anti - boycott
the us even boycotts this boycott: american taxpayers fund a federal department called the office of anti - boycott compliance which can fine companies proved to have participated in any boycott of israel .
mr. dakwar is wrong, and his tweet is anti - semitic. jonathan greenblatt, ceo of the anti - defamation league, said at a symposium held at the united nations, “racism in all forms is intolerable. anti - zionism is anti - semitism. both are unacceptable. ”
it is little wonder, then, that opponents of the israel anti - boycott act feel the need to exaggerate what the act does. it only makes clear that the old and existing anti - boycott law applies not just to the arab league boycott, but also to the new foreign anti - israel boycotts, such as those being organized by the u. n. human rights council .
in response, the aclu, a civil liberties organization, has paradoxically come out strongly against this anti - discrimination bill, arguing in a letter they sent to senators that the israel anti - boycott act would violate the right to free speech .
any boycott fostered or imposed by any international governmental organization against israel or any request by any international governmental organization to impose such a boycott .
[ 3 ] ben cardin, setting the record straight: nothing in the israel anti - boycott act restricts constitutionally - protected free speech, medium, july 20, 2017, urltoken @ senatorbencardin / setting - the - record - straight - nothing - in - the - the - israel - anti - boycott - act - restricts - constitutionally - 13bfa7428d8 .
the israel anti - boycott act is not an effort to suppress free speech, but an important weapon in the fight against hate and intolerance. passing federal legislation now would send a powerful message: anti - semitism is not welcome in america and israel is our great friend and ally .
the israel anti - boycott act is a minor updating of a venerable statute that has been at the center of the u. s. consensus on israel policy — the laws designed to counteract arab states’ boycott of israel by barring americans from joining such boycotts .
is the aclu actually attempting to sway congressional debate against israel? the red flags are alarming, including this recent tweet by jamil dakwar, director of the aclu’s human rights program: “israeli leaders exploit horrible acts of anti - semitism to encourage jews to move to israel. judaism ≠ zionism; anti - zionism ≠ anti - semitism. ”
using multiple social media platforms involving a global community of israel supporters of all faiths, members of the buycott network can call for a buycott to support a store being targeted for anti - israel boycott action. activists then selectively purchase from that store to offset and swamp the boycott effort .
greenblatt and guterres would agree with me that anti - zionism equals anti - semitism. to deny this connection is to deny reality. greenblatt even confronted the aclu directly in response to its top “human rights” official making such a despicable statement .
it is beyond doubt that boycott, divestment and sanctions (bds) is not just a pro - palestinian - anti - israel movement. it is at its core, antisemitic. in july ...
notably, the israel anti - boycott act does not change the list of prohibited actions. the same actions that have been forbidden since 1979 if taken with the improper motive would remain forbidden under the proposed law .
successes are widely publicized so anti - israel activists know their campaigns were ineffective. as a result of buycott, we have seen a marked decrease in the number of boycott actions aimed at israel over the last two years .
one hundred national and local civil and human rights organizations endorsed a joint statement to members of congress expressing strong opposition to the israel anti - boycott act and calling on lawmakers to reject - rather than amend - the bill .
so, in a way, the israel anti - boycott act, and the aclu’s opposition to it, are each a perfect response to the conversation about the bds movement itself: confusing, pandering, and above all, angry .
the israel anti - boycott act principally seeks to amend the export administration act of 1979. that law prohibits “u. s. persons” — a term that refers to both individuals and companies — from taking certain actions to comply with or support a boycott imposed by a foreign country against another country that is friendly to the united states .
klein, jill g. , n. craig smith and andrew john (2004) ,
why we boycott: consumer motivations for boycott participation ,
journal of marketing, 68 (july) 2004 .
the complete and utter failure of the aclu to recognize anti - zionism as anti - semitism is unacceptable. that failure loans credence to those who say the aclu has become a political tool of the alt - left. given the storied history of this organization, that’s a genuine tragedy .
boycott agreements under the tra involve the denial of all or part of the foreign tax benefits discussed above .
while signing it, he made a statement, objecting to parts of the law that oppose boycotts of jewish israeli enterprises in the west bank and golan heights. (the law’s anti - boycott protections apply to “israel” and “israeli - controlled territories. ” )
the 1979 law responded to the arab league’s boycott of israel. at the time, countries in the arab league would require u. s. businesses to boycott israel and israeli companies, and furnish information to verify the boycott, as a condition of doing business. to prevent foreign countries from dragooning u. s. businesses into these compulsory boycotts, the 1979 law prohibited u. s. companies from complying with foreign boycott requirements .
paying, honoring, confirming or otherwise implementing a letter of credit that contains any prohibited boycott requirement or request .
