US Lawmakers Seek to Criminalize Boycotts of Israel

[Ethereal]

U.S. Lawmakers Seek to Criminally Outlaw Support for Boycott Campaign Against Israel (https://theintercept.com/2017/07/19/u-s-lawmakers-seek-to-criminally-outlaw-support-for-boycott-campaign-against-israel/)

Glenn Greenwald, Ryan Grim | July 19 2017, 11:30 a.m.

THE CRIMINALIZATION OF political speech and activism against Israel has become one of the gravest threats to free speech in the West. In France, activists have been arrested and prosecuted for wearing T-shirts advocating a boycott of Israel. The U.K. has enacted a series of measures designed to outlaw such activism. In the U.S., governors compete with one another over who can implement the most extreme regulations to bar businesses from participating in any boycotts aimed even at Israeli settlements, which the world regards as illegal. On U.S. campuses, punishment of pro-Palestinian students for expressing criticisms of Israel is so commonplace that the Center for Constitutional Rights refers to it as “the Palestine Exception” to free speech.

But now, a group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants 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 the 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 reports that the bill “was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.” Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year:

https://cdn01.theintercept.com/wp-uploads/sites/1/2017/07/aipac2-1500472315-540x459.png

https://cdn01.theintercept.com/wp-uploads/sites/1/2017/07/aipac1-1500471970-1000x314.png

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.

[...]

Republicans and Democrats are both pushing to criminalize commercial boycotts of Israel. The law, if passed, will open up violators to million dollar fines and twenty years in prison.

In other words, if you use your own property (your business) in furtherance of your free speech rights, the US government, on behalf of their Israeli masters in AIPAC, will RUIN you.

When asked about their position on the bill, several Senators and Representatives did not seem to know what was in it. Apparently, they will support anything the Israeli lobby shoves in their face.

And the most ironic and perverse part about this? Many of the co-sponsors for this bill are Democrats who have been obsessing over "Russian meddling" in American democracy. Yet, here they are, actively conspiring against the RIGHTS of Americans with a foreign power.

That this bill even has ONE sponsor, let alone dozens of them, is disgusting.

[Standing Wolf]

Holy crap! I thought at first that this must be a joke or a rumor...but, as they used to say on the cover of those 'Superman' comics in the '60s, it's "NOT A HOAX! NOT A DREAM! NOT AN IMAGINARY STORY!" Some other stories suggest that Marco Rubio is a supporter, as well. Just...wow.

[Ethereal]

Holy crap! I thought at first that this must be a joke or a rumor...but, as they used to say on the cover of those 'Superman' comics in the '60s, it's "NOT A HOAX! NOT A DREAM! NOT AN IMAGINARY STORY!" Some other stories suggest that Marco Rubio is a supporter, as well. Just...wow.

This is naked tyranny and corruption. In other words, just another day in Washington DC.

[Captain Obvious]

The Jews actually got Trump elected.

Putin is just a facade to throw off the morons.

[Ethereal]

The Jews actually got Trump elected.

Putin is just a facade to throw off the morons.

Not sure if serious...

[Green Arrow]

This is a bullshit law of the highest order.

[Captain Obvious]

Not sure if serious...

Serious as a bacon wrapped motzah ball

[Ethereal]

This is a bull$#@! law of the highest order.
That is a basic prerequisite for something becoming law in Washington DC.

[Ethereal]

Serious as a bacon wrapped motzah ball

Well, I attribute Trump's victory mostly to working class white people, but there is no doubt some Jewish donors helped him out a lot. Not surprising, given Trump's servile demeanor towards Israel.

[Standing Wolf]

Well, I attribute Trump's victory mostly to working class white people, but there is no doubt some Jewish donors helped him out a lot. Not surprising, given Trump's servile demeanor towards Israel.

It is the default public position of practically all American politicians. They - like so many others in public life - will do and say almost anything to avoid even a small chance of being labeled "anti-Semites".

[Private Pickle]

And then there's the rest of the story:

Introduced in Senate (03/23/2017)


Israel Anti-Boycott Act
This bill declares that Congress: (1) opposes the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution of March 24, 2016, which urges countries to pressure companies to divest from, or break contracts with, Israel; and (2) encourages full implementation of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 through enhanced, government wide, coordinated U.S.-Israel scientific and technological cooperation in civilian areas.
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.

The bill prohibits U.S. persons engaged in interstate or foreign commerce from:


requesting the imposition of any boycott by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States; or
supporting any boycott fostered or imposed by an international organization, or requesting imposition of any such boycott, against Israel.

