What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Palestine (1 Viewer)

ren hoek

ren hoek

Footballguy
formerly US lawmakers seek to criminally outlaw support for boycott campaign against Israel thread

"But now, a group of 43 Senators – 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats – want to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country’s decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: anyone guilty of violating its prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000, and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison.

The proposed measure, called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), was introduced by Cardin on March 23. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reportsthat the bill “was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC].” Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 Lobbying Agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year:

The bill’s co-sponsors include the senior Democrat in Washington, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand, and several of the Senate’s more liberal members, such as Ron Wyden of Oregon, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Maria Cantwell of Washington. Illustrating the bipartisanship that AIPAC typically summons, it also includes several of the most right-wing Senators such as Ted Cruz of Texas, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Marco Rubio of Florida.

A similar measure was introduced in the House on the same date by two Republicans and one Democrat. It already has amassed 234 co-sponsors: 63 Democrats and 174 Republicans. As in the Senate, AIPAC has assembled an impressive ideological diversity among supporters, predictably including many of the most right-wing House members –  Jason Chaffetz, Liz Cheney, Peter King – along with the second-ranking Democrat in the House, Steny Hoyer.

Among the co-sponsors of the bill are several of the politicians who have become political celebrities by positioning themselves as media leaders of the anti-Trump #Resistance, including three California House members who have become heroes to Democrats and staples of the cable news circuit: Ted Lieu, Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell. These politicians, who have built a wide public following by posturing as opponents of authoritarianism, are sponsoring one of the most oppressive and authoritarian bills that has pended before Congress in quite some time."

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/19/u-s-lawmakers-seek-to-criminally-outlaw-support-for-boycott-campaign-against-israel/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can't stand a company that would boycott Israel through this incendiary, counterproductive and often hypocritical "movement"

Thst said, wtf is our government doing here? Disgusting and egregious overreach. 

Its bad enough when the Dems do it, but considering the real politik of the Jewish vote and their big government love - on Long Island this is being pushed HARD by local Republicans and it makes me almost literally sick. 

 
As the article goes on to describe, I hope this is a matter of legislators not realizing what they co-sponsored.  (Although that's bad too!)

 
I don't like the way this sounds. 

But I also don't trust bill analysis- a complex endeavor that even the best reporters frequently get wrong- to people who make subjective statements like "one of the most oppressive and authoritarian bills that has pended before Congress in quite some time" or who lead with the Dems who are the minority of the sponsors rather than the GOPers who are the majority, rather than simply reporting the facts. I'll dig into this more tomorrow when I have some time and see if they are accurately characterizing the bill.

 
Juxtatarot said:
As the article goes on to describe, I hope this is a matter of legislators not realizing what they co-sponsored.  (Although that's bad too!)
Click to expand...
In my experience those pushing hardest from this know EXACTLY the intent, purpose and expected outcome. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
I don't like the way this sounds. 

But I also don't trust bill analysis- a complex endeavor that even the best reporters frequently get wrong- to people who make subjective statements like "one of the most oppressive and authoritarian bills that has pended before Congress in quite some time" or who lead with the Dems who are the minority of the sponsors rather than the GOPers who are the majority, rather than simply reporting the facts. I'll dig into this more tomorrow when I have some time and see if they are accurately characterizing the bill.
Click to expand...
I know some will laugh at this but don't you think the ACLU almost always gets things right?

 
I can tell you from two minutes of looking that I'm suspicious of the claim that it punishes people for merely articulating support.  There are a lot of policy statements in the bill, but the substantive provisions amend laws dealing only with commercial activity.

 
Juxtatarot said:
I know some will laugh at this but don't you think the ACLU almost always gets things right?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, I'm a huge fan. But erring on the side of finding potential infringements is their job. That can lead to exaggerated portrayals of those infringements.