, “anti - semitism is a word that has been used throughout history when jewish people are judged and measured by one standard and the rest by another. so it is with anti - zionism; the idea that all other peoples can seek and defend their right to self - determination, but jews cannot. ”
the arab league boycott of israel is the principal foreign economic boycott that u. s. companies must be concerned with today. the antiboycott laws, however, apply to all boycotts imposed by foreign countries that are unsanctioned by the united states .
the international trade team at holland & hart is well equipped to answer questions about current and proposed antiboycott regulations and how these regulations may affect your international operations. our team will provide updates on the israel anti - boycott act and the multi - state blockade of qatar as these situations develop .
by antónio guterres, the sectary general of the united nations, who told the simon wiesenthal center that the “denial of israel’s right to exist is anti - semitism. ”
the ear requires reports of receipts of boycott requests to be filed quarterly. reports may be filed electronically or by mail on form bis 621 - p for single transactions or bis 6051p for multiple transactions involving boycott requests received in the same calendar quarter .
indeed, the bds movement is highly disingenuous about this very ambiguity, refusing to define exactly what it is for and what it’s against. is the bds movement against israel’s occupation, or against israel’s existence? is it for two states, or one state? by refusing to clarify its aims, refusing to condemn terrorism, and refusing to silence the anti - semites within its ranks, the bds movement has left itself open to the right - wing charge that its anti - zionism is merely repackaged anti - semitism .
the threat of a boycott and its attendant publicity is probably far more important than the boycott itself. activists can now deploy an armoury of extra weapons to act as hard and soft levers on corporate behaviour, however. shareholder power is a growing force .
if you really want to hit amazon where it hurts, mulpuru - kodali suggested an anti - boycott. amazon often sells certain products like diapers and toilet paper at costs so low, the company actually loses money on them — especially if it has to deliver them directly to amazon prime customers’ doors in two days or less .
the israel anti - boycott act was introduced to reinforce bipartisan consensus that boycotting israel is inimical to u. s. foreign policy interests. the act simply extends existing u. s. law prohibiting participation in boycotts led by foreign governments against israel to include boycotts led by international governmental organizations such as the united nations and the european union .
violators of the israel anti - boycott act would face a minimum civil penalty of $ 250, 000 and / or criminal penalties of up to a maximum of $ 1 million and 20 years imprisonment. these are the current penalty levels for violations of the antiboycott laws under the international emergency economics powers act (“ieepa”). [ 1 ]
the tra does not
prohibit
conduct, but denies tax benefits (
penalizes
) for certain types of boycott - related agreements .
boycott agreements may involve the denial of foreign tax benefits, as well as a denial of export privileges, and possible exclusion from trade practices .
providing information to the u. n. about whether it does business with israel to support any u. n. - fostered boycott of israel
but even apart from limiting the right to boycott by refusing to purchase goods for political reasons, the bill infringes on pure speech. it prohibits even requests for information about whether a person is doing business in israel in order to support a boycott of israel, regardless of whether the requester is actually engaged in a boycott. this additional prohibition will chill people from seeking information about companies boycotting israel or engaged in business dealings in israel .
it looks like the boycotts have transferred the orbit of the nation. so even today, people regard consumer activism as an instrument to drive firms back onto moral tracks. but through researches, we surprisingly get to realize the weakening of the power of this type of consumer activism. the question is what happened to boycotts and what the problems hampering boycotters are. ?. consumer boycott basics a. what is a consumer boycott? and for what purposes do we boycott? to make it simpler, a consumer boycott, in plain words, is to show dissatisfaction by refusing to purchase something .
the act amends anti - boycott provisions of the federal export administration act (eaa), enacted in 1979. [ 1 ] those provisions prohibit specific actions taken to comply with or support a boycott of israel “fostered or imposed” by a foreign country. the sponsors of the new act propose to add new restrictions on boycotts “fostered or imposed” by an international governmental organization (igo), such as the european union or the united nations. violations are punishable by exorbitant fines and up to 20 years in prison .
requesting information about whether any person is doing business in israel if doing so is intended to help a u. n. - fostered boycott of israel .
those actions include boycotting an ally nation and communicating to a foreign nation or governmental group steps taken to support or comply with boycott demands. this is where first amendment concerns arise because communicating boycott support or compliance is necessarily an act of speech. but this is also where opponents of the bill overstate their case .
potential buyers problem if you love your pet dogs so much, and you know a cosmetics firm is conducting experiments with dogs, will you buy those cosmetics? the answer is definitely “no”. then will you join in a boycott against the firm? yes, why not? then here comes the problem. the people who are most likely to participate in this boycott are not potential buyers at all! you will not buy it anyway no matter there is a boycott or not. as for those big buyers, they are the people who really need the cosmetics, thus the chance for them to join the boycott is slim !
