Boycotting Israel is now a crime - really!

by c.dale Wed Jul 22, 2009 20:27

In the light of the recent EU decision, I wonder if it is also illegal to boycott Israeli goods that purport to be from Jordan? Last week, in a large wholesale store I purchased a carton of dates that were labelled in large red letters, from the Jordan Valley, with the image of a waving palm tree.

I was very happy to buy them until, half way through eating them, I caught sight, in very tiny letters unreadable without glasses, 'Produce of Israel'.

Is such a blatant attempt at disguising the true origin of goods, legitimate or even legal?

by g Wed Jul 22, 2009 22:15

hi there?
The Jordan Valley is the eastern part of the West Bank, under direct occupation by the Israeli army, where theft of land, and appartheid system of life is proceeding....

I discovered this in London, where a the Jews for Justice group had organised a talk.

There is a very active support group in Brighton, the Brighton-Tubas support groups, which has fundraised to build a school in Tubas.

By the way where did you buy those dates?

Instead of a General Boycott, many groups are calling for a boycott of produce from the settlements,
The could be more effective as it at the same time serves to highlight the theft of land, and the nature of the occupation.

thanks

by Corkboi Thu Jul 23, 2009 01:05

So will the IPSC.Stop calling for a boycott of Israel.Not only are their protests in Cork a head wreck,but they regularly storm shops protesting within Marks and Spencers.

Evidence in Italy has shown calling for a boycott of Israel has often led to boycotts of Jews:

Groups advocating a boycott have to be held accountable.

Firstly Jews across Europe often rely on Israeli goods to supply their Kosher needs.
If a boycott was successfull European Jews would have their human rights abused.As they would not be able to eat food suitable for them.

Secondly the boycott has led to boycotts of Jewish owned firms rather than just Israeli companies.

Well know the calls for a boycott are illegal.I believe this is a welcome develpment.

Might I also add.The Court is seperate from the EU.Its a Europe Wide group.Members of the court are also not in the EU.So the person posting this comment can blame the Lisbon Treaty,but it is nothing to do with it.

by LisbonSucketh Thu Jul 23, 2009 03:34

"Evidence in Italy has shown calling for a boycott of Israel has often led to boycotts of Jews:"
where is this "evidence"? this statement doesn't hold any water without it.

"Groups advocating a boycott have to be held accountable."
one of the few upsides of the free market is people can buy whatever they like. Surely you are not advocating interfering in the market?? My god, aren't you afraid you will burn in hell for saying such a thing ?

""Firstly Jews across Europe often rely on Israeli goods to supply their Kosher needs.
If a boycott was successfull European Jews would have their human rights abused.As they would not be able to eat food suitable for them."

Well presumably jewish people are the main market for kosher foods so those particular items should be largely immune to anti israel boycotts. A boycott means you don't buy particular products. I presume most jewish folk will be unlikely to take part in such a boycott. Logically that particular market should be largely unaffected

"Secondly the boycott has led to boycotts of Jewish owned firms rather than just Israeli companies."
see previous point about unsubstantiated statements

"Well know the calls for a boycott are illegal.I believe this is a welcome develpment."
see previous statement about the free market

"Might I also add.The Court is seperate from the EU.Its a Europe Wide group.Members of the court are also not in the EU.So the person posting this comment can blame the Lisbon Treaty,but it is nothing to do with it."

the court passes judgement based on eu legislation doesn't it? Lisbon has something to say on whether countries will be able to veto certain bits of future legislation that they currently can.
the commenter was expressing fears that lisbon would contribute to more of the same type of dodgy profit protecting repressive legislation from a faceless possibly corrupt, ( and certainly biased by corporate lobbyists ) unanswerable bureaucracy. Previous corruption scandals which led to scant punishment for the perpetrators and the nasty clause whereby they can pass lots of legislation in the future without need for referenda etc makes me think that he/she has a point

by Mike Novack Thu Jul 23, 2009 13:48

The concept originated with you in Ireland (the first boycott and origin of the term)

I know nothing about laws in parts of Europe but certainly here distinction is made between a PRIMARY boycott and secondary, tertiary, or even more remote extensions. By your traditions and laws may be allowed but here not and the references to affecting Jews in general are to those extensions.