But it's also possible that the outrage is 100% justified.  I'll have to look more closely to sort it out.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I can tell you from two minutes of looking that I'm suspicious of the claim that it punishes people for merely articulating support.  There are a lot of policy statements in the bill, but the substantive provisions amend laws dealing only with commercial activity.
Click to expand...
The story appears heavily slanted.  A more truthful version without the spin would be good. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
I can tell you from two minutes of looking that I'm suspicious of the claim that it punishes people for merely articulating support.  There are a lot of policy statements in the bill, but the substantive provisions amend laws dealing only with commercial activity.
Click to expand...
I took a second look at this, and this appears to be the intent and effect. There is an existing law that bars certain actions during commercial activity that would "comply with, further or support" existing boycotts of US allies.  This adds to that ban the same actions during commercial activity to the extent they comply with, further or support calls for boycotts promoted by foreign countries and international organizations as well. It's a little unclear, though. Bit of a square peg/round hole situation. It's obvious what kind of commercial activity would violate the provision as it stands- boycotting our allies. It's less clear to me how commercial activity would "comply with, further or support" countries and organizations' calls for boycotts. 

I'm also not sure it actually criminalizes this activity. In fact a later provision seems to actually be limiting the penalty for violations of what I just described to fines. I'd like to hear someone who reached that conclusion walk me through it.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I took a second look at this, and this appears to be the intent and effect. There is an existing law that bars certain actions during commercial activity that would "comply with, further or support" existing boycotts of US allies.  This adds to that ban the same actions during commercial activity to the extent they comply with, further or support calls for boycotts promoted by foreign countries and international organizations as well. It's a little unclear, though. Bit of a square peg/round hole situation. It's obvious what kind of commercial activity would violate the provision as it stands- boycotting our allies. It's less clear to me how commercial activity would "comply with, further or support" countries and organizations' calls for boycotts. 

I'm also not sure it actually criminalizes this activity. In fact a later provision seems to actually be limiting the penalty for violations of what I just described to fines. I'd like to hear someone who reached that conclusion walk me through it.
Click to expand...
But I think the civil fine is pretty extensive.  Like $200K.  I was on my phone looking at it, which wasn't ideal because its mostly amending the existing statute, but I think the ACLU is right in that the statute is drafted broadly enough as to possibly get into speech. I'm sure any court's construction would limit it.  I realize that the Sherman Act already bans group boycotts in restraint of trade, but I'm still uncomfortable with the notion that the government can tell someone who they should do business with.  If some Irish-American owned company doesn't want to do business with those Cromwell-loving bastards from the UK, I think they have that right.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Zow
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
But I think the civil fine is pretty extensive.  Like $200K.  I was on my phone looking at it, which wasn't ideal because its mostly amending the existing statute, but I think the ACLU is right in that the statute is drafted broadly enough as to possibly get into speech. I'm sure any court's construction would limit it.  I realize that the Sherman Act already bans group boycotts in restraint of trade, but I'm still uncomfortable with the notion that the government can tell someone who they should do business with.  If some Irish-American owned company doesn't want to do business with those Cromwell-loving bastards from the UK, I think they have that right.
Click to expand...
$250K limit on the fine:

A civil penalty may be imposed on any person who commits an unlawful act described in subsection (a) in an amount not to exceed the greater of-

(1) $250,000; or

(2) an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed.
Click to expand...
I don't like it either, both because of what you said in the bolded (which already exists, this just expands it) and because I don't think the Israel/Palestinian situation is one where there's a clear right/wrong side. I'm just clarifying what it does and doesn't do. Nobody's going to jail because they're anti-Israel.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
But I think the civil fine is pretty extensive.  Like $200K.  I was on my phone looking at it, which wasn't ideal because its mostly amending the existing statute, but I think the ACLU is right in that the statute is drafted broadly enough as to possibly get into speech. I'm sure any court's construction would limit it.  I realize that the Sherman Act already bans group boycotts in restraint of trade, but I'm still uncomfortable with the notion that the government can tell someone who they should do business with.  If some Irish-American owned company doesn't want to do business with those Cromwell-loving bastards from the UK, I think they have that right.
Click to expand...
This makes sense.