[ 4 ] although one provision of the eaa was upheld on commercial speech grounds, the law was never challenged for its restrictions on political speech. briggs & stratton corp. v. baldridge, 728 f. 2d 915 (7th cir. 1984). as described in this document, the israel anti - boycott act would significantly increase the law’s infringement on political speech .
outline? . introduction1? . consumer boycott basics1 a. what is a consumer boycott? and for what purposes do we boycott? 1 b. the criterion of success of a consumer boycott2? problems3 a. historical problems3 1. the good old times for boycotters and the first obstacle: legality. 3 2. post - world war? : cpas and anti - cpas wars. 5 b. inherent problems. 5 1. small - agent problem. 5 2. marginal analysis problem6 3. potential buyers problem8 4. free - rider problem. 8 5. restoration and immunity. 9 6. counterproductive effect. 10 7. time - inconsistency problem. 10? . the summary11
the aclu, the intercept and aipac are all yelling about a nothingburger of a bill that fights an imaginary boycott, and no one is making any sense .
some progressives are up in arms about a new law that would make it a crime to boycott israel. trouble is, there' s no such thing .
the specific focus of the proposed legislation on international bodies is necessitated by the new and dramatic growth of international anti - israel movements that are attempting to use the un and eu as vehicles to promote economic boycotts against israel .
the column was widely shared by similarly outraged people on social media pledging to boycott the company as well. but in a delicious piece of irony that demonstrates just how hard it is to effectively boycott a company like amazon, they were breaking their own pledges by reading the article and breaking them again by clicking “tweet. ”
more amusingly, italian and greek consumer associations have been attempting to boycott the euro after suggestions that retailers used the changeover from the lira and drachma to raise prices .
“for the purpose of implementing the policies set forth in subparagraph (a) or (b) of paragraph (5) of section 4602 of this title, the president shall issue regulations prohibiting any united states person, with respect to his activities in the interstate or foreign commerce of the united states, from taking or knowingly agreeing to take any of the following actions with intent to comply with, further, or support any boycott fostered or imposed by a foreign country, or request to impose any boycott by a foreign country, against a country which is friendly to the united states and which is not itself the object of any form of boycott pursuant to united states law or regulation, or support any boycott fostered or imposed by any international governmental organization against israel or request to impose any boycott by any international governmental organization against israel. ”
the ear requires u. s. persons to report quarterly requests they have received to take certain actions to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott .
let’s start at the beginning, which in this case is 1977. in the throes of the arab boycott of israel, congress passed the export administration act, which made it a crime to participate in that boycott, or, for good measure, any other foreign - led boycott of a u. s. ally. this law is still in effect today, having been reauthorized several times. take a look at the website of the office of antiboycott compliance, which explains it to you in detail .
as the oac explains, while the law addresses all “u. s. persons, ” it is actually about corporations, which are forbidden from joining the boycott, or cooperating with the boycotters by furnishing them any information. exceptions are provided for companies that are effectively forced to cooperate to avoid the “secondary boycott” of countries who do business with israel .
as always, the first step in determining what a law would do is to go to the text itself. the proposed anti - boycott act would amend a 1979 law (codified at 50 u. s. code § 4607) by expanding its prohibition on commercial boycotts directed at friendly nations in coordination with a foreign nation. the expansion simply includes boycotts directed at allies in coordination with an
international governmental organization .
the blacklist is not a mere research project. it will serve as the basis for economic action against the listed firms. indeed, the unhrc has not been coy about its motives; a year after passing the resolution calling for the database, it passed a resolution that in effect calls for a partial boycott against israel. (existing federal boycott regulations make clear that a regulated boycott call need not be explicit .) it is quite likely that u. n. agencies will begin avoiding business with companies because of those companies’ business with israel .
the scope of the ear, as defined by section 8 of the eaa, is limited to actions taken with intent to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott .
refusing to employ or otherwise discriminating against a u. s. person, in deference to a boycott request, on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin ;
for immediate release november 5, 2017 ottawa, on – today, an initiative to advance boycott - divestment - sanctions (bds) against israel was defeated at the students’ federation ...
for immediate release october 25, 2017 winnipeg, mb – today, a motion in favour of boycott - divestment - sanctions (bds) against israel was voted down at the ...
by including within its purview the west bank, the israel anti - boycott act does not legitimize west bank settlements or represent a change in u. s. policy; the bill itself provides that it shall not “be construed to alter the established policy of the united states or to establish new united states policy concerning final status issues associated with the arab - israeli conflict, including border delineation, that can only be resolved through direct negotiations between the parties. ”
the current prohibition against cooperating with foreign governments to boycott israel has withstood first amendment challenges, and so has hate crime legislation. if current law is constitutional, then so is the proposed law .
a new york times’ expose of working conditions at urltoken inc. was the last straw for stuart heritage, who penned a column for the guardian arguing it’s time to boycott the web retail behemoth .
the eaa lists a number of penalties for violations of the anti - boycott regulations. some of the penalties include a fine of up to $ 50, 000 or five times the value of the exports involved (whichever is greater), with a possible imprisonment term of up to five years. additionally, during times when the u. s. president invokes action from the international emergency economic powers act, the criminal penalties may double the length of imprisonment for up to ten years .
“what would you even boycott? ” said sucharita mulpuru - kodali, an analyst at forrester research who covers amazon. “how can you clean yourself from amazon unless you take yourself off the grid entirely? ”
the law does not criminalize communications of support or compliance with a boycott generally; it criminalizes communications of support or compliance in the specific case where those communications are made with the intent to foster or comply with a boycott imposed by a foreign nation or international governmental organization. nor does the law punish solely for the expression of political belief, as the aclu claims, but rather prohibits a specific series of listed actions .
it is not just left - wing students who are now involved in consumer activism now. everybody is boycotting something, or threatening to do so. greenpeace’s action sought to plug into the global wave of anti - war protests that brought a record 1. 5 million people onto the streets .
finally, it is hard to put into words the irony of watching many of the most celebrated and beloved congressional leaders of the anti - authoritarian resistance — gillibrand, schiff, swalwell, and lieu — sponsor one of the most oppressive and authoritarian bills to appear in congress in many years. how can one credibly inveigh against “authoritarianism” while sponsoring a bill that dictates to american citizens what political views they are and are not allowed to espouse under threat of criminal prosecution? whatever labels one might want to apply to the sponsors of this bill, “anti - authoritarianism” should not be among them .
it is not just left - wing students who are now involved in consumer activism now. everybody is boycotting something, or threatening to do so. greenpeace' s action sought to plug into the global wave of anti - war protests that brought a record 1. 5 million people onto the streets .
buycott’s premise is that pickets and calls to boycott israeli products are used to isolate and demonize israel rather than to apply economic pressure. buycott takes a ‘judo’ approach, deflecting the energy of our opponents to generate support for israel .
more recently, there is a question as to whether the multi - state saudi - led blockade of qatar that began on june 5, 2017 [ 2 ] implicates antiboycott laws. the antiboycott compliance office has stated that the u. s. administration reportedly views the saudi - led coalition’s conduct as a severing of diplomatic ties that does not rise to the level of a boycott, even while the saudi - led group refers to it as a “boycott. ”
most do not change much, however, apart from making participants feel better about themselves. a drop in coke sales is unlikely to lead radical change in bush’s middle east policy. what really changes things is when negative publicity arises from a boycott .
currently, 46 u. s. senators (32 republicans and 14 democrats) and 249 u. s. representatives (185 republicans and 64 democrats) co - sponsor the israel anti - boycott act bills. the bills, however, have recently drawn criticism from the american civil liberties union (“aclu”), which sent a letter to all u. s. senators encouraging them to oppose and refrain from co - sponsoring the legislation due to first amendment concerns. senator cardin and several other co - sponsors have stated that they are open to amending the bill to address the aclu’s concerns .
the tra requires taxpayers to report
operations
in, with, or related to a boycotting country or its nationals and requests received to participate in or cooperate with an international boycott. the treasury department publishes a quarterly list of
boycotting countries .
several condemnations followed. glenn greenwald, for example, said wednesday at the intercept that congress was set to “criminally outlaw support for boycott campaign against israel. ” greenwald went on to excoriate several members of congress for failing to immediately oppose the bill immediately .
