Israel's anti-boycott law to 'muzzle' Palestinians

[Jefferson23]

Al Jazeera examines the impacts of a controversial law allowing the state to penalise those who call to boycott Israel.

Dalia Hatuqa | 12 May 2015

Ramallah, occupied West Bank - Last month, Israel's Supreme Court upheld a 2011 law that would penalise those who publicly advocate for boycotting the country and its illegal settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights. Should the court be convinced that there was "malicious intent" involved in the call for boycott, the suing entity may be entitled to damages from the boycotting party.

What is the anti-boycott law?

The Law for the Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel through Boycott - or the anti-boycott law, as it's more commonly referred to - allows for suing individuals or groups for "deliberately avoiding economic, cultural or academic ties with another person or body solely because of their affinity with the State of Israel, one of its institutions, or an area under its control".

The law gives Israel's finance ministry the right to impose financial penalties on any organisation receiving state funds that makes calls for boycott. With approval from the Knesset's constitution, law and justice committee, the government can also limit bidding on tenders to companies or organisations that do not participate in boycotts or boycott calls.


snip* What groups were involved in fighting this law?

By a vote of 5-4, and in a 233-page decision, the court rejected petitions by Israeli civil society organisations. The petitioners included five leading Israeli human rights groups: the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel (Adalah), the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, the Center for the Defence of the Individual (HaMoked), the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, and Yesh Din.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/05/150509080554926.html

[oberliner]

1. "...on any organisation receiving state funds that makes calls for boycott"

Seems a little counterintuitive to receive state funds and also call for a boycott of said state.

[Scootaloo]

2. Or criticize the state in any fashion, really. Right?

[oberliner]

4. If you are boycotting the state then it seems like you wouldn't want to take money from them

That just seems counterintuitive to me.

If you take government funding then that gives you a relationship with the state that could be problematic, I would think.

[azurnoir]

6. So iyou seem to think that calling for a boycott of settlement products while receiving money from

the Israeli government is "counter intuitive", do you not see any difference between the two?

[oberliner]

8. The Israeli government is responsible for the settlements

Until the Israeli government takes steps to withdraw the settlements and end the illegal occupation, I would think that a boycott supporter would not want to receive funding from said government.

[azurnoir]

10. so you see no difference between a boycott of Israel and a boycott of the settlements?

[oberliner]

13. There is definitely a difference

I am just saying that it seems counterintuitive to boycott the settlements while at the same time receiving funding from the very government that is responsible for those settlements.

[geek tragedy]

16. so, if an organization wants to serve underprivileged communities, they should STFU

about the occupation if they want money to serve those communities

got it

[oberliner]

18. Of course not

I was just thinking that some groups who are calling for a boycott might object to taking money from the very state that is creating the settlements. It seems counterintuitive to me that one would want to boycott Israel (or the settlements) but also take money from said government. Clearly, some folks do not see a tension between those two things and that's understandable too.

[geek tragedy]

19. the point of the boycott is not that Israel is icky, it's to pressure it into changing

its policies.

Theoretically at least. Certainly some Jew-hating miscreants decide to latch themselves on board, but that's not unusual (see, e.g., George Galloway's entire career)

[oberliner]

21. Of course

But you will note that the BDS movement has called for the boycott of, for example, a theatre troupe wishing to perform a show at the Edinburgh Fringe festival solely on the basis of the fact that they received some funding from an Israeli government arts ministry (the show was not at all political).

Getting a portion of funding from the Israeli government was deemed sufficient grounds to call for a boycott of that particular group.

[geek tragedy]

22. I'm not going to defend the entire BDS movement or all of its actions or all of its constituent

members, which no doubt include the usual parade of horribles that stream into every discussion regarding the Middle East.

[oberliner]

23. Fair enough

And I am not going to defend this law - I think it's stupid.

Let me ask you this in response to your other point.

Would you be willing to accept a financial donation from, say, Sheldon Adelson, if you were running a charitable organization of some kind? That is to say, would you value the importance of the money and the good use it could be put to ahead of the discomfort over taking money from someone who represents an ideology that you oppose?

[geek tragedy]

24. if that money was going to help prevent harm to human beings, or animals, or the environment,

and there were no adverse strings attached, abso-fucking-lutely.

[Scootaloo]

26. Tha's less money in their pocket, and more in mine that can be applied somewhere useful

If the giver demands a quid pro quo, it's not a donation, it's a bribe.

[Scootaloo]

12. You're dodging the question

The fact is that all around the world there are multitudes of NGO's that receive some of their funding from governments - sometimes several governments. And many of these organizations are often very critical of those same governments. Sometimes they even get in there to try to change that government (Like AARP and its election campaigns.) Some NGO's, such as Greenpeace, choose to deny government funding, of course. But the point is, not all do. And those that do receive such funding, are not usually held to promoting the interests of that government.

You see, it's a free speech issue. The standard is that the source of funding should not interfere with the operation of the organization.

[oberliner]

14. Being critical is different from calling for a boycott

Do you not see a difference between being critical of a government from which you receive funding and calling for a boycott of that country? I thought that a boycott usually implies cutting off commercial relations.

Do most Israeli-based organizations that call for a boycott of Israel (or of the settlements) receive government funding? Are there any that have refused to do so on ideological grounds?

Does Adalah, for instance, receive Israeli government funding?