But the intent of the article in the OP, as well as Ren Hoek for posting it, is to attack AIPAC, Israel, and their allies in Congress. IMO, they don't care about boycotts or the Sherman Act or even the ACLU's concerns, except as a means to once again attack America's commitment to Israel. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
$250K limit on the fine:

I don't like it either, both because of what you said in the bolded (which already exists, this just expands it) and because I don't think the Israel/Palestinian situation is one where there's a clear right/wrong side. I'm just clarifying what it does and doesn't do. Nobody's going to jail because they're anti-Israel.
Click to expand...
No, I understand the Export Administration Act already does it, although extending the provisions to "support" for "calls" for a boycott seems to leave little leeway to apply to anything but speech.  I think that part would have to severed to be Constitutional..

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
No, I understand the Export Administration Act already does it, although extending the provisions to "support" for "calls" for a boycott seems to leave little leeway to apply to anything but speech.  I think that part would have to severed to be Constitutional..
Click to expand...
Except the context seems to say otherwise, including the fine provision I quoted which indicates that only transactions may form the basis for violations.  Which is why I said it's unclear and a square peg type situation. I'm not a fan.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Except the context seems to say otherwise, including the fine provision I quoted which indicates that only transactions may form the basis for violations.  Which is why I said it's unclear and a square peg type situation. I'm not a fan.
Click to expand...
I don't read the penalty provision that way.  As I understand it, the Export Admin Act also penalizes transactions that would be prohibited.  Like doing business with Hezbollah.  So the second prong would apply to those cases.  I don't know how you can have a "transaction" in a boycott situation.  Compliance with a boycott would seem to always trigger the first penalty. 

 
How can the government criminalize someone (or some corporation) from NOT doing business with a foreign government or entities with substantial business interests in said country.  A foreign nation is not a protected class.  One should be able to discriminate against another country's government or entities therein.  How is this constitutional?

 
timschochet said:
This makes sense.

But the intent of the article in the OP, as well as Ren Hoek for posting it, is to attack AIPAC, Israel, and their allies in Congress. IMO, they don't care about boycotts or the Sherman Act or even the ACLU's concerns, except as a means to once again attack America's commitment to Israel. 
Click to expand...
In France people have been arrested and prosecuted on the grounds that they were inciting discrimination.  It's a bizarre infringement on free expression.  AIPAC wields tremendous influence; every presidential candidate from the major parties I can think of in recent memory has spoken before them.  

If you're confused about what it means, you can look at AIPAC's own stated lobbying agenda for clues.  It says: "The Israel Anti-Boycott Act further targets U.N. anti-Israel activity by prohibiting U.S. persons from cooperating with efforts by international organizations —including the U.N.—to boycott Israel."

I do care about boycotts (or any peaceful means people have of rejecting brutal military occupation), and think the ACLU does commendable work defending free speech.  Why should America be committed to Israel?  

 
Ren Ho3k said:
In France people have been arrested and prosecuted on the grounds that they were inciting discrimination.  It's a bizarre infringement on free expression.  AIPAC wields tremendous influence; every presidential candidate from the major parties I can think of in recent memory has spoken before them.  

If you're confused about what it means, you can look at AIPAC's own stated lobbying agenda for clues.  It says: "The Israel Anti-Boycott Act further targets U.N. anti-Israel activity by prohibiting U.S. persons from cooperating with efforts by international organizations —including the U.N.—to boycott Israel."

I do care about boycotts (or any peaceful means people have of rejecting brutal military occupation), and think the ACLU does commendable work defending free speech.  Why should America be committed to Israel?  
Click to expand...
When I see you call out Syria, the Lebanese, Jordan and well, all Arab and middle eastern nations that literally abandoned their Palestinian brethren and have only 'supported' them due to political expediency, maybe what you say on this subject would hold an ounce of weight. Or any other instance where a nation was attacked by multiple other nations, took land after as a precautionary measure (or any measure, you invade me and I am able to take some of your land? Not my problem, all your fault) and to this day often provides far better opportunity for 'regular' Arab residents than almost any other nation in the region. Makes you wonder what the underlying motivation for such a callous and un-nuanced depiction might be, especially without taking to task the actual brutal regimes in the region (which doesnt excuse some significant and at times cruel missteps by Israel, especially the current govt).

Oddly, Bibi seems like JUST the type of guy you'd respect... a wannabe strongman, crooked, and all about power. Kinda like Putin and Assad, except they actually have that power and don't have a population with democratic institutions to keep them in line.

FWIW, I am and have been adamantly opposed to the current Israeli government and most Zionist hawks... but to just call it a brutal occupation with no context is at BEST misleading. 

 
>>The bill also extends the current prohibition on participating in boycotts sponsored by foreign governments to cover boycotts from international organizations such as the U.N. and the European Union.<<

- So this act has been around since 1979???

And they're just expanding it to specifically mention Israel and to add boycotts directed by international bodies, not just foreign nations?

This reminds of the attempts to boycott apartheid South Africa back in the day. And apparently it's always applied to Israel anyway. So do we have an explicit example of where this law has been enforced against free speech in any way in 40 years?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ren Ho3k said:
media leaders of the anti-Trump #Resistance
Click to expand...
I again have no idea why you constantly excuse and run interference for Trump, here in this case forgetting he practically dry humped the podium at AIPAC's arena gathering. Trump will lovingly sign this bill. 

I'm totally pro free speech but I'd like to know why no one including you apparently ever cared about the 1979 act until now when Israel got added to it by name, especially considering it's always applied to them anyway, per the USSC case Luther posted.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Koya said:
When I see you call out Syria, the Lebanese, Jordan and well, all Arab and middle eastern nations that literally abandoned their Palestinian brethren and have only 'supported' them due to political expediency, maybe what you say on this subject would hold an ounce of weight. Or any other instance where a nation was attacked by multiple other nations, took land after as a precautionary measure (or any measure, you invade me and I am able to take some of your land? Not my problem, all your fault) and to this day often provides far better opportunity for 'regular' Arab residents than almost any other nation in the region. 

Oddly, Bibi seems like JUST the type of guy you'd respect... a wannabe strongman, crooked, and all about power. Kinda like Putin and Assad, except they actually have that power and don't have a population with democratic institutions to keep them in line.

FWIW, I am and have been adamantly opposed to the current Israeli government and most Zionist hawks... but to just call it a brutal occupation with no context is at BEST misleading. 
Click to expand...
It's not about other Arab countries, at least not as it pertains to the US.  When we have massive taxpayer dollars, UN favor, weapons systems and stand "shoulder-to-shoulder" as the international lone wolf for them, I'll criticize those countries too.  None of the countries you mention receive support to the degree Israel does, not even close, so they aren't really relevant here.    

Benjamin Netanyahu is an ogre.  What context can there possibly be to justify dehumanizing and ethnically cleansing a civilian population?  It's way beyond any traditional notion of self-defense at this point.  

Koya said:
Makes you wonder what the underlying motivation for such a callous and un-nuanced depiction might be,
Click to expand...
What are you saying here?  The underlying motivation is equality and justice.  That's it.  Being opposed to US's unrepentant support of an apartheid state is not the same thing as antisemitism.  

 
ren hoek said:
  Being opposed to US's unrepentant support of an apartheid state is not the same thing as antisemitism.  
Click to expand...
It isn't. But referring to Israel as an apartheid state demonstrates that, IMO, your view of the situation there is extremist, radicalized, and unfortunately probably immune to reasonable rebuttal. 

 
timschochet said:
But referring to Israel as an apartheid state demonstrates that, IMO, your view of the situation there is extremist, radicalized, and unfortunately probably immune to reasonable rebuttal. 
Click to expand...
I haven't paid attention to the "Israel as an apartheid state" angle lately, but isn't the only difference between Jewish and Arab citizens related to benefits that come from serving in the military?  Service that is compulsory for Jewish citizens but optional for Arab citizens?   

So if Israel made service compulsory for all it would resolve the "apartheid state" argument (at least within Israel itself)?   Somehow I don't think this would be an appealing change to those that make this argument.

Now this is doesn't count territories where there are "side by side" overlapping governing authorities which seem stupid on the surface, but that would also be dissimilar to what happened under apartheid.

 
timschochet said:
It isn't. But referring to Israel as an apartheid state demonstrates that, IMO, your view of the situation there is extremist, radicalized, and unfortunately probably immune to reasonable rebuttal. 
Click to expand...
What other explanation is there for expanding jewish-only settlements to land that is already populated?  Putting civilian populations on a diet?  Limiting electricity to 2-3 hours per day?  Bombing schools, hospitals, water plants?  If it revolves around something other than creating a jewish state then I invite you to explain why but it's clearly a human rights disaster at this point.  