in response, the bill would include any un - led boycott within the 1977 law. never mind that there are no un - led boycotts; for members of congress seeking to appear “pro - israel, ” striking back at a fictional one is sufficient .
most do not change much, however, apart from making participants feel better about themselves. a drop in coke sales is unlikely to lead radical change in bush' s middle east policy. what really changes things is when negative publicity arises from a boycott .
since then, these laws and the many detailed regulations pursuant to them, have been the basis for a large number of investigations and prosecutions of companies for boycott activity. the laws are administered by a special unit of the commerce department, the office of antiboycott compliance .
after the boycotts were under way both companies severed their connections with the offending military activities; however, in both instances the weapons activities continued under other corporate auspices, and, interestingly, the new owners were companies immune to boycott threats because they neither manufactured nor sold consumer good. (friedman 18) just like cold viruses, no matter how strong your antibiotics are, there would always be some leftovers and those who survive must be immune to the antibiotics you used. when your boycott influences some firms, those who are not impacted are getting stronger .
current law prohibits u. s. entities from participating in or cooperating with international boycotts organized by foreign countries. these measures, first adopted in 1977, were explicitly aimed at the arab states’ boycott of israel, but its language is far broader, not mentioning any particular countries .
let' s not bring up the issue of anti semitism. palestinians are as semite as they come and they have rights too. no one in bds or the un is attacking israel or its alleged jewishness. the bds is targeting activities that are illegal under u. s. and international law, as demonstrated in confiscating occupied land to build illegal settlement and industries. that' s it .
but there indeed exists a crucial turning point. john and klein built this equation to illustrate that fact. their model is based on a conception about marginal benefits and cost. just like doing other things, boycotts have costs, it would cost your time, money, leisure once generated by the goods you’re now boycotting, which could be gained, or spent somewhere else if not the boycott. the first people starts the boycott should be the one who is most injured by the product and thus whose marginal benefits overweighs marginal costs. then people start to join him or her .
furnishing information, in response to a boycott request, about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of a u. s. person or any owner, officer, director, or employee of a domestic concern or any of its “controlled in fact” non - u. s. affiliates ;
on july 1, the mexican people elected andres manuel lopez obrador as their new president. during the campaign, mr. lopez obrador used harsh anti - american rhetoric and promises of open - ended migration to mexico to fuel his candidacy. however, with the campaign season now over, we need to remind ourselves of the long - standing friendship between our two countries and find ways to further strengthen ties between us .
i agree americans must be allowed to exercise free speech about our own or any other government, so i support the aclu on this. however, the bds movement (and even the un) so often border on and stoke the flames of anti - semitism while supporting dangerous palestinian leaders and methods, that i hope the aclu will recognize the danger this kind of free speech can pose to certain minority groups currently at risk .
in other words, it doesn’t penalize requesting general information about a boycott. it penalizes asking the un for information about the specific business activities of others. that provision is still problematic, but it is not at all what the aclu or greenwald — who didn’t respond to a request for comment — says it is .
greenpeace’s 1995 campaign against shell over its plans to dispose of the brent spar oil platform in the atlantic, triggered a slide in sales of up to 70 per cent in some countries. it led to a complete ban on the dumping of all oil rigs in the north - east atlantic. in the eighties, barclays, which traded in south africa, lost 10 per cent of its student customers because of the anti - apartheid campaign .
greenpeace' s 1995 campaign against shell over its plans to dispose of the brent spar oil platform in the atlantic, triggered a slide in sales of up to 70 per cent in some countries. it led to a complete ban on the dumping of all oil rigs in the north - east atlantic. in the eighties, barclays, which traded in south africa, lost 10 per cent of its student customers because of the anti - apartheid campaign .
the law is not terribly complicated. it prohibits a list of actions taken with the intent to support or comply with a boycott imposed by a foreign nation or international governmental organization. put another way, to run afoul of the law a person or business would have to commit one of the prohibited actions with the improper motive .
i hope the aclu will take some time to better understand that individuals like mr. dakwar, far from being paragons of virtue and defenders of civil rights, are nothing more than the latest in a long line of hateful individuals, who twist facts and figures to hide their thinly veiled anti - semitism. the only thing noteworthy about them is their attempt to cloak their true intentions in the language of “civil rights, ” “liberation, ” and “intersectionality. ”
u. s. companies continue to report receiving requests to engage in activities that further or support the boycott of israel. u. s. companies may receive similar requests in the future. if you have questions, please call (202) 482 - 2381 and ask for the duty officer or you may contact us by email .
