ISRAEL’S ANTI-BOYCOTT LEGISLATION LETS ISRAEL DEFEND ITSELF: ELIHU STONE
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=229260
Boycott Law lets Israel defend itself By ELIHU STONE
Facing ongoing attacks from the global BDS movement, Israel cannot be
expected to support those who work toward its economic destruction.
The anti-boycott legislation recently enacted by the Knesset has
invoked a firestorm of criticism from many, fulminating against such
legislation as inherently “undemocratic.” Allow me to present an
alternative viewpoint, dealing with the particulars of the case.
Declaring that boycotts, per se, are illegal might be anti-democratic.
However, the legislation in question does not criminalize boycotts.
Rather, it provides a balance, allowing those who reject all (even
indirect) contact with Israel to act as they see fit – so long as they
do not harm otherwise binding contracts between parties who think
otherwise, by inciting for their economic destruction and
international sanction.
A careful reading of the bill shows that it merely provides possible
protection, via the creation of a civil tort, for individuals and
institutions (governmental, cultural and academic) that the Boycott,
Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement means to strangle economically
– and most undemocratically.
Adherence to democratic principles neither demands nor compels a
democratic country to aid and abet all actions of those who
effectively deny it the right to self-defense and actively advocate
for its dissolution by any means short of armed assault. Moreover,
those who would squash others by economic means should hardly be heard
to complain when their intended victim chooses to withhold its
economic support (in the form of tax breaks, etc.) from them.
Israel’s refusal to support its detractors in their declared efforts
to undermine the country’s economy and blacklist all of its academic
and cultural institutions is eminently reasonable, and presents no
unfair surprise to those who have consistently exploited democratic
rhetoric and institutions in the service of undemocratic ends. It
remains a mysterium tremendum why those who would ostensibly utterly
shun Israel’s government and urge others to do likewise are suddenly
upset that they are ineligible to compete for that government’s
tenders.
Any fair assessment of the Anti-Boycott legislation must take into
consideration relevant history and context. The BDS movement is no
phenomenon sui generis, springing out of thin air. Those with a sense
of regional history will recall the Arab boycotts of Jewish and
Zionist interests , that began well before the modern State of Israel
was recognized in 1948. Indeed, the Arab League boycott remains in
effect today, administered by the Damascus-based Central Boycott
Office (CBO), a specialized bureau of the League.
THE BDS campaign – like the Arab boycott – targets not only Israel and
its institutions, but also companies that do business in or with
Israel. A fair read of the BDS movement’s website reveals that its
ultimate goal, too, is the dismantling of the Jewish state –
continuing the all-out assault initiated by Arab armies in 1948 – via
economic means. BDS now constitutes at least as great a menace to
Israel and all who associate with it – and to the very notion of free
trade – as the original Arab Boycott.
Anti-Boycott legislation, used to effectively combat such threats, is
nothing new in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In 1977, the
US Congress passed legislation criminalizing cooperation with the Arab
boycott against Israel for American companies and individuals – and
authorizing the imposition of serious penalties against violators. The
legislation Israel has enacted is far less onerous for its opponents
than the US legislation is for its opponents.
Israel’s legislation – like America’s – appropriately withholds
governmental support from those who work toward its economic
destruction. The law also provides a mechanism for Israelis to defend
themselves from the (now) tortious interference with third-party
contracts, when such interference is premised solely on the
contracting parties’ connection to Israel, its institutions or areas
under its control.
The wording of the Anti-Boycott measure might be improved upon; surely
the courts (which the BDS campaign targets as institutions of Israel)
will be called upon to interpret its scope and meaning, over time.
However, the basis of the law is sound.
To sum up: A majority of the Knesset has now agreed that Israel will
no longer be complicit in engineering its own demise. The legislature
has asserted its right to re-level the economic playing field and
provide the country’s professors, farmers, merchants, entrepreneurs,
hospitals and cultural institutions with some mechanism for defending
themselves against the tyranny of those who would wreak commercial and
social havoc upon them.
Moreover, this bill – crafted to allow recourse via legal challenge of
those who call trans-nationally for trampling Israel’s freedoms and
those of its trade partners – is not undemocratic in nature.
Unlike the pernicious boycotts it is meant to combat, this bill
actually serves to promote and maintain democratic ideals, such as
freedom of association, economic substantive due process and – yes –
the free exchange of ideas.
The writer practiced law in Boston, Massachusetts. He has served in
leadership roles for a variety of Jewish communal organizations and is
an alumnus of the Wexner Heritage Foundation. The writer recently took
the Israeli Bar Exam, and lives in Efrat.
Comments are closed.
