israel passes law to punish those who boycott israel

[DogOnPorch]

That'll teach those nasty Zionists...have people who already hate Jews...errrr...Israelis...boycott the products that they no doubt already boycott. Minus their computers, of course.

[Saipan]

The next generation of Israelis will totally change the scene...once the old guard is gone - all will be better....the kids have learned from the mistakes of their parents

Yes, they are no longer traditionally unarmed victims, waiting to be exterminated.

[Saipan]

looks like you don't know what this law is:

It bans consumer boycotts of goods and services produced in West Bank settlements and the blacklisting of cultural and academic institutions in settlements. It also bars the government from doing business with companies that comply with boycotts.

Good. They finally learned. Companies doing business with certain countries (including Serbia) were punished. And not just in Europe and North America.

[bud]

Good. They finally learned. Companies doing business with certain countries (including Serbia) were punished. And not just in Europe and North America.

an institution or a person can sue another person or institution for boycotting it. democracy in israel is fizzing out.

[Saipan]

1) Call it boycotting the boycotters.

2) Israel is the ONLY democracy in the M.E.

[CANADIEN]

1) Call it boycotting the boycotters.

Boycotting the boycotters would be to refuse to engage in business with them and encourage others to do the same. What we have in this case is the use of law to silence the boycotters. Quite a difference.

[Rue]

looks like you don't know what this law is:

Clearly you do not either.

The actual web site for the law is: http://www.justice.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/2210C972-7884-481B-805F-E486F5FBC1E9/29067/2304.pdf

The law in fact states; that individuals or organizations who publicize a call for an an economic, cultural or academic boycott against a person or entity merely because of its affiliation to the State of Israel and/or to an Israeli institute and/or to a specific region under Israeli control, may be sued civilly, in tort, by a party claiming that it might be damaged by such a boycott.

The operative word is "may". May is a discretionary word. It does not say "shall". Its a discretionary power. So this would suggest it will not be used in all cases-in fact it may never be used at all. The word "may" is deliberately used so that the government is not compelled to use it in each and every case.

The law is very specific in who it might (MAY) be applied to and that is: individuals or organizations who publicize a call for an an economic, cultural or academic boycott against a person or entity merely because of its affiliation to the State of Israel and/or to an Israeli institute and/or to a specific region under Israeli control.

The target of the law is very specific as are the activities being targetted. It does not state anyone who expresses a political opinion against Israel is targetted but it does say if you engage in a public act that economically attacks and damages against a person or entity simply because they have an affiliation with Israel or an Israeli institution or are located in an Israeli controlled area, then this law MIGHT be used.

The law is specific in who it applies to and why. It protects individuals and entities from indiscriminate political activities designed to punish them for the policies of the Israeli government.

Now in Bud's world, anyone should be allowed to attack anyone else simply because they live in Israel, an Israeli controlled region or support Israel's right to exist.

Indiscriminate, arbitrary collective punishment of anyone or anything perceived as a friend of Israel is quite acceptable to Bud. It's a democratic right. Also in this democratic world of being able to attack and cause economic damage to people simply because they are "assumed" to have a particular political opinion, Bud and his buddies should then go to the government these people are "assumed" to be in cohorts with and ask that government to fund their attacks!

Say now, want to start a pogrom... why not go to the Israeli government and seek funding?

Better still how about demanding you get a contract for service from the Israeli government and tax exemptions while indiscriminately attacking Israelis. Makes sense to Bud.

After all in a democratic state one should be able to inflict damage on its citizens while demanding those citizen's government fund such attacks.

Yes according to Bud that is democracy.

In Bud's world of anything Israel does is wrong, demanding the government fund him to hurt Israelis is democratic and he should be encouraged by Israel government funding to economically destroy Israel. Makes perfect sense to Bud.

For those of us who do not have our heads wedged up our sphincter's the position Bud embraces would appear smelly if not painfully absurd.

All this law states is that if in fact if you want to attack individuals and cause damage to them simply because they are perceived to be pro Israeli the government reserves the right not to assist such activities.

You see precisely because Israel is a democracy, there are Israeli groups asking for tax exemptions through charitable status and/or other government grants to engage in activities designed to put Israeli citizens out of work and destroy their livelihood and the Israeli government now says they reserve the right to withold any government benefits to such people....

..but of course to Bud that's anti democratic you see. States should fund organizations and reward them to destroy the state's citizens. That's what we do in Bud's world.

Oh imagine that Bud. If you want to destroy Israel they won't give you a tax benefit. How down right unreasonable of them.

I personally believe the Israeli Supreme Court will of course be petitioned to strike the law down.

Since the word "may" is used, it means each time the law is applied the court will be forced to look at the particular fact situation to determine if the government went too far in punishing someone or something.

There's a fine line between punishing someone who hurts others while engaging in political opposition and punishing someone who simply expresses opposition to the government without hurting anyone snf yherein lies the crux of the issue as to whether this law is fair or not.

I would suggest the word "may" necessarily means if a government authority uses the discretionary powers under this law, because of the word "may" this automatically means they will have to be prepared to show the standard of methodology they arrived at to decide to enforce the law was fair and reasonable.

A discretionary power given a government necessarily must be implemented using a reasonable and fair standard under the natural rules of justice.

The operative words for deciding whether the enforcement of the law was enforced reasonably are; "by a party claiming that it might be damaged by such a boycott".