The bill amends the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to include as a reason for the Export-Import Bank to deny credit applications for the export of goods and services between the United States and foreign countries, opposition to policies and actions that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with citizens or residents of Israel, entities organized under the laws of Israel, or the Government of Israel.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Israel+Anti-Boycott+act%22%5D%7D&r=1

[Green Arrow]

And then there's the rest of the story:

None of which contradicts Ethereal's OP.

[Ethereal]

And then there's the rest of the story:

It's the same story as the one I already posted, i.e., the US government is trying to criminalize commercial boycotts of Israel. Am I to assume you support this policy?

[MisterVeritis]

It looks like the bill prevents a company from using American tax dollars to boycott friendly nations. I support it.

[Ethereal]

It looks like the bill prevents a company from using American tax dollars to boycott friendly nations. I support it.

It clearly says that US persons engaged in interstate commerce or foreign commerce are prohibited from supporting boycotts of Israel, not just the ones who are using US tax dollars.

[MisterVeritis]

It clearly says that US persons engaged in interstate commerce or foreign commerce are prohibited from supporting boycotts of Israel, not just the ones who are using US tax dollars.
The context involves changes to the export import bank law. There is one paragraph with two bullet points where the connection to the export import bank law is not clear.

[Private Pickle]

It's the same story as the one I already posted, i.e., the US government is trying to criminalize commercial boycotts of Israel. Am I to assume you support this policy?

Brought upon by foreign nations or international bodies...

[Private Pickle]

None of which contradicts Ethereal's OP.
Clarifies more like.

[Private Pickle]

It clearly says that US persons engaged in interstate commerce or foreign commerce are prohibited from supporting boycotts of Israel, not just the ones who are using US tax dollars.
Not so much.

[Private Pickle]

It looks like the bill prevents a company from using American tax dollars to boycott friendly nations. I support it.

At the behest of foreign nations or international entities.

[Ethereal]

The context involves changes to the export import bank law. There is one paragraph with two bullet points where the connection to the export import bank law is not clear.

The word "tax" does not even appear in the text. It clearly applies to ANY "US persons" who engage in interstate or foreign commerce.

[Ethereal]

Brought upon by foreign nations or international bodies...
If an American business wants to support a boycott movement, what difference does it make who fostered or imposed said boycott? Americans have every right to withhold their business and to use their business to promote their political beliefs, do they not?

[Ethereal]

Clarifies more like.

The issue remains fundamentally unchanged.

The US government is trying to criminalize commercial boycotts of Israel.

This is a flagrant attack on our rights and our sovereignty.

[Ethereal]

Not so much.
How do you figure?

[MisterVeritis]

The word "tax" does not even appear in the text. It clearly applies to ANY "US persons" who engage in interstate or foreign commerce.
Context is important. The export import bank uses American taxpayer dollars to fund businesses. If you are planning to boycott a friendly country you cannot use American taxpayer dollars to do so.

Do you believe this act does something other than change the export import bank law?

[MisterVeritis]

The issue remains fundamentally unchanged.

The US government is trying to criminalize commercial boycotts of Israel.

This is a flagrant attack on our rights and our sovereignty.
I believe you are in error. To know for certain would require reading more than the poorly worded summary.

[Ethereal]

At the behest of foreign nations or international entities.
So what? What right does the US government have to tell me who I am allowed to boycott? It's my business. It's my property. I should have the right to withhold my services from whoever I want for any reason I want.

[Ethereal]

Context is important. The export import bank uses American taxpayer dollars to fund businesses. If you are planning to boycott a friendly country you cannot use American taxpayer dollars to do so.

Do you believe this act does something other than change the export import bank law?

From the text of the bill:


The bill prohibits U.S. persons engaged in interstate or foreign commerce from:
(1) requesting the imposition of any boycott by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States; or
(2) supporting any boycott fostered or imposed by an international organization, or requesting imposition of any such boycott, against Israel.

Read this, comprehend it, and then get back to me.

[Ethereal]

I believe you are in error. To know for certain would require reading more than the poorly worded summary.


The bill prohibits U.S. persons engaged in interstate or foreign commerce from:

requesting the imposition of any boycott by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States; or
supporting any boycott fostered or imposed by an international organization, or requesting imposition of any such boycott, against Israel.

[MisterVeritis]

From the text of the bill:
Read this, comprehend it, and then get back to me.
That looks like it was from the poorly worded summary.

[Ethereal]

That looks like it was from the poorly worded summary.
Yes, it is from the summary of the bill. Your opinion that it is "poorly worded" is irrelevant.

[MisterVeritis]

Yes, it is from the summary of the bill. Your opinion that it is "poorly worded" is irrelevant.
LOL. Okay. But it makes all the difference in the world.

[Common]

Republicans and Democrats are both pushing to criminalize commercial boycotts of Israel. The law, if passed, will open up violators to million dollar fines and twenty years in prison.

In other words, if you use your own property (your business) in furtherance of your free speech rights, the US government, on behalf of their Israeli masters in AIPAC, will RUIN you.

When asked about their position on the bill, several Senators and Representatives did not seem to know what was in it. Apparently, they will support anything the Israeli lobby shoves in their face.

And the most ironic and perverse part about this? Many of the co-sponsors for this bill are Democrats who have been obsessing over "Russian meddling" in American democracy. Yet, here they are, actively conspiring against the RIGHTS of Americans with a foreign power.

That this bill even has ONE sponsor, let alone dozens of them, is disgusting.
I bet Chuck Schumer is one democrat all over it. I support israel but this is bad bad politics

[Ethereal]

LOL. Okay. But it makes all the difference in the world.
It says what it says, plain as day. Whether or not you think it is "poorly worded" makes zero difference.

[MisterVeritis]

It says what it says, plain as day. Whether or not you think it is "poorly worded" makes zero difference.
Right. Moving on...

This is much ado...

[Peter1469]

The Jews actually got Trump elected.

Putin is just a facade to throw off the morons.

Don't forget white women.

[donttread]

Republicans and Democrats are both pushing to criminalize commercial boycotts of Israel. The law, if passed, will open up violators to million dollar fines and twenty years in prison.



Because that is exactly the amount they will take!
In other words, if you use your own property (your business) in furtherance of your free speech rights, the US government, on behalf of their Israeli masters in AIPAC, will RUIN you.

When asked about their position on the bill, several Senators and Representatives did not seem to know what was in it. Apparently, they will support anything the Israeli lobby shoves in their face.

And the most ironic and perverse part about this? Many of the co-sponsors for this bill are Democrats who have been obsessing over "Russian meddling" in American democracy. Yet, here they are, actively conspiring against the RIGHTS of Americans with a foreign power.

That this bill even has ONE sponsor, let alone dozens of them, is disgusting.

Twenty years in prison for a boycott? Kinda sounds like the horror stories my parents told be about a place called "Russia" back in the 60's and 70's.
So board menbers how much control are you willing to let the various forms of government you live under take over your daily behavior or that of your neighbor? Because whatever the answer is will be exactly the amount of control they will take.
As it is the average American is already walking a fine line between citizen and subject. But soon the line will disappear unless "we the people" get two things we need.
1) A set
2) A clue.

[Private Pickle]

If an American business wants to support a boycott movement, what difference does it make who fostered or imposed said boycott? Americans have every right to withhold their business and to use their business to promote their political beliefs, do they not?
Sure as long as it's not at the behest of a foreign nation or international entity.

[Private Pickle]

The issue remains fundamentally unchanged.

The US government is trying to criminalize commercial boycotts of Israel.

This is a flagrant attack on our rights and our sovereignty.

No it isn't. It's a preventative measure that ensures American companies don't take money or other "favors" from foreign countries or entities in order to push their agenda.

[Private Pickle]

So what? What right does the US government have to tell me who I am allowed to boycott? It's my business. It's my property. I should have the right to withhold my services from whoever I want for any reason I want.

And you still can. As long as it is not at the behest of a foreign country or international entity.

[donttread]

No it isn't. It's a preventative measure that ensures American companies don't take money or other "favors" from foreign countries or entities in order to push their agenda.

Sure because when laws like this are wrriten it's the corporate execs that go to jail. LOL

[The Xl]

Treasonous and unconstitutional.

[Private Pickle]

Sure because when laws like this are wrriten it's the corporate execs that go to jail. LOL

A lot of times it is... Regardless, I'm not sure what your point is... Your statement doesn't detract from the merit of the law.

[Private Pickle]

Treasonous and unconstitutional.
Treason requires a congressional declaration of war...

Which amendment in the Constitution are you referring to?

[The Xl]

Treason requires a congressional declaration of war...

Which amendment in the Constitution are you referring to?

Working for another country at the expense of our citizens is treason.

[Private Pickle]

Working for another country at the expense of our citizens is treason.

Only if they are an enemy. This according to the U.S. Constitution Article III.

[MisterVeritis]

Working for another country at the expense of our citizens is treason.
No. It isn't.

[Ethereal]

Sure as long as it's not at the behest of a foreign nation or international entity.
What difference does that make? Does my business cease being my property? Do I stop having the right to use my property to further my political beliefs?

[Ethereal]

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.


The bill prohibits U.S. persons engaged in interstate or foreign commerce from:

requesting the imposition of any boycott by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States; or
supporting any boycott fostered or imposed by an international organization, or requesting imposition of any such boycott, against Israel.