to repeat, this is the law today. it is against the law to join in a boycott of israel led by a foreign country. companies may be fined up to $ 50, 000 or five times the amount of the contested transaction (whichever is greater), and executives can be sent to prison for five years .
on its face, the bill appears to directly prohibit boycott activity that is protected under the first amendment. even if the bill could be interpreted more narrowly, as some of its supporters claim, its broad language could still chill protected expression by scaring people into self - censorship. either way, the bill would impose serious first amendment harms .
the recent uptick in troubling statements and tweets regarding jews and israel is obviously disturbing, but it should not come as a surprise. seen in the context of “intersectionality” and the rise of the alt - left, an upward trend in the use of this kind of language is to be expected. however, it is appalling to see one of the longest - standing and most venerated civil rights organizations in our country’s history disseminating misinformation, fomenting anti - semitism and lauding hatemongers .
within days, his piece had ignited a torrent of outrage among many of the store' s liberal customers, inspiring a boycott of the company. by the end of last week, two major unions - - a group that mackey has had issues with in the past - - joined the fray, demanding that their members withhold business from the company .
u. s. antiboycott laws and regulations prohibit u. s. persons from participating in other nations’ economic boycotts that are not sanctioned by the united states (the “antiboycott laws”). while u. s. companies are principally concerned with the arab league boycott of israel, the antiboycott laws apply to all foreign boycotts in which the united states does not participate .
even the bravest of organizations often steadfastly avoid any controversies relating to israel. yet here, while appropriately pointing out that the aclu “takes no position for or against the effort to boycott israel or any foreign country, ” the group categorically denounces this aipac - sponsored proposal for what it is: a bill that “seeks only to punish the exercise of constitutional rights. ”
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 .
larry chavis, a business professor at the university of north carolina, said it is possible for consumer boycotts to be effective in certain circumstances. chavis studied the effect of a u. s. boycott of french wine in response to the country’s opposition to the 2003 iraq war and found sales dropped 26 per cent in the u. s. at the peak of the action .
the next paragraph requires the president to make a biannual report on boycott efforts, and the united states’ response to them. this is a pure reporting requirement. just because the president might disagree with congress about the merit of the activities being reported — he likes boycotts, congress does not — this in no way affects congress’s ability to require reporting. the reporting itself is entirely neutral .
boycotts have to compete with one another for attention. driving becomes difficult if both esso and shell are to be avoided. the popular campus campaigns against nike led people to adidas, but the german company is itself being boycotted by campaigners for using kangaroo skins. and it’s hard to boycott both unilever and procter & gamble, which are both on ethical consumer’s list, without sacrificing at least some conventional standards of hygiene .
boycotts have to compete with one another for attention. driving becomes difficult if both esso and shell are to be avoided. the popular campus campaigns against nike led people to adidas, but the german company is itself being boycotted by campaigners for usingh kangaroo skins. and it' s hard to boycott both unilever and procter & gamble, which are both on ethical consumer' s list, without sacrificing at least some conventional standards of hygiene .
the act’s chief senate sponsor, senator benjamin l. cardin, has written that the act does not target political boycotts. [ 3 ] instead, he claims, it merely expands preexisting law to prohibit u. s. businesses from complying with boycott requirements imposed by igos. in other words, he argues that the bill does not prohibit political speech but targets “commercial conduct, ” which is afforded a lower level of constitutional protection. [ 4 ]
in other words, everyone is wrong: the aclu, greenwald, aipac and the bill’s sponsors. the actual bill is a nothingburger that fights an imaginary boycott – which is exactly why its cosponsors said things to greenwald like “we have a different read of the specific bill language” and “this is the first time i have seen this issue raised. ” they thought this was yet another meaningless pander to the israel - first crowd – and they were right .
even if the government has in the past chosen to pursue penalties against corporations, not individuals, the bill’s language plainly applies to individuals. and even if the government promises not to prosecute individual consumers under the bill, such a promise can be changed at any time, at the whim of any presidential administration. because the bill applies to individuals, flesh and blood people have reason to be concerned that their own protected boycott activity and speech could violate the law .