Those words in effect state that for the government to be able to establish it had reasonable grounds to enforce the law, they would first have to show a party (an organization or individual) "might be damaged" by such a boycott.

"Might be damaged" are the key words. Of course Bud parrots a newspaper article which states; 'Evidence of actual damage will not be required. That is not true.

In fact, the words "might be damaged" is what the evidence will be required toshow for thelaw to be justified into being applied.

In the real legal world "might be damaged" refers to a reasonable probability that as a result of the boycott it could be anticipated damages could be caused rom the boycott.

That anticipation of damages being caused has to be based on some sort of real and/or probable damage.

It's conceivable any adverse call for boycott could automatically be considered under the criteria of "might be damaging" BUT "might be damaging" while it could be enough to trigger the act and have it applied, can not establish the quantum of damages and therefore penalty to be awarded.

So, in fact, for the court to be able to enforce the law and award more than a small token amount, it would have tow establish evidence of the quantum of damages for it to be able to then say it acted reasonably in the award or punishment it handed out.

Reasonable is determined in relation to the government penalty imposed in direct relation to the damages caused. The more small the damages and severe the penalty, the more unreasonable the government's reaction could be interpreted to be and therefore be struck out.

Now of course I doubt Bud could grasp any of the above but you might want to tell him he has misrepresented what the law says, what its intentions are, and whether and when it will be enforced.

Edited August 12, 2011 by Rue

[CANADIEN]

Say now, want to start a pogrom? Why not go to the Israeli government and seek funding. Better still how about demanding you get a contract for service from the Israeli government and tax exemptions while indiscriminately attacking Israelis. Makes sense to Bud.

Excuse me, but can you please come up with anything even more ABSURD (to use a mild world)?

[Saipan]

Boycotting the boycotters would be to refuse to engage in business with them and encourage others to do the same. What we have in this case is the use of law to silence the boycotters. Quite a difference.

There's a HUGE difference.

Imagine Canada the size of Lake Erie and all potential enemies (some of whom attacked us before) the size of Canada.

"A strict observation of the written laws is doubtless one of the high

duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher

obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written

law, would be to lost the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all

those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to

the means."

- - - Thomas Jefferson 1810

[CANADIEN]

There's a HUGE difference.

Imagine Canada the size of Lake Erie and all potential enemies (some of whom attacked us before) the size of Canada.

"A strict observation of the written laws is doubtless one of the high

duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher

obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written

law, would be to lost the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all

those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to

the means."

- - - Thomas Jefferson 1810

Doesn't change the fact that a law aimed at silence boycotters does not constitute a boycott.

[Saipan]

It changes everything.

[bud]

It changes everything.

sounds like you're okay with fascism.

[bloodyminded]

So what's wrong with boycotting the boycotters?

Long live democracy!

:0

Mr. "I love Freedom" has had a sudden change of heart, I see.

Well, not sudden; we saw it earlier in his support for Pinochet.

[Rue]

What's your problem? Israel is causing economic hardship to people that are causing them economic hardship. Don't start a trade war if you're not prepared to face the consequences.

He has an agenda to come on this forum and engage in a constant dialogue attacking the existence of Israel. Its not so much a problem as it is his partisan political agenda. It is stale dated.

I would suggest if it was anyone but Israelis he was attacking you would have had a gang up of righteous ones lecturing him long ago.

[bud]

He has an agenda to come on this forum and engage in a constant dialogue attacking the existence of Israel. Its not so much a problem as it is his partisan political agenda. It is stale dated.

I would suggest if it was anyone but Israelis he was attacking you would have had a gang up of righteous ones lecturing him long ago.

i realize you want to keep repeating that i'm against the existence of israel and even though i've responded to your false accusations a few times already, this is what i really feel: how israel was formed and the circumstances around it are questionable, but i'm not against the existence of israel.

why do you support an undemocratic law when even bob calls the law backwards?

[Saipan]

sounds like you're okay with fascism.

And I also eat small babies. Very tender.

[bud]

And I also eat small babies. Very tender.

i guess your comment is one way to deal with being reminded that you support an undemocratic law.

[Saipan]

i guess your comment is one way to deal with being reminded that you support an undemocratic law.

I care very little about your Ahmadinejad kind of "democratic" laws.

[bloodyminded]

I care very little about your Ahmadinejad kind of "democratic" laws.

You're more of a Pinochet kind of guy.

[bud]

I care very little about your Ahmadinejad kind of "democratic" laws.

i don't support ahmadinejad's government or their rules so your comment does not make sense like most of your random, meaningless rue-esque comments.

so far, you've unashamedly shown support for pinochet, a military dictator and you've also supported an undemocratic law in israel which punishes those who want to express themselves by boycotting.

you need to accept who you are.

[bloodyminded]

i don't support ahmadinejad's government or their rules so your comment does not make sense like most of your random, meaningless rue-esque comments.

so far, you've unashamedly shown support for pinochet, a military dictator and you've also supported an undemocratic law in israel which punishes those who want to express themselves by boycotting.

you need to accept who you are.

Punishing boycotters.

Pinochet.

Public flogging (for shoplifters! ).

Yes, a picture is beginning to emerge.

[Saipan]

Glad to hear that.

Or as Mr. Tudball said about his secreatary Mrs. Wiggins, "The fog is beginning to lift"