Telling people not to buy Israeli goods would be a primary boycott.

Telling people not to buy any goods from a business that refuses to join your (primary) boycott would be a secondary boycott. In other words, you can ASK that business to join (out of motives of justice) but not pressure them. That changed the issue to one were whatever you have against the primary target becomes less relevant. Remember -- I am speaking about the traditions and laws HERE, yours may differ.

Even TELLING (trying to convince) somebody could be criminal of they were required by law not to do what you were asking them to (soliciting a crime). Thus here illegal to even ask UPS or FED EX not to handle cargoes to and from HLS as they are "common carriers" required to post rates and then handle the cargoes of all comers at those rates (there is a VERY good reason wy we have such laws -- stopped a serious abuse of the "Robber Baron" period of American business). Pressuring them to do so (to break a law) would be very illegal!

I believe the problem (about "extension to all Jews, etc.) is just when secondary, tertiary, etc. boycotts are considered legitimate. Then of course that sort of extension occurs. Mind I understand what those who advocate for this extended definition are saying -- we aren't against Jews beciase they are Jews -- just because they won't join our boycott against Israel

I'll provide a concrete example taken from the Perth IMC site
**************************************************************************************************
The statement published below was released in December last year by the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee, which unites 17 Palestinian organisations. It is reprinted from http://electronicintifada.net
The Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee calls upon people of conscience all over the world to boycott all the products of the French cosmetics giant, L’Oreal, due to its deep and extensive involvement in business relations with Israel despite the latter's continued occupation and apartheid policies against the indigenous Palestinian people.

L’Oreal brands include L’Oreal Israel (sold in Australia), L’Oreal Paris, Garnier, Maybelline New York, Softsheen Carson, CCB Paris and The Body Shop.
......
****************************************************************************************************

Notice that what is asked for is NOT that people boycott the Israei products sold by all holdings of this "holding company" (a primary boycott) but to boycott the company and all companies in which it has a stake (secondary and tertiary boycotts). BTW -- the law violation referred to in the entire piece had to do with REPORTING requirements. American companies were allowed to comply with the "Arab boycott" but had to report that they were doing so -- not allowed to SECRETLY refrain from any business with companies doing business with Israel. The motivation for trying to keep it secret of course that Jews might not buy from a company doing that and Jews are known for having a LONG memory, do not easily forgive and forget.

by Capt'n Boycott. Thu Jul 23, 2009 14:01

We Irish should be THE experts in Boycotting.

After all,we invented the concept.

See:

http://boycottcity.org/essay/index.php?essay=5

.

by Mike Novack Thu Jul 23, 2009 16:15

Yes indeed you invented the concept AND that included "extension" to whoever connects to whichever side. I was not meaning to imply that your interpretation of what is or is not included in "boycott" was incorrect. Just that it is not universally accepted, nor is that always just in terms of who is on which side in the more general political context.

Thus over here in the States, perhaps just the "animal rights" folks accept the extended version (and then complain that their "speech" rights are being restricted). But otherwise even most political radicals here accept the local definition and feel funny about extensions of "boycott". For example, the famous "grape boycott" campaign in support of the farm workers' union. Picketers outside of super markets carried signs to the effect "wen you shop here don't buy the California grapes" (what was being boycotted) and NOT "don''t shop here because this store refuses to remove California grapes from its shelves" (because they won't join our boycott).

That means that pieces like this article need clarification and the case not presented as "they are making "boycotts" illegal" but instead "they aren't allowing some of the things WE consider part of "boycott" --- AFAIK there is no issue here about PRIMARY boycott campaigns being illegal. And of course feel free to argue that YOUR custom is the one the rest of us should follow as long as you recognize that's the sort of thing people can disagree about without anybody being wrongheaded.