"Supporting any boycott fostered or imposed by an international organization," being the operative clause.

That means exactly what is says, i.e., if a US person engaged in interstate or foreign commerce "supports" a boycott that was "fostered" or "imposed" by, say, Amnesty International, then I could be fined a million dollars or thrown in jail for twenty years.

And you support this tyranny, apparently.

[Ethereal]

And you still can. As long as it is not at the behest of a foreign country or international entity.
First of all, "behest" is your word. The actual words used in the summary you cited are "fostered" or "imposed".

Secondly, what difference does it make who fostered or imposed the boycott? You think it's okay to throw an American in jail or hit them with a massive fine because their boycott of Israel was inspired by Amnesty International?

Thirdly, ANY boycott of Israel would likely run afoul of this law. Again, the summary you cited implies as much:


The bill prohibits U.S. persons engaged in interstate or foreign commerce from:

requesting the imposition of any boycott by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States; or
supporting any boycott fostered or imposed by an international organization, or requesting imposition of any such boycott, against Israel.


See how it says "any" boycott? You may respond that this language is qualified by the ensuing language, but how does one make such a distinction between boycotts?

In other words, if an American business boycotts Israel, then how will the authorities tell the difference between one that was "fostered or imposed by an international organization" and that was not?

[Ethereal]

A lot of times it is... Regardless, I'm not sure what your point is... Your statement doesn't detract from the merit of the law.
The law has zero merit.

It's a blatant assault on the liberty of Americans on behalf of a foreign power.

[Ethereal]

Only if they are an enemy. This according to the U.S. Constitution Article III.

Actually, the definition of treason includes levying war against the US, and one could argue that an assault on our rights is levying war against us.

[Private Pickle]

What difference does that make? Does my business cease being my property? Do I stop having the right to use my property to further my political beliefs?
It makes a difference as it mitigates foreign influence on American corporations through bribes or other favors to push a political agenda.

[Private Pickle]

Yes, it is.



"Supporting any boycott fostered or imposed by an international organization," being the operative clause.

That means exactly what is says, i.e., if a US person engaged in interstate or foreign commerce "supports" a boycott that was "fostered" or "imposed" by, say, Amnesty International, then I could be fined a million dollars or thrown in jail for twenty years.

And you support this tyranny, apparently.
Correct. The Constitution does not apply to foreign countries or international entities.

If you as a business owner wants to boycott Israel on your own you're fine regardless of whether you partake in international commerce. The problem comes in when you boycott Israel because a foreign entity has bribed you to do so.

[Ethereal]

From the ACLU:

https://goo.gl/KThpGq

This bill is attempting to criminalize commercial boycotts of Israel, period.

[Private Pickle]

First of all, "behest" is your word. The actual words used in the summary you cited are "fostered" or "imposed".

Same thing.


Secondly, what difference does it make who fostered or imposed the boycott? You think it's okay to throw an American in jail or hit them with a massive fine because their boycott of Israel was inspired by Amnesty International?

I prefer Hamas not have their hands in American corporations and how they treat other foreign countries...

Thirdly, ANY boycott of Israel would likely run afoul of this law. Again, the summary you cited implies as much:



See how it says "any" boycott? You may respond that this language is qualified by the ensuing language, but how does one make such a distinction between boycotts?

Because an American corporation can boycott all they want as long as it wasn't "fostered or imposed" by a foreign entity.


In other words, if an American business boycotts Israel, then how will the authorities tell the difference between one that was "fostered or imposed by an international organization" and that was not?

The burden of proof is with the prosecution.

[Ethereal]

It makes a difference as it mitigates foreign influence on American corporations through bribes or other favors to push a political agenda.

Foreign influence to push a political agenda, you say? Sort of like Israeli lobbyists pressuring the US Congress to criminalize commercial boycotts of their country?

Anyway, the language that prohibits commercial boycotts of Israel says nothing about "bribes" or "favors". You keep trying to move the goalposts by inserting extraneous terms into the discussion.

[Ethereal]

Correct. The Constitution does not apply to foreign countries or international entities.

If you as a business owner wants to boycott Israel on your own you're fine regardless of whether you partake in international commerce. The problem comes in when you boycott Israel because a foreign entity has bribed you to do so.
Now you're just making things up. The bill says nothing about bribery.

[Private Pickle]

Actually, the definition of treason includes levying war against the US, and one could argue that an assault on our rights is levying war against us.
It would be a stretch and would never hold up in court. In this country's history we've had less than 40 cases of treason and much less in convictions.

[Private Pickle]

Foreign influence to push a political agenda, you say? Sort of like Israeli lobbyists pressuring the US Congress to criminalize commercial boycotts of their country?

