Israeli knesset considers anti-boycott legislation

Michael Wolfe · Feb 17, 2011

Link.

The Knesset made a preliminary move to approve a bill banning boycotts against the state, following a stormy debate during which Arab and left-wing MKs walked out.

Meanwhile, the Foreign and Justice ministries warned that the bill, approved in its first reading Tuesday, could harm Israel's relations with other states.

The bill was proposed by MK Zeev Elkin (Likud) and 24 other MKs, some of them from the Kadima Party. It stipulates that severe sanctions will be imposed on any Israeli calling for or supporting a boycott against Israeli citizens, factories, companies, and organizations from within the state.

This is not really an old idea, but its passage seems closer than ever now. While I don't personally endorse boycotts of Israel, I'm more bothered by the idea of using the threat of coercion to stop it.

blacbird · Feb 17, 2011

If people don't want to shop at your store, how can you stop 'em?

dmytryp · Feb 17, 2011

Well, I haven't read the perticulars of this specific bill, but you are wrong in saying that it is close to passing (at least in its current form). Bills go a very long way after the first reading (Knesset commissions, second and third reading etc)

Michael Wolfe · Feb 17, 2011

dmytryp said:
Well, I haven't read the perticulars of this specific bill, but you are wrong in saying that it is close to passing (at least in its current form). Bills go a very long way after the first reading (Knesset commissions, second and third reading etc)

Understand about the process. I remember reading an article about this proposal that was from last summer, well before it came up for first reading. It may not be close to passing right now, but it seems closer than ever, as I said.

dmytryp · Feb 17, 2011

blacbird said:
If people don't want to shop at your store, how can you stop 'em?

Well, the issues are more complex, imo. A while back, a professor from Ben Gurion University (Beersheva), who is also a chair of the department, called for an international academic boycott, including his own University. Nothing happened to him, not even a disciplinary hearing as far as I know. Another case, the boycott of some of the artists, who refused to perform with their troops in Ariel. There was an outcry in some parts of the electorate to cut state funding to people who behave this way, because they discriminate against law abiding citizens of the state. I don't think such a move is a good idea, but it isn't a simple issue either.

Don · Feb 17, 2011

What blacbird said. And I don't see how taking one of the most peaceful forms of protest against the state off the table is going to improve society.

dmytryp · Feb 17, 2011

Michael Wolfe said:
Understand about the process. I remember reading an article about this proposal that was from last summer, well before it came up for first reading. It may not be close to passing right now, but it seems closer than ever, as I said.

Well, you might be correct, or you might not. You have to understand that a lot of the bills coming into Knesset are literally political theatre. In Israeli electoral system people vote for parties. In many cases, apart from the top ten or so candidates in these parties the rest are relatively unknown (it, obviously differs from party to party). So, taking a tough public stance on some issues the public finds important by introducing a bill (which any member of Knesset can do), even if those bills don't have a snowballs chance in hell to pass, are almost the only ways for people to gain name recognition.

dmytryp · Feb 17, 2011

Don said:
What blacbird said. And I don't see how taking one of the most peaceful forms of protest against the state off the table is going to improve society.

The issue is usually not the fact that some people would boycott some segments and this way make a stance against gov. policy. Problems start when people go outside the country and basically try using non-democratic means to change the policies of democratically elected officials. Again, I don't think this is a good idea, but the issues are far from simple.

Michael Wolfe · Feb 17, 2011

dmytryp said:
Well, you might be correct, or you might not. You have to understand that a lot of the bills coming into Knesset are literally political theatre. In Israeli electoral system people vote for parties. In many cases, apart from the top ten or so candidates in these parties the rest are relatively unknown (it, obviously differs from party to party). So, taking a tough public stance on some issues the public finds important by introducing a bill (which any member of Knesset can do), even if those bills don't have a snowballs chance in hell to pass, are almost the only ways for people to gain name recognition.

I understand all that. Obviously the U.S. has the same thing, with the political theatre. But the bill has support from other MKs, apparently.

Like I wrote in my thread title, it's something up for consideration. I'm certainly not saying it's on the verge of passage, or anything.

dmytryp · Feb 17, 2011

Michael Wolfe said:
I understand all that. Obviously the U.S. has the same thing, with the political theatre. But the bill has support from other MKs, apparently.