 
What I can add to this story: If anything announces that a South Africa-style struggle has come to the U.S. over Israel, this story does. BDS is a nonviolent movement to put pressure on Israel to respect Palestinian human rights; and it arose 12 years ago from Palestinian activists because governments had failed to apply that pressure. All U.S. government pressure is on Israel’s side, as this bill shows. Israel vehemently opposes BDS because BDS has been effective; it has worked to put pressure on Israel and transform the politics of Israel around the world. Witness this bill. Benjamin Netanyahu gives speeches slamming BDS over and over, as an existential threat. Because he knows BDS helped to bring down apartheid South Africa.

This bill is the work of the Israel lobby. It was drafted by one of the lead Israel-support groups, AIPAC– “one of the most powerful, and pernicious, lobbying forces in the country,” as the Intercept puts it. Greenwald and Grim raise the issue of the American people’s interest:

In what conceivable sense is it of benefit to Americans to turn them into felons for the crime of engaging in political activism in protest of a foreign nation’s government?
Click to expand...
http://mondoweiss.net/2017/07/shockwaves-progressive-community/

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
But I think the civil fine is pretty extensive.  Like $200K.  I was on my phone looking at it, which wasn't ideal because its mostly amending the existing statute, but I think the ACLU is right in that the statute is drafted broadly enough as to possibly get into speech. I'm sure any court's construction would limit it.  I realize that the Sherman Act already bans group boycotts in restraint of trade, but I'm still uncomfortable with the notion that the government can tell someone who they should do business with.  If some Irish-American owned company doesn't want to do business with those Cromwell-loving bastards from the UK, I think they have that right.
Click to expand...
I find this to be an interesting topic. If Israeli students were living here would it be ok for restaurants to refuse to serve them? What about an irish pub owner refusing an englishman? Seems like kind of a messy line. What if you were in another country where you owned shops and are an american citizen and an american citizen walked in, could you refuse for any reason you want? 

 
ren hoek said:
What other explanation is there for expanding jewish-only settlements to land that is already populated?  Putting civilian populations on a diet?  Limiting electricity to 2-3 hours per day?  Bombing schools, hospitals, water plants?  If it revolves around something other than creating a jewish state then I invite you to explain why but it's clearly a human rights disaster at this point.  
Click to expand...
There is a rebuttal for every question you ask. But it would take too long to answer here. If you really want to seek a different opinion from that which you've been repeating, I would advise the books The Case For Israel and The Case Against Israel's Enemies by Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz is certainly opinionated on this issue, but his arguments are backed up by facts and I think he provides compelling responses to the positions of Noam Chomsky and Edward Said, who have written books which more express your line of thinking. 

In general, I will tell you that I don't believe that Israel is at all guiltless, but that overall they are in the moral right, and any analogy which compares them to Apartheid is unjust (and IMO, not too well thought out.) 

 
ren hoek said:
What other explanation is there for expanding jewish-only settlements to land that is already populated?  Putting civilian populations on a diet?  Limiting electricity to 2-3 hours per day?  Bombing schools, hospitals, water plants?  If it revolves around something other than creating a jewish state then I invite you to explain why but it's clearly a human rights disaster at this point.  
Click to expand...
This is totally perplexing. Why does what Russia is doing in Syria - which in sheer numbers might be 1000x worse - not bother you?

 
parasaurolophus said:
I find this to be an interesting topic. If Israeli students were living here would it be ok for restaurants to refuse to serve them? What about an irish pub owner refusing an englishman? Seems like kind of a messy line. What if you were in another country where you owned shops and are an american citizen and an american citizen walked in, could you refuse for any reason you want? 
Click to expand...
All those things are public accommodations. I'm not talking about those. Im talking about international business. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
- Isn't that why the law was passed in 1979? And it was applied to Israel as early as 1984.

What's changed?