Lobbying is legal for all. No one is saying that foreign countries or entities can't lobby the U.S. government for boycotts or sanctions.


Anyway, the language that prohibits commercial boycotts of Israel says nothing about "bribes" or "favors". You keep trying to move the goalposts by inserting extraneous terms into the discussion.

That is obviously the reasoning behind the bill.

[Private Pickle]

Now you're just making things up. The bill says nothing about bribery.

"Imposed or Fostered". It covers bribery and favors does it not?

[Private Pickle]

The law has zero merit.

It's a blatant assault on the liberty of Americans on behalf of a foreign power.

It has nothing to do with the liberty of Americans as they are still free to boycott whomever they want.

[Ethereal]

Same thing.

No it isn't. Do I really need to bust out the dictionary?


I prefer Hamas not have their hands in American corporations and how they treat other foreign countries...

So if a US company boycotts Israel, that means Hamas has its hands in that company? Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion.


Because an American corporation can boycott all they want as long as it wasn't "fostered or imposed" by a foreign entity.

And how does one tell the difference between a boycott that was "fostered or imposed" by an international organization and one that wasn't?


The burden of proof is with the prosecution.

Theoretically that is true. But it seldom works that way in practice. Either way, it shouldn't matter if the boycott was "fostered" by the UN or if it was the brainchild of the US person. An American should have the right to withhold their services from Israel for any reason they want because it is THEIR PROPERTY.

[Ethereal]

It would be a stretch and would never hold up in court.

Truth and justice rarely triumph in government courts.

[Ethereal]

Lobbying is legal for all. No one is saying that foreign countries or entities can't lobby the U.S. government for boycotts or sanctions.

So "foreign influence" on the US government is okay, but "foreign influence" on US companies is not?


That is obviously the reasoning behind the bill.

According to who?

[Ethereal]

"Imposed or Fostered". It covers bribery and favors does it not?
No, it does not.

One, bribery is already illegal and has been for some time.

Two, bribery only applies to the corruption of public officials, not private commercial entities.

In fact, you would have better luck applying the "bribery" label to the influence Israeli lobbyists are exercising over the US Congress.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that this language is somehow meant to include "bribery" and "favors". That does not change the fact that it also includes boycotts absent any "bribery" or "favors". For example, if an American business supports the boycott "fostered" by Amnesty International in the complete absence of any "bribes" or "favors", that business would still be liable for massive fines and jail time. How could you think that is right?

[Ethereal]

It has nothing to do with the liberty of Americans as they are still free to boycott whomever they want.

The US government is attempting to tell Americans who they can boycott and under what conditions they can boycott them. It has everything to do with liberty.

[Private Pickle]

No it isn't. Do I really need to bust out the dictionary?

Your call.
So if a US company boycotts Israel, that means Hamas has its hands in that company? Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion.

I'm suggesting it's within the realm of possibility. Are you suggesting it isn't or do you think it's just feel good organizations like Amnesty?



And how does one tell the difference between a boycott that was "fostered or imposed" by an international organization and one that wasn't?

The burden of proof sits with the prosecution.


Theoretically that is true. But it seldom works that way in practice. Either way, it shouldn't matter if the boycott was "fostered" by the UN or if it was the brainchild of the US person. An American should have the right to withhold their services from Israel for any reason they want because it is THEIR PROPERTY.

Americans still have that right but not for any reason. If that were the case sanctions would be meaningless.

[Private Pickle]

Truth and justice rarely triumph in government courts.

Do you have anything to back that statement up?

[Private Pickle]

So "foreign influence" on the US government is okay, but "foreign influence" on US companies is not?

Can lobbyists bribe American politicians to sway their vote?

According to who?

47 Senators.

[Private Pickle]

No, it does not.

One, bribery is already illegal and has been for some time.

Two, bribery only applies to the corruption of public officials, not private commercial entities.

There are different forms... Lower pricing for example.

But the bottom line is that an American corporation cannot be made to support a boycott as a result of a foreign country's whims.


In fact, you would have better luck applying the "bribery" label to the influence Israeli lobbyists are exercising over the US Congress.

I thought it was illegal...


But let's assume for the sake of argument that this language is somehow meant to include "bribery" and "favors". That does not change the fact that it also includes boycotts absent any "bribery" or "favors". For example, if an American business supports the boycott "fostered" by Amnesty International in the complete absence of any "bribes" or "favors", that business would still be liable for massive fines and jail time. How could you think that is right?

Because that company might do it as a result of AI telling them that if they didn't their company would be boycotted... At that point it has nothing to do with what an American thinks...it has to do with coercion or blackmail.