Note that this has little to nothing about "effectiveness". I will grant you that extended boycott is more effective. But so is gunning down anybody who won't join the campaign. The question is whether you see joining or not joining a campaign as essentially a POLITICAL question not necessarily connected to the original cause. Just trying to EXPLAIN the different interpretations more than arguing for the correctness of following one tradition of boycott vs another.

by geoff Fri Jul 24, 2009 00:12

You see...

people see phosphorus bombs dropped on Gaza, screamingchildren, dead bodies, red cross ambulances, and witness a blockade of Gaza denying medicine and food to those children.

Then we go down to Dunnes and see Made in Israel on a bag of spuds or whatever. I don't know about other people, but personally, after watching those news reports, a bag of spuds with the 'Made in Israel' tag has as much appeal for me as the discarded waste at the back of a sex shop.

by Fred Johnston Fri Jul 24, 2009 13:53 sylfredcar at iolfree dot ie

Israel is now removing all reference to the 'nakba' or forcible removal of Palestinian Arabs from their homes at the beginning of the Israeli state, from Palestinian and Israeli Arab schoolbooks. See The Guardian on-line of today's date, July 24th. This is appalling, another attempt to destroy Palestinian culture and even take away their history. So what do our politicians have to say about this?

by Greg T - IPSC (personal capacity) Fri Jul 24, 2009 14:12

Thanks to Dave L for the comments and link (hope you don't mind me reposting this here) ;

The post makes the point that the ruling is actually quite narrow, referring
to a very specific instance of the rules governing French elected officials
acting in an official capacity. It is emphatically *not* a ruling that
outlaws the promotion of boycott. The post makes the further point that it
is essential to ‘seek to undermine the way it is being spun, and emphasise
how very narrow a ruling it is: when next someone attempts to tell you that
your calls for BDS are 'illegal' in Europe (and I'm sure someone will),
explain to them that you're not a French mayor acting in a (semi-)official
capacity.'

So we should be annoyed with the ruling but not spread the idea that boycott
is being illegalized, as frankly, we’d be doing the work of Israeli
propagandists, if we did.

http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2009/07/some-cor....html

by Hubris - Down with that sort of thing! Thu Jul 30, 2009 00:28

This is really an obsure but alarming article. I had to read it twice to figure what it was saying: that it is a crime to advocate boycotting Israeli products in France. A man has been fined €1000 for organising a boycott of Israeli products; and the French appeals court and Council of Europe's European Court of Human Rights upheld this.

As I now notice has already been stated: The above statement is not correct. This case has been widely misreported throughout the media.

The Courts ruling is in fact far more marrow than we have been lead to believe .The man was convicted because he called for a boycott using his position as mayor. This is the reason the Euro court allowed the conviction to stand. In France the only political entity that could make such a call legitemately is the Gov't itself, apparently - though I suspect others have in the past made such calls to boycott other nations (eg: South Africa) and have not been censored, which should give you some indication of the power of the Zionist Lobby in France.

avi15:This is why Israelis (by which we mean Israeli Jews) and Jews around the world feel very very bad once the word boycott is mentioned.

tsk, tsk, such lies and distortions. The economic effect of such a boycott is what concerns them most. The alleged historical reasons are merely an attempt to smear all pro BDS entites as 'anti-Semitic', an age old practise of the ZioRacists

Caption: Video Id: uJgTyabY4ss Type: Youtube Video
Former Israeli Minister - "It

by Ahmad Abouali - personal Sun Aug 30, 2009 23:24 2aabouali at gmail dot com

such ruling had made me disgusted, in disbelief, and angry. this is the kind of (one of thousands) behavior by the European regimes had brought upon us, the Palestinian people, the wrath of the Zionist state's worst crimes, and still going, all due to such mockery to humanity and its rights.

According to Europe; a Palestinian child's life is way less than a kilogram of "Israeli" tomatoes!!

go figures