Like I wrote in my thread title, it's something up for consideration. I'm certainly not saying it's on the verge of passage, or anything.

Michael, that's ok. I am not accusing you of anything. As I said, you might be correct, or you might not. Since it is stated that the FM and JM are opposed, I am guessing that this is a private initiative (the two ways to introduce legislation is either from the gov or private initiative). I am just mentioning the reality of Israeli politics for people who don't know. The level of political theater in Israel is very high (much higher than in US) and the rhetoric is also far harsher. What people here bemoan as a recent escalation in rhetoric, is rather common and usual in Israel.

Michael Wolfe · Feb 17, 2011

dmytryp said:
Michael, that's ok. I am not accusing you of anything. As I said, you might be correct, or you might not. Since it is stated that the FM and JM are opposed, I am guessing that this is a private initiative (the two ways to introduce legislation is either from the gov or private initiative). I am just mentioning the reality of Israeli politics for people who don't know. The level of political theater in Israel is very high (much higher than in US) and the rhetoric is also far harsher. What people here bemoan as a recent escalation in rhetoric, is rather common and usual in Israel.

I know, that's actually something I like about Israeli politics, to be honest.

Btw, it's fine now, but I was just irked that you originally said I was wrong about it being close to passing, since that's not really what I said.

I certainly understand the problems with treating proposing legislation as though it's already been passed, I've seen that happen before. I'll be upset about this if it passes, but I'm not really willing to criticize the knesset as a whole right now, since of course they might shoot it down.

We'll have to wait and see.

Michael Wolfe · Feb 17, 2011

As an add on point: I've heard the same argument a few times, about the funding issue you brought up. That concern itself seems valid to me, but the scope of the proposed bill seems much broader than that.

dmytryp · Feb 17, 2011

Michael Wolfe said:
As an add on point: I've heard the same argument a few times, about the funding issue you brought up. That concern itself seems valid to me, but the scope of the proposed bill seems much broader than that.

Yes, as I said, the issues are not simple. The billmight be changed inside a comission signifficantly to be a more realistic and more moderate, or it can be shot down entirely. It took something like three years to revoke state funding from Behsara, who was suspected of spying for Hezbollah during '06 and fled the country as to not face the accusations.

P.S. I misread your intentions a little. I've ssen so many times newspapers and organisations making claims about proposed bills as "dangers to democracy" etc. when in reality those bills either had no chances of passing or closely mirrored laws that are commonplace in other countries (as an example, a proposed bill about political NGO funding transparency that was drafted based on a similar US law, but was presented by some people as some sort of outrageous assault against dissent).

Michael Wolfe · Feb 17, 2011

dmytryp said:
I've ssen so many times newspapers and organisations making claims about proposed bills as "dangers to democracy" etc. when in reality those bills either had no chances of passing or closely mirrored laws that are commonplace in other countries (as an example, a proposed bill about political NGO funding transparency that was drafted based on a similar US law, but was presented by some people as some sort of outrageous assault against dissent).

Yeah, I've seen the same thing.

But a couple of things to note about some of your points:

The article actually has Elkin saying that the bill is based on a similar law in the U.S. I have no idea what the hell he's referring to. Though I'm not 100 percent certain, it sounds like bullshit.

And second, this bill is an attempted assault against dissent. The NGO bill might not have been, but I don't know what else to call this bill. It's not about cutting off people who receive state funding - it's authorizing the government to fine people for supporting boycotts, whether they receive state funding or not. The proposal itself doesn't seem justified at all - the uncertainty about its passage is really the only positive thing I can say about it right now.

dmytryp · Feb 17, 2011

Michael Wolfe said:
Yeah, I've seen the same thing.

But a couple of things to note about some of your points:

The article actually has Elkin saying that the bill is based on a similar law in the U.S. I have no idea what the hell he's referring to. Though I'm not 100 percent certain, it sounds like bullshit.

I don't know. I haven't read the bill and I haven't followed the issue.