[Private Pickle]

The US government is attempting to tell Americans who they can boycott and under what conditions they can boycott them. It has everything to do with liberty.

Not so much. They just can't do it if the boycott is "fostered or imposed" by a foreign government. I.E. Keep the foreign governments and entities that have agendas out of American commerce...

[Standing Wolf]

Not so much. They just can't do it if the boycott is "fostered or imposed" by a foreign government. I.E. Keep the foreign governments and entities that have agendas out of American commerce...

Even if your "nothing to see here" spin were totally accurate - and of course it isn't - the question would remain: Why just Israel? America has many longstanding allies; some of them don't even blow off U.S. condemnations of their actions, don't demand billions in military aid from us, and have never even stolen our nuclear secrets. So why is Israel the only foreign power that certain politicians feel needs to be protected in this way - even if the free speech and property rights of American citizens is imperiled in the process?

[MisterVeritis]

Even if your "nothing to see here" spin were totally accurate - and of course it isn't - the question would remain: Why just Israel? America has many longstanding allies; some of them don't even blow off U.S. condemnations of their actions, don't demand billions in military aid from us, and have never even stolen our nuclear secrets. So why is Israel the only foreign power that certain politicians feel needs to be protected in this way - even if the free speech and property rights of American citizens is imperiled in the process?
It says any friendly country.

Do as you wish. Do not expect to do it with taxpayer dollars.

[Standing Wolf]

It says any friendly country.

Do as you wish. Do not expect to do it with taxpayer dollars.

You are doing the selective reading thing again.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720

[MisterVeritis]

You are doing the selective reading thing again.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720
"The bill prohibits U.S. persons engaged in interstate or foreign commerce from:

requesting the imposition of any boycott by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States; or"

I admit I am guilty of selective reading. I selected to read.

If you have questions please ask.

[Private Pickle]

Even if your "nothing to see here" spin were totally accurate - and of course it isn't - the question would remain: Why just Israel? America has many longstanding allies; some of them don't even blow off U.S. condemnations of their actions, don't demand billions in military aid from us, and have never even stolen our nuclear secrets. So why is Israel the only foreign power that certain politicians feel needs to be protected in this way - even if the free speech and property rights of American citizens is imperiled in the process?

You'd have to ask them. My guess is that most terrorist organizations in the world are avid haters of the Jews and they are trying to mitigate the amount of influence they have in American commerce and politics.

[Standing Wolf]

"The bill prohibits U.S. persons engaged in interstate or foreign commerce from:

requesting the imposition of any boycott by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States; or"
I admit I am guilty of selective reading. I selected to read.

If you have questions please ask.

Israel Anti-Boycott Act

This bill declares that Congress: (1) opposes the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution of March 24, 2016, which urges countries to pressure companies to divest from, or break contracts with, Israel; and (2) encourages full implementation of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 through enhanced, governmentwide, coordinated U.S.-Israel scientific and technological cooperation in civilian areas.


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.
The bill prohibits U.S. persons engaged in interstate or foreign commerce from:

requesting the imposition of any boycott by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States; or
supporting any boycott fostered or imposed by an international organization, or requesting imposition of any such boycott, against Israel.
The bill amends the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to include as a reason for the Export-Import Bank to deny credit applications for the export of goods and services between the United States and foreign countries, opposition to policies and actions that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with citizens or residents of Israel, entities organized under the laws of Israel, or the Government of Israel.

[MisterVeritis]

Israel Anti-Boycott Act

This bill declares that Congress: (1) opposes the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution of March 24, 2016, which urges countries to pressure companies to divest from, or break contracts with, Israel; and (2) encourages full implementation of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 through enhanced, governmentwide, coordinated U.S.-Israel scientific and technological cooperation in civilian areas.


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.
The bill prohibits U.S. persons engaged in interstate or foreign commerce from:

requesting the imposition of any boycott by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States; or
supporting any boycott fostered or imposed by an international organization, or requesting imposition of any such boycott, against Israel.
The bill amends the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to include as a reason for the Export-Import Bank to deny credit applications for the export of goods and services between the United States and foreign countries, opposition to policies and actions that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with citizens or residents of Israel, entities organized under the laws of Israel, or the Government of Israel.
I had no doubt that you would double down.

You should have selected, I would use chosen, to read carefully. You didn't.

Why not just say, "You were right MisterVeritis. Thank you for your correction."

[Standing Wolf]

Ten words out of the entire Summary - that's all you're able to see?

IOGU.

[Ethereal]

47 Senators.

Then you should have no problem finding a direct quote from one or all of these senators stating that is their intent.

[MisterVeritis]

Ten words out of the entire Summary - that's all you're able to see?

IOGU.
The point is I see. And you do not. What other blind spots do you have?

[Ethereal]

Whose interpretation of this legal text should we go with?

The foremost defender of free speech rights in America, the ACLU, or two guys on the internet who are zealously pro-Israel?

Tough choice.

[MisterVeritis]

Whose interpretation of this legal text should we go with?

The foremost defender of free speech rights in America, the ACLU, or two guys on the internet who are zealously pro-Israel?

Tough choice.
If you lack confidence feel free to go with someone else.

[Ethereal]

If you lack confidence feel free to go with someone else.

I'll go with the people who have been on the right side of free speech issues for decades, whereas you will side with domestic tyranny imposed by a foreign power.

[MisterVeritis]

I'll go with the people who have been on the right side of free speech issues for decades, whereas you will side with domestic tyranny imposed by a foreign power.
It is okay to admit you cannot trust your ability to read.

[Ethereal]

It is okay to admit you cannot trust your ability to read.

It is okay to admit you favor tyranny.

[MisterVeritis]

It is okay to admit you favor tyranny.
:-) Your behavior is buffoonish.

There is no tyranny there. Do as you wish but don't expect to use tax dollars to do it.

[AeonPax]

`
The jews.........

[Private Pickle]

Then you should have no problem finding a direct quote from one or all of these senators stating that is their intent.

Neither should you.

[Private Pickle]

It is okay to admit you favor tyranny.
It's okay to admit it that you are biased against the Jews.

[Ethereal]

It's okay to admit it that you are biased against the Jews.
If I were biased against them, then I would admit it. But I am not, so I don't.

But I am biased against tyranny, and this law certainly qualifies as such.

[Ethereal]

Neither should you.
You're the one making the claim, so the onus falls on you to support it. Seems you cannot.

[William]

Even if your "nothing to see here" spin were totally accurate - and of course it isn't - the question would remain: Why just Israel? America has many longstanding allies; some of them don't even blow off U.S. condemnations of their actions, don't demand billions in military aid from us, and have never even stolen our nuclear secrets. So why is Israel the only foreign power that certain politicians feel needs to be protected in this way - even if the free speech and property rights of American citizens is imperiled in the process?

I did wonder why Israel was specially mentioned. The UK is the USA's strongest ally - in every sense of the word - and yet it never gets a mention when Americans are talking about their allies. It wasn't Israel who sent their young men to die in Afghanistan and Iraq in American military adventures. I don't think any Israeli has ever given his life for another country, yet I hear Americans often criticising the UK, but almost never Israel - why is that? Is AIPAC really such a strong influence on ordinary Americans? :huh:

[Standing Wolf]

Is AIPAC really such a strong influence on ordinary Americans? :huh:

Yes, but only indirectly. The average American has probably never heard of AIPAC, but its influence on politicians and the media filters down and causes certain images and attitudes to prevail. Any criticism, however well justified, of Israel is reflexively linked to anti-Semitism and neo-Nazis, etc., and since large segments of the American people seem predisposed to make that connection, they are in large measure simply being given what they want and expect.

[Private Pickle]

If I were biased against them, then I would admit it. But I am not, so I don't.

But I am biased against tyranny, and this law certainly qualifies as such.

Nah. Not really. And you are avidly anti-Israel...it's plain as day. You can at least admit that...

[Private Pickle]

By the way the idea that anyone is going to prison over this is completely exaggerated.


A bill sponsored by roughly half the members of Congress would — so we are warned by New York magazine (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/senate-bill-would-make-it-a-federal-crime-to-boycott-israel.html), at least — “make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel” and “make avoiding the purchase of Israeli goods for political reasons a federal crime.”

Would the bill really do that? No, not as sweepingly as those passages suggest.


https://ricochet.com/443892/senates-israel-anti-boycott-act-good-intentions-bad-results/

[Private Pickle]

You're the one making the claim, so the onus falls on you to support it. Seems you cannot.

The bill is the proof.

[Tahuyaman]

It looks like the bill prevents a company from using American tax dollars to boycott friendly nations. I support it.
I suspect that the anti-Israel types are misrepresenting the complete facts on this.

[Ethereal]

Nah. Not really. And you are avidly anti-Israel...it's plain as day. You can at least admit that...
There are many things I like about Israel, though, so how could I be "anti-Israel"?

[Private Pickle]

There are many things I like about Israel, though, so how could I be "anti-Israel"?

I've never seen you post a thread on anything pro-Israel...hence anti-Israel...

[Private Pickle]

I suspect that the anti-Israel types are misrepresenting the complete facts on this.
They are...

Sweeping prison time? False.

Stopping American corporations from boycotting Israel? False.

[Ethereal]

By the way the idea that anyone is going to prison over this is completely exaggerated.



https://ricochet.com/443892/senates-israel-anti-boycott-act-good-intentions-bad-results/

Way to cherry pick the one line in that article that tends to support your interpretation of this law.

From the rest of the article:


Would the bill really do that? No, not as sweepingly as those passages suggest. But even shorn of the exaggeration, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), sponsored by Sens. Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Rob Portman (R-OH), is plenty bad enough. By punishing boycott participation grounded in political belief, it would infringe on individual liberty. I don’t like the BDS (“Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions”) movement one bit, but sponsors of this bill — who include conservatives like Sens. Ben Sasse (R-NE), Mario Rubio (R-FL), and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), as well as progressives like Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) — need to face some tough questions about how it squares with the First Amendment.

[...]

Neither the current law nor the bill, then, proposes to ban all participation in Israel boycotts: if your refusals to deal are strictly homegrown and no motive of assisting a government-led or future UN or EU boycott comes into them at any point, you’d still be okay. Is that especially comforting? The bill seems to contemplate liability even for persons who are neither agents of the EU or another foreign entity nor, say, multinational businesses trying to keep them happy: so long as advancing some future boycott organized by such a body were part of your motive, you might be in trouble even if your actions followed the advice of some activist at your church or student group. And violations are subject to a minimum civil fine of $250,000, a ruinous sum for many.

[...]

Of particular concern, free-speech-wise: S. 720 creates new liability arising from “requests” both to join a boycott and to furnish information to facilitate boycotts. Although the meaning of the new language is far from clear, it likely means that the bill would ban a swath of previously legal speech about boycotts.

So even the article you cherry-picked admits that this bill does run afoul of liberty. And nowhere in the article does it say prison is off the table.

[Dr. Who]

Republicans and Democrats are both pushing to criminalize commercial boycotts of Israel. The law, if passed, will open up violators to million dollar fines and twenty years in prison.

In other words, if you use your own property (your business) in furtherance of your free speech rights, the US government, on behalf of their Israeli masters in AIPAC, will RUIN you.

When asked about their position on the bill, several Senators and Representatives did not seem to know what was in it. Apparently, they will support anything the Israeli lobby shoves in their face.

And the most ironic and perverse part about this? Many of the co-sponsors for this bill are Democrats who have been obsessing over "Russian meddling" in American democracy. Yet, here they are, actively conspiring against the RIGHTS of Americans with a foreign power.

That this bill even has ONE sponsor, let alone dozens of them, is disgusting.
That's just wrong and it's hypocritical. How is it a government can take economic sanctions at will against a foreign government, but an individual cannot boycott their products or encourage others to do so, just because one's government supports that entity. A government should not be more free than its people.

[Ethereal]

The bill is the proof.
So you have nothing.

[Ethereal]

I've never seen you post a thread on anything pro-Israel...hence anti-Israel...
Is this pro-Israeli enough?

https://goo.gl/nxMFfw

[Ethereal]

They are...

Sweeping prison time? False.

Stopping American corporations from boycotting Israel? False.
Wow.

You are the one who just got caught dishonestly cherry picking an article, yet you're accusing me of misrepresenting facts?

I think the problem here is not that I'm "anti-Israeli" as you have falsely claimed, but that you are so zealously pro-Israel that any serious criticisms of Israel is unacceptable.

[Tahuyaman]

They are...

Sweeping prison time? False.

Stopping American corporations from boycotting Israel? False.

they won't admit it or admit why.

[Private Pickle]

Way to cherry pick the one line in that article that tends to support your interpretation of this law.

From the rest of the article:



So even the article you cherry-picked admits that this bill does run afoul of liberty. And nowhere in the article does it say prison is off the table.

His opinion is that runs afoul of liberty. The fact is people won't be going to jail. Even the sponsors of the bill say that.

[Private Pickle]

Wow.

You are the one who just got caught dishonestly cherry picking an article, yet you're accusing me of misrepresenting facts?

I think the problem here is not that I'm "anti-Israeli" as you have falsely claimed, but that you are so zealously pro-Israel that any serious criticisms of Israel is unacceptable.
You keep saying I cherry picked that article and am dishonest now... All I did was show you that the sweeping prison time you keep eluding to is false. I really don't have to agree with the author of the article on his opinion to use him as a source do I?

In fact you cherry picked in the OP. Implying this was a general law prohibiting the boycott of Israel... Never once mentioning the specifics with regards to foreign countries or entities...

Get over yourself and your righteous indignation...

[Private Pickle]

So you have nothing.

You mean other than the bill?

[Private Pickle]

Is this pro-Israeli enough?



No idea... Looks like a picture of a forum to me.