Btw again isn't BDS totally a far left wing cause? Why the hell would someone who supports BDS support Trump? 
Click to expand...
Why lobby for passage of the bill if it doesn't change anything?  From the article:

The bill also extends the current prohibition on participating in boycotts sponsored by foreign governments to cover boycotts from international organizations such as the U.N. and the European Union. It also explicitly extends the boycott ban from Israel generally to any parts of Israel, including the settlements. For that reason, Ruebner explains, the bill — by design — would outlaw “campaigns by the Palestine solidarity movement to pressure corporations to cut ties to Israel or even with Israeli settlements.”

No, it isn't.  

 
parasaurolophus said:
What about an irish pub owner refusing an englishman? 
Click to expand...
I started to write a long post about how this isn't really the dynamic but realized this is the wrong place. I'll just say Ireland has been a free state since 1922. Dublin and London are allies with a common interest in the goings on at Stormont at the moment (and over the last 100 years).

But that discussion is probably best had in a larger Brexit context than this bill. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This is totally perplexing. Why does what Russia is doing in Syria - which in sheer numbers might be 1000x worse - not bother you?
Click to expand...
Russia and Syria are allies so I'm not sure what you're referring to here.  Where did I say anything about Syria or Russia?  What does any of that have to do with this bill?  

 
ren hoek said:
Russia and Syria are allies so I'm not sure what you're referring to here.  Where did I say anything about Syria or Russia?  What does any of that have to do with this bill?  
Click to expand...
Your own article which you posted brings up Russia. 

Yes, they are allies in genocide. Assad is murdering his own people, with Russian help. I was responding to your points about the morality of the boycott:

What other explanation is there for expanding jewish-only settlements to land that is already populated?  Putting civilian populations on a diet?  Limiting electricity to 2-3 hours per day?  Bombing schools, hospitals, water plants?  If it revolves around something other than creating a jewish state then I invite you to explain why but it's clearly a human rights disaster at this point.  
Click to expand...
Everything you say can be applied to Russia & Syria many, many times over, but BDS/Antifa and other far left groups do not seem too interested in that, why is that? I can get behind resisting occupation - anywhere - but I do not understand the picking and choosing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek said:
Why lobby for passage of the bill if it doesn't change anything?  From the article:

The bill also extends the current prohibition on participating in boycotts sponsored by foreign governments to cover boycotts from international organizations such as the U.N. and the European Union. It also explicitly extends the boycott ban from Israel generally to any parts of Israel, including the settlements. For that reason, Ruebner explains, the bill — by design — would outlaw “campaigns by the Palestine solidarity movement to pressure corporations to cut ties to Israel or even with Israeli settlements.”

No, it isn't.  
Click to expand...
This is what I was saying^. The only difference is who/where the boycott originates from.

The law is the same - see the Briggs case, or this summary from 2010 - nothing has changed. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
There is a rebuttal for every question you ask. But it would take too long to answer here. If you really want to seek a different opinion from that which you've been repeating, I would advise the books The Case For Israel and The Case Against Israel's Enemies by Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz is certainly opinionated on this issue, but his arguments are backed up by facts and I think he provides compelling responses to the positions of Noam Chomsky and Edward Said, who have written books which more express your line of thinking. 

In general, I will tell you that I don't believe that Israel is at all guiltless, but that overall they are in the moral right, and any analogy which compares them to Apartheid is unjust (and IMO, not too well thought out.) 
Click to expand...


Norman Finkelstein's allegations of fraud[edit]

See also: Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair

The political scientist and author Norman Finkelstein has claimed the book is a "hoax"[5] and that some of its citations are plagiarized from From Time Immemorial, a 1984 book by Joan Peters.[6]

According to Oxford University's professor of international relations Avi Shlaim, Finkelstein's charge of plagiarism "is proved in a manner that would stand up in court.".[10] In response to the feud between Dershowitz and Finkelstein, Dr. Frank Menetrez, a former Editor-in-Chief of the UCLA Law Review, published an analysis of the charges made against Finkelstein by Dershowitz, finding no merit in any single charge, and that, on the contrary, "Dershowitz is deliberately misrepresenting what Finkelstein wrote".[11] In a follow-up analysis he concluded that he could find 'no way of avoiding the inference that Dershowitz copied the quotation from Twain from Peters's From Time Immemorial, and not from the original source', as Dershowitz claimed.[11]