Michael Wolfe said:
And second, this bill is an attempted assault against dissent. The NGO bill might not have been, but I don't know what else to call this bill. It's not about cutting off people who receive state funding - it's authorizing the government to fine people for supporting boycotts, whether they receive state funding or not. The proposal itself doesn't seem justified at all - the uncertainty about its passage is really the only positive thing I can say about it right now.

Well, again, I haven't read the bill, so I can't comment on the particulars (and I also stated that I am against the idea, even with regards to cutting funding). Second, considering that our "ultra right wing" foreign minister appears to be against it, indicates that this bill doesn't have a lot of chances of passing (at least as proposed). Elkin is pretty right wing, even by Likud standards. He is also basically a nobody in terms of influence in Israeli politics.

Incidentally, I understand where some of the feelings prompting this thing are coming from. For all of its history Israel faced an Arab boycott. For much of the history it also faced secondary (and at times a tertiary -- is this the word? -- boycott). Most of the BDS movement activists make no bones about the fact that their ultimate goal is the elimination of Israel as it is (it is rather ironic, by the way, that its "leader" is a graduate student from Haifa University, if I am not mistaken). This is why people see people inside Israel joining this movement as attacking the very existence of the state. People also see Israel's strength (economic and scientific) based on interaction with the outside world and people undermining it again undermine the state existence. On the other hand, I think the strength of this movement is largely overstated. I see absolutely no chance of a widespread boycott taking place. So, such bills are an overreaction, and in part, playing to the audience -- as I said, political theater.

There are legitimate concerns to be addressed, though probably not by the state. For example, the issue of Neve Gordon calling for boycott of Ben Gurion University should have ended in his termination or at the very least his removal from the position of department chair. The University's president explained at the time that she couldn't fire him because of tenure, and our extreme left wing started shouting McCarthysm and academic freedom (none of which had anything to do with the case, by oh well...). But this issue should be addressed by the Universities in their regulations, not by state laws.

Michael Wolfe · Feb 17, 2011

^
All fair points, imo. We're not really disagreeing here. Let's hope together it all works out.

dmytryp · Feb 17, 2011

Michael Wolfe said:
I know, that's actually something I like about Israeli politics, to be honest.

At some point people shouting, "racist", "fascist", "traitor", "fifth column", "terror sympathizer" etc from the Knesset podium gets old.

Michael Wolfe · Feb 18, 2011

dmytryp said:
At some point people shouting, "racist", "fascist", "traitor", "fifth column", "terror sympathizer" etc from the Knesset podium gets old.

Ha.

Yeah, that may be so. But that's part of living in a free society. And to be able to say that Israel is their own worst critic, as you've sometimes pointed out, is really a good thing, when you get right down to it.

When free speech is put within the context of a free market, so to speak, where the only punishment is what others will think of you, you get stuff like "racist" and "fascist", etc. It's worth it, so that you can maintain the option of saying the exact same thing, but using nicer words.

^

There's a good soundbite on free speech.

dmytryp · Feb 18, 2011

Michael Wolfe said:
Ha.

Yeah, that may be so. But that's part of living in a free society. And to be able to say that Israel is their own worst critic, as you've sometimes pointed out, is really a good thing, when you get right down to it.

When free speech is put within the context of a free market, so to speak, where the only punishment is what others will think of you, you get stuff like "racist" and "fascist", etc. It's worth it, so that you can maintain the option of saying the exact same thing, but using nicer words.

^

There's a good soundbite on free speech.

lol. I've never thought about this in terms of free speech. It never even entered my mind to prevent them from saying the things they do. I just, sometimes, wish that our public officials knew how to restrain themselves on certain points.

Michael Wolfe · Feb 18, 2011

dmytryp said:
lol. I've never thought about this in terms of free speech. It never even entered my mind to prevent them from saying the things they do.

Yeah, I wasn't talking about prevention. I'm just saying that the stuff you're talking about is a natural outgrowth from free speech. That's the only connection I'm making.

Israeli knesset considers anti-boycott legislation

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana

blacbird

dmytryp

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana

dmytryp

Don

All Living is Local

dmytryp

dmytryp

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana

dmytryp

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana

dmytryp

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana

dmytryp

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana

dmytryp

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana

dmytryp

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana