The Anti-Boycott Law Wins

The US anti-boycott law, that is.

Reported:

Caterpillar issued a statement expressing “compassion for all persons affected by the political strife in the Middle East” and calling for a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It said it “appreciates the concerns” raised by the protestors and noted that its products are “designed to improve quality of life.” The company said it has three million products in use around the world and cannot monitor how each is used. But it said it does not “condone the illegal or immoral use” of any of its products, and that as a company it is “subject to strict anti-boycott requirements.”

“These laws are intended to stop U.S. and U.S.- related companies from supporting or participating in boycotts not sanctioned by the U.S. government,” Caterpillar pointed out.

See, laws are legal and just and moral - and they work.

(k/t = NGO)

^

Do I Discern A Modicum of Antisemitic Art?

Here's the Haaretz caricature by Amos Biderman in the July 14th edition, a comment on the anti-boycott law adopted by the Knesset, in a move largely engineered by MK Ze'ev Elkin:

Now, the reference to the song made popular by Nancy Sinatra is basically irrelevant as the dark presentation of Elkin is, I believe, intended to at the least suggest fascism, if not downright Nazi imagery:

Elkin does not wear kneehigh boots.

All of which illustrates the inanity, the hatred and the immoral thinking of those we call the "left" in Israeli/Zionist politics.

^

Did You Read The New Anti-Israel NYTimes Editorial?

It's here.

But then read this

Does the new anti-boycott law harm free speech?

by Eugene Kontorovich who is a professor of law at Northwestern University, where he teaches constitutional law,

Extracts:

...the outrage over the anti-boycott law carries a dose of hypocrisy, as it ignores numerous other laws in Israel that are used to restrict political speech generally associated with the right wing.

There is no universal code of free speech...The United States has far more robust constitutional speech protections than almost any Western country...even the US has a law against boycotting Israel. It has been on the books for decades, and has been regularly enforced, but no one has suggested it is unconstitutional – and that is for a law protecting another country’s economy. Moreover, Israel’s law, unlike the American one, applies only to organizing boycotts, not to actually adhering to one.

In any country, guarantees of free speech do not apply to speech that causes actual harm, – like yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater...The anti-boycott law prohibits speech intended to cause economic harm to businesses solely because of their national identity...Israel’s new law bans discrimination against businesses because they are Israeli.

...A boycott of Israel promotes hatred of Israel, and certainly offends the vast majority of Israelis. To be sure, boycott supporters argue that at least when it comes to settlers, such hatred is deserved, but that is always the opinion of those whose speech is blocked by such laws.

The boycott movement is designed to imperil the State of Israel, and can actually do so...Israel’s current practice is clearly well within the limits of an open democracy. Singling out Israel for laws that are identical to, or just as restrictive as, laws on the books in America and Europe manifests the very problem that exists with the boycotts themselves – the application of an entirely different set of standards to Israel than to the rest of the free world.

^

A Thought on Anti-Boycott Legislation

Is this article relevant?

HARM, SOVEREIGNTY, AND PROHIBITION by Victor Tadrosa1, School of Law, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

Abstract

What restrictions are there on the scope of the criminal law? One familiar suggestion is that it is wrong to criminalize conduct that is not harmful. Another suggestion is that it is wrong to criminalize conduct if criminalizing that conduct does not prevent harm. The first suggestion focuses on the conduct criminalized. The second focuses on the effects of the decision to criminalize. A third suggestion is that it is wrong to criminalize conduct if that conduct does not wrongfully interfere with the sovereignty of others. None of these suggestions points to a valid principle of criminalization, though each points to part of the truth. Versions of the harm principle can deal with some familiar objections but cannot explain why it is permissible to criminalize interference with some nonharmful conduct, for example, interference with self-sacrificial acts. The sovereignty principle can explain the cases that the harm principle struggles with. But it makes the permissibility of preventing harm through the criminal law depend on interference with sovereignty. This is not attractive either with respect to the protection of those who have the capacity for sovereignty but especially with respect to the protection of those who do not. I conclude that any valid principle of criminalization will be complex, drawing on two independent ideas: of harm and of interference with sovereignty.

^

Further To The Further on the Anti-Boycott Law

I posted earlier a "further to" item on the new anti-boycott law the left is trying to roll back.

Well, here's MK Yariv Levin explaining (k/t=StevePlaut):

The only undemocratic aspect of Boycott Law is opposition’s attempt to thwart it.  The other day we thwarted an attempted legal putsch aimed at trampling the Knesset’s sovereignty in favor of the political considerations of a national minority. The deceptive scaremongering campaign against the Boycott Law, undertaken while ignoring the legislation’s clear instructions and justified aim, was met with the firm stand of Knesset members. We voted in favor of the law and safeguarded democracy.

...the law entrenches the right of each one of us to receive proper compensation for damages incurred as result of being boycotted only because of one’s area of residence or workplace. The law prevents those who call for boycotts against Israel and its citizens from reaching into the public coffers and receiving funding at the expense of tax funds paid by the very citizens facing the boycott.

The law draws a clear line between a legitimate political debate and the exploitation of Israeli democracy in order to undermine the State’s sovereignty, its economy or its academic institutions..The attempt to prevent the affirmation of the Boycott Law yet again proved the need to facilitate genuine change in our legal establishment – a change that will bring the Jewish and Zionist character back into this system.

^