Michael Desch, political science professor at University of Notre Dame observed:

Not only did Dershowitz improperly present Peters's ideas, he may not even have bothered to read the original sources she used to come up with them. Finkelstein somehow managed to get uncorrected page proofs of The Case for Israel in which Dershowitz appears to direct his research assistant to go to certain pages and notes in Peters's book and place them in his footnotes directly (32, col. 3).[12]

Although repeatedly being approached by third parties to debate the book, Dershowitz refused on the ground that he had a "longstanding policy against debating Holocaust deniers, revisionists, trivializers or minimizers".[13]
Click to expand...
Think I'll pass on this one.  If you care to explain how Israel is morally righteous you're welcome to.  I doubt there are facts in a book somewhere that would make what's happening acceptable to the outside observer.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This is what I was saying^. The only difference is who/where the boycott originates from.

The law is the same - see the Briggs case, or this summary from 2010 - nothing has changed. 
Click to expand...
The difference is they can target and criminalize protesters now.  Which is an obvious threat to free speech.  That was the whole point of this thread.

The bill amends the Export Administration Act of 1979 to declare that it shall be U.S. policy to oppose:

  • requests by foreign countries to impose restrictive practices or boycotts against other countries friendly to the United States or against U.S. persons; and
  • restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by an international governmental organization, or requests to impose such practices or boycotts, against Israel.
Click to expand...
Rest assured, when Russia & Syria have the clout to lobby congress for a ban on protesting the actions of their governments and someone starts a thread about those things, I'll be right there with you.  In the meantime I'n not sure what your point is.  

 
ren hoek said:
  • requests by foreign countries to impose restrictive practices or boycotts against other countries friendly to the United States or against U.S. persons; 
Click to expand...
Ok, so not just Israel.

If someone sought to boycott Ukraine, or France, we'd be against that right?

- Seems ok to me. The same free speech issues - or non-issues - that  existed in 1979 or 1984 (Briggs) exist now, just as applied to other countries.

ren hoek said:
restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by an international governmental organization, or requests to impose such practices or boycotts, against Israel.
Click to expand...
So now, not just the Arab League - like in Briggs - but also the EU or (of course) BDS.

This is what the law prohibits:

What do the Laws Prohibit?

Conduct that may be penalized under the TRA and/or prohibited under the EAR includes:

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.

Implementing letters of credit containing prohibited boycott terms or conditions.

The TRA does not "prohibit" conduct, but denies tax benefits ("penalizes") for certain types of boycott-related agreements.
Click to expand...
This is what happened in Briggs:

Many Arab countries are engaged in a long-standing trade boycott of Israel. As one means of policing their boycott, the Arabs, through their boycott offices, send questionnaires to companies they suspect are violating the terms of the boycott. Companies are typically questioned about their relationship with Israel, Israeli firms, and other companies that do business with Israel. The Arabs have in the past blacklisted companies which do not return completed questionnaires, although failure to reply does not always result in this sanction. The appellants received such questionnaires. A portion of their business depends on access to the Arab states. The appellants wanted to respond to the questionnaires in order to avoid the possibility of being blacklisted.
Click to expand...
- So basically companies were being extorted into boycotting Israel by Arab nations.

It's about a questionnaire or other demands for information submitted by foreign nations or groups. Not protesting in the streets, or advertising or stating they support a boycott, not anything like that.

The federal government is not going to arrest BDS or Antifa members or others supporting the boycott.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did UC Berkeley Law School Enable "Jewish Free Zones" & Antisemitism With Pro Israel Speaker Bans? ( 10/2/22 11:12 PST)
Replies
10
Views
572
(HULK)
(HULK)
GordonGekko
Oregon’s Gubernatorial Battleground: Phil Knight's Big Nike Money Vs Extremist Identity Politics (10/23/22 12:29 PST)
Replies
4
Views
392
quick-hands
quick-hands
Jackstraw
Republicans will demand cuts to SS and medicare or crash the economy
2
Replies
93
Views
3K
The Commish
The Commish

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top