing information" makes little sense. The ACLU claims the law penalizes requests for information about boycotts. Michaelson corrects the ACLU: the law only penalizes asking the UN for information about the commercial activities of others --- in other words, the law targets boycotts arranged by the UN and penalizes requests for the UN to supply information... about boycotts.
In other words, everyone is wrong: the ACLU, Greenwald, AIPAC and the bill’s sponsors, and Jay Michaelson. But things still appear to be extremely bad.
I was wondering why the existing legislation was not discussed more as it sounds as bad as the proposed extension.
So there is an existing Office of Antiboycott Compliance linked by this article: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac
While it sounds like that office is focused on companies, it does clearly say in the who is covered section that it applies to individuals.
So there is an existing Office of Antiboycott Compliance linked by this article: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac
While it sounds like that office is focused on companies, it does clearly say in the who is covered section that it applies to individuals.
If supreme Court says money is speech and corporations can't be stopped from donating to political parties I don't see how this law is constitutionalWhen U.S. politicians do crazy stuff like this its typically because they're making a concession over something (they think) is unimportant in exchange for something they really want - trading favors for favors.
What's the context here that I'm missing out on? I'd like to know what we're getting out of all this blind pro-israelism.
What's the context here that I'm missing out on? I'd like to know what we're getting out of all this blind pro-israelism.
> What's the context here that I'm missing out on?
Votes from US Christian extremists.
Votes from US Christian extremists.
Well, on the other side, we could simply stop paying for Israel. U.S. tax dollars, and preferential treatment, that keep them there.
I'm not saying we do that. I am saying that some of Israel's positions and lobbying do not engender my favorable attitude.
I'm not saying we do that. I am saying that some of Israel's positions and lobbying do not engender my favorable attitude.
Two wrongs do not maketh a right!