the export administration act (eaa) prohibits or penalizes u. s. individuals and entities from cooperating with international economic boycotts in which the u. s. does not participate. the purpose of such prohibition is to prevent u. s. organizations and entities from supporting or participating in foreign policies of other nations that run in a manner contrary to u. s. policy. boycott - related activities prohibited by the u. s. department of commerce include :
the bill’s operative provisions expand the 1979 law by prohibiting u. s. persons from boycotting israel and israeli businesses — including businesses operating in the occupied palestinian territories — in adherence to boycotts called for by international governmental organizations, such as the united nations and the european union. the bill would also prohibit u. s. persons from not only furnishing, but even requesting information about any person’s business relations with israel, if done to support a foreign country’s or international governmental organization’s call for boycott .
that' s a lot more nuanced than what pundits have been howling about these last few days, and it suggests that perhaps the aclu is rethinking its position. but, to be fair, before the left got this bill wrong, the right got it more wrong. aipac, for example, heralded the law as a major legislative priority, saying it would “prohibit u. s. persons from cooperating with efforts by international organizations – including the u. n. – to boycott israel. ”
of course it is not that simple. there are motivations and causes behind every boycott, like political objectives, ethnic discriminations etc. but to define the term actually does not involve too much concern about the purposes. almost all the related books applied some version of the following definition, namely “an attempt by one or more parties to achieve certain objectives by urging individual consumers to refrain from making selected purchases in the marketplace. ” (friedman qtd. in friedman 97) and one characteristic worth mentioning about this definition is that it did not clarify the objectives .
and as it is planed, they stop building. it seems that everything works perfectly. but the marginal analyses throw up this question: maybe, 25 students would be enough. maybe those extra 5 students should have joined the boycott, they would be better off without sacrificing their time and purchasing desires. those who participating are convinced that they all contribute to the collective goal, those potential boycotters who did not engage in all think they are beyond the turning point. the problem is, no one knows how many people would be just enough. 3 .
buycott is the world leader in grassroots on - line israel advocacy and, along with the size doesn’t matter campaign, has established cija as an internationally recognized leader in the area of new media israel advocacy .
the buycott program has been adopted by leading pro - israel organizations worldwide, including jewish federations, ajc, zoa, and jcpa, and it has been featured as a ‘best practice’ at global conferences on combating the de - legitimization of israel .
the bds movement is a coordinated international campaign by individuals and organizations to prevent people from buying israeli products or doing business with israel. the movement also encourages companies and organizations to stop investing in israeli firms and countries to curtail cultural exchanges, trade and cooperation with israel .
everything produced in israel, including life saving products and procedures - just because they’re israeli. canadians rely on hundreds of israeli products every day, such as voice mail, cell phone technology and cardiac stents. if bds wins we all lose, including residents of the palestinian territories who also depend heavily on essential israeli goods .
none. yet there are scores of nations throughout the world that, unlike democratic israel, are ruled by dictators who have denied their citizens the most basic human rights and abandoned the rule of law. bds proponents ignore these countries in order to question israel’s legitimacy instead .
bds supporters may say they just want to change israeli policy, but their actions say something else. bds activists have called on universities around the world to ban israeli professors from lecturing on their campuses, even though many of those they want to ban are critics of the israeli government. the bds movement has campaigned against artists performing for israeli audiences, even if those artists have also booked performances for palestinians as well. bds thinking considers all of israel as occupied territory and bds advocacy for the return to israel of several million palestinian refugees plus their children would dismantle israel as we now know it. the result? two palestinian states and the destruction of the world’s only jewish nation
not at all. bds blocks exchanges between israelis and palestinians in every sphere of life, preventing dialogue and contact which sets a foundation for peace. but peace isn’t part of the bds equation. the real intention of the campaign is to demonize israel, isolate her and challenge her right to exist as a jewish state .
we need your support! king solomon organic premium medjoul (medjool) dates at noah’s natural foods located at bloor street in toronto is currently being ...
seventy years ago, after 2000 years of exile, israel was re - born. many see this miracle as fulfillment of biblical prophecy and as modern proof ...
for immediate release monday, september 17, 2017 montréal, qc – tonight, the board of directors of the student society of mcgill university (ssmu) ratified ...
we use cookies on this site to enable your digital experience. by continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our cookie policy. close
check out law360' s new podcast, pro say, which offers a weekly recap of both the biggest stories and hidden gems from the world of law .
please note: a verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial .
we take your privacy seriously. as detailed in our privacy policy we will use your personal information to administer your account and provide the products and services that you have requested from us .
it all began with an op - ed in the wall street journal. three weeks ago, john mackey, the ceo of whole foods (wfmi), published an article outlining his problems with the national health care service being championed by president obama .
to put it mildly, there is a strange inconsistency when the ceo of a gourmet supermarket promotes a dietician whose regimen is almost gulag - esque in its austerity. it also raises an interesting question about mackey' s new fans. in a recent, laudatory, episode of on the record, fox commentator greta van susteren interrupted her praise of the ceo to note
he is a lefty, though. that' s the other thing, he is a lefty .
even beyond the conservative media establishment, however, the mackey affair has thrown some very odd allies together. van susteren' s guest, dana loesch, described the mix of
buycotters
who descended upon a st. louis whole foods :
half of the group [... ] were like' we have never actually been here before, because we thought that it was really, maybe hippified.'
still, it appears likely that whole foods' new tea party patrons may become permanent customers. as loesch went on to note ,
we are going to make it a habit to come here every week, or at least twice or three times a month, and really incorporate whole foods into our buying routine .
it will be interesting to see how major, factory - farm producers of meat, corn, and other agricultural products react when they see a group that has traditionally been part of their political base migrating toward the michael pollan / organic produce end of the spectrum .
in the meantime, however, steve moore of the wall street journal stated that mackey is anticipating that the scandal will actually improve his company' s sales, and one can imagine the health benefits that mackey' s new customers will reap. in the meantime, trader joe' s ceo don bane is hopefully keeping his head down and his opinions to himself .
the nanny' s gut told her something was very wrong. then the dad watched the chilling cctv
forget the 30yr mortgage if you owe less than $ 679k (do this ...
new study says coffee will extend your life, but it also has ...
teens are working less summer jobs than ever but if they hav ...
these are the top 15 companies hiring for $ 100k + jobs in jul ...
first two boys rescued from flooded thai cave, according to local of ...
if you’d like to allow notifications, please go into your browser’s website or privacy settings and set the permissions for urltoken to “allow. ”
html public
- / / w3c / / dtd xhtml 1. 0 transitional / / en
urltoken
during the mid - 1970' s the united states adopted two laws that seek to counteract the participation of u. s. citizens in other nation' s economic boycotts or embargoes. these
antiboycott
laws are the 1977 amendments to the export administration act (eaa) and the ribicoff amendment to the 1976 tax reform act (tra). while these laws share a common purpose, there are distinctions in their administration .
the antiboycott laws were adopted to encourage, and in specified cases, require u. s. firms to refuse to participate in foreign boycotts that the united states does not sanction. they have the effect of preventing u. s. firms from being used to implement foreign policies of other nations which run counter to u. s. policy .
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 .
forms for both electronic transmission and / or mail submission may be accessed from the forms request page. paper / carbon paper forms may be obtained by request to the office of antiboycott compliance / report processing unit at (202) 482 - 2448 .
tra reports are filed with tax returns on irs form 5713. this form is available on pdf from local irs offices .
the export admnistration act (eaa) specifies penalties for violations of the antiboycott regulations as well as export control violations. these can include :
the penalties imposed for each
knowing
violation can be a fine of up to $ 50, 000 or five times the value of the exports involved, whichever is greater, and imprisonment of up to five years. during periods when the ear are continued in effect by an executive order issued pursuant to the international emergency economic powers act, the criminal penalties for each
willful
violation can be a fine of up to $ 50, 000 and imprisonment for up to ten years .
when the eaa is in lapse, penalties for violation of the antiboycott regulations are governed by the international emergency economic powers act (ieepa). the ieepa enhancement act provides for penalties of up to the greater of $ 250, 000 per violation or twice the value of the transaction for administrative violations of antiboycott regulations, and up to $ 1 million and 20 years imprisonment per violation for criminal antiboycott violations .
voluntary self disclosure (vsd) of violations of the antiboycott provisions of ear is provided for in part 764. 8 of the regulations. if you believe you may have violated the antiboycott provisions bis urges you to disclose to the office of antiboycott compliance (oac) via the procedures described in part 764. 8. these procedures include: timing of the disclosure, requisites for initial notification, nature of the narrative account of the violation, documentation, and certification.
an anti-boycott , counter-boycott or buycott is the excess buying of a particular brand or product in an attempt to counter a boycott of the same brand or product . 
an anti-boycott, counter-boycott or buycott is the excess buying of a particular brand or product in an attempt to counter a boycott of the same brand or product.
an anti-boycott, counter-boycott or buycott is the excess buying of a particular brand or product in an attempt to counter a boycott of the same brand or product.