[Scootaloo]

25. It's really not different at all

Unless perhaps, you believe that the only acceptable criticism is hollow criticism, with no solutions advocated? Calling for a government to change tis policies, or for other governmetns to change theirs in regard to a third government, is hardly new in the world of NGO's.

You seem to think that groups that receive government funding are beholden to pursue the interests of the state. They are not.

[oberliner]

27. Of course they are different

It is bizarre that you are stating otherwise.

This might be helpful to you:

A boycott is an act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for social or political reason

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott

: to refuse to buy, use, or participate in (something) as a way of protesting : to stop using the goods or services of (a company, country, etc.) until changes are made

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boycott

: the act of expressing disapproval and of noting the problems or faults of a person or thing : the act of criticizing someone or something

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criticism

If you are still are unable to see a difference between these two terms, I am not sure what to tell you.

You also wrote: "You seem to think that groups that receive government funding are beholden to pursue the interests of the state. They are not."

This is a complete invention on your part. Nothing I have written here expresses this point of view.

I will reiterate that my only observation was that it seemed counterintuitive to call for a boycott of a state while also taking funding from that state.

There is the example that I've identified elsewhere on this thread that a theatre group was targeted for boycott at the Edinburgh Fringe theatre festival due to the fact that some of their funding came from an Israeli governmental arts organization (even though their play was not political). There is at least a component of the BDS movement that supports boycotting groups that receive any funding from the Israeli government. That was what led me to reflect on the potentially counterintuitive nature of calling for a boycott while also receiving government funding.

So there is no further misunderstanding, I do not think that groups that receive government funding are beholden to pursue the interests of the state.

I also think groups should feel free to take government money and also call for a boycott if that's what they want to do. It just seems counterintuitive to me - that's it.

[Scootaloo]

28. Well, let's start with your first mistake...

Dictionaries provide brief definitions, and don't actually offer very much by way of information. Yes, "criticism" and "Boycott" are two different words with two different meanings. However what the dictionary won't tell you (and can't, being a dictionary) is that advocating boycott is a form of protest designed to address a problem - a problem which we must assume hte protestors are critical of.

Now your second mistake is this line...

This is a complete invention on your part. Nothing I have written here expresses this point of view.

Exactly speaking no, you have not written that precise statement verbatim. However, two things are pretty clear from reading your arguments on this thread.

1) Despite your protestations otherwise, you actually support this law. Why spend so much time arguing in its favor otherwise?

2) You are sore about the notion of a non-government agency taking that government's coin and hten taking some action that does not promote or support said government.

You can go "nuh uh!" if you like, but it seems pretty clear, from the context, and from your eager arguments as defense, that these are your actual positions. Sort of like an angry thumb-banger we both know who professes to support nothing about Likud - except for everything Likud does.

So there is no further misunderstanding, I do not think that groups that receive government funding are beholden to pursue the interests of the state.

I also think groups should feel free to take government money and also call for a boycott if that's what they want to do. It just seems counterintuitive to me - that's it.

Well then, you just spent an entire thread looking like you held the opposite position. But alright.

There's nothing counter-intuitive. As I expressed above, if the money is offered, there is no problem with taking it and putting it towards your goal - even if that goal is counter to the aims of the person offering the money.

[Little Tich]

3. The law also includes calls to boycott post-1967 Israel.

If you look at the some of the petitioners against the law: the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel (Adalah), the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, the Center for the Defence of the Individual (HaMoked), the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, and Yesh Din, you can clearly see that it’s only about groups that promote Israeli democracy.

This is very worrying for me personally, as I see this as a robust step toward the apartheid state, and when that happens, then I’ll have to boycott Israel for moral reasons.

[oberliner]

5. Do those groups receive funding from the Israeli government?

Or are they all funded by outside donors?

[Little Tich]

7. I don't know.

Does it matter? A law that stifles Israeli democracy should be opposed by everyone, and not only by those who are directly affected.

[oberliner]

9. The law is ridiculous

No argument from me on that score - I oppose it.

I am raising a separate point that it also seems odd that groups that call for a boycott would be comfortable taking funding from the Israeli government (which itself is completely responsible for the settlement enterprise and occupation).

[Little Tich]

11. The plurality of the Israeli government and administration means that there's no real contradiction.

It's very common in democracies that groups that oppose government policy get public funding.

[oberliner]

15. Oppose government policy vs. boycott

A boycott usually involves the severing of commercial relations whereas opposing policy does not.

[Little Tich]

17. I think that there were South Africans during the Apartheid era who supported the boycott

of their country. There are NGOs in Israel that deal with the plights of its non-Jewish citizens and those others under Israeli rule in Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights., and it could be argued that the interests of these people are furthered by a boycott of Israel and / or the settlements and the occupation.

This is a complex issue, and the current government isn't really helping.

[oberliner]

20. While also receiving funding from the government?

Again, I was just making an observation that it seems as if those who are calling for a boycott of Israel might be uncomfortable getting funding from the Israeli government.

[Little Tich]

29. There is a very definite risk that the law will be used as a "Patriotometer",

where it's used as a measuring stick to define how patriotic or unpatriotic NGOs and people are by measuring how close they are to criticism of Israel and BDS, and whether they are merely unpatriotic or actually traitors.

The law smacks of McCartyism.

I don't really know why there should be a dilemma with receiving Israeli funds and promoting a boycott of Israel at the same time, if the goal is to further Israel's democracy. If you're a Bedouin in Israel, and the goverment is using apartheid to remove your village, perhaps from that point of view, using Israeli funds to promote BDS is a way to stop apartheid.