• Israel passes settlement boycott ban
    34 replies, posted
First of all, source: [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14111925[/URL] [quote=BBC] The Israeli parliament has passed a controversial law that will punish any Israeli individual or organisation boycotting West Bank settlements. Rights groups say the legislation stifles freedom of speech and compromises Israeli democracy. After failed attempts to delay debate, it was voted through 47-36. It follows several Israeli calls to boycott institutions or individuals linked to Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian land. The settlements are deemed illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this. Recent peace talks with the Palestinians were derailed over the issue of continued building in settlements. The Palestinians want the West Bank as part of a future state. Among the recent initiatives that angered settlers and their influential political patrons was a pledge by Israeli academics and artists to boycott the West Bank settlement of Ariel. Israeli developers also agreed not to use products or services from settlements when they signed on to help build a new modern Palestinian city, north of Ramallah. Under the new law those who sponsor a "geographically based boycott" - which includes any part of the Jewish state or its settlements - could be sued for damages in a civil court by the party injured in the boycott call. The petitioner is not required to prove that "economic, cultural or academic damage" was caused, only that it could reasonably be expected from the move. "The State of Israel has for years been dealing with boycotts from Arab nations, but now we are talking about a homegrown boycott," said the author of the legislation, lawmaker, Zeev Elvin, the Associated Press news agency reported. "It is time to put an end to this travesty. If the State of Israel does not protect itself, we will have no moral right to ask our allies for protection from such boycotts." Fierce opposition The new law has been strongly opposed by rights groups in Israel. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (Acri) described it as "deeply anti-democratic" and a violation of Israelis' freedom of speech. "There is no question that promoting boycotts is a legitimate, democratic, non-violent form of protest that is being used by Israelis on a wide variety of issues from environmental issues to opposing the prices of certain products," said ACRI executive director, Hagai el-Ad. "No reasoning has been suggested to explain why the boycott of settlement goods should be uniquely cherished as opposed to the right of the Israeli citizen to protest." On Sunday, activists opposed to the boycott ban held a noisy demonstration outside the Justice Ministry. They carried banners which read "the boycott law boycotts democracy." There are plans to challenge the legislation in Israel's Supreme Court. The Palestinian Authority (PA) has led an increasingly concerted campaign against the settlements. Last year, it passed a law banning settlement produce from Palestinian shops in the West Bank. Traders who break the law face prison and a heavy fine. However the PA has yet to pass promised legislation making it illegal for Palestinian labourers to work in settlements.[/quote]
And we call this the only democracy in the Middle East? They're no better than their neighbors.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;31058578]And we call this the only democracy in the Middle East? They're no better than their neighbors.[/QUOTE] They have a better military and the US on their side.
First Pakistan...
Edit
Israel just removed citizen's right to protest. Can I PLEASE make a Nazi comparison mom
I've thinking about how Israel was made up by a bunch of Jews who survived the holocaust and wanted a place where they could be safe with their own people, but now they they don't care for the safety or rights of anyone but their own people. Guys, I think Israel is Magneto.
Well that's stupid. Not just because it violates the very essence of democracy, but because it cannot be enforced. If you make bans based on geographical area illegal people will just ban it based on some other, made up reason. "it was voted through 47-36"-So basically all the religious and right wing parties ganged up together and called the vote when almost a third of the parliament was missing. Dumbasses. [editline]12th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;31059443] Can I PLEASE make a Nazi comparison mom[/QUOTE] Permission granted, I never thought it could get this low.
lol gg Israel +1 vote for cleaning the Knesset out
I don't even know where they draw the line anymore... I take it this means boycotts are hurting profit from businesses in West Bank illegal settlments though. Good to know.
Wow I hate our government so much.
I haven't been too focused on Israeli-Palestinian relations as of recent, but have any US politicians or the President tried convincing the Israeli government to stop the building of settlements?
[QUOTE=ScreamingGerbil;31062383]Wow I hate our government so much.[/QUOTE] protes- oh wait
The politicians is probably just pissed due the increasing leftists violence. I bet if it goes to the supreme court this ban will be lifted.
Fuck Israel's current government, seriously.
[QUOTE=TAU!;31062478]I haven't been too focused on Israeli-Palestinian relations as of recent, but have any US politicians or the President tried convincing the Israeli government to stop the building of settlements?[/QUOTE] Yeah a few have had a go at them and while Obama hasn't said it directly, it's pretty obvious. Problem is though, it's completely pointless. When was the last time international pressure caused a country to change their domestic policy, in any country? France banning the Burqa, anything the US does Patriot act related, anything China does (Tibet, human rights, internet censoring), it never accomplishes anything and just damages relations. Regardless of the shit they do, it's more a matter of convincing the people to change their views as domestic protest works a million times better than international protest. Changing the people though, must be done at a completely civil level, citizens to citizens.
[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;31067021]The politicians is probably just pissed due the [B]increasing leftists violence[/B]. I bet if it goes to the supreme court this ban will be lifted.[/QUOTE] What?
[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;31067021]I bet if it goes to the supreme court this ban will be lifted.[/QUOTE] It is actually being appealed as we speak. I don't know what the outcome will be, though... The supreme court in Israel is a lot less right wing then, say, the current knesset, so they usually overrule their stupid shit. [editline]12th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;31067021]The politicians is probably just pissed due the [b]increasing leftists violence[/b][/QUOTE] There never was leftist violence. There were protests, sure, and there were bans, but it was mostly violence free.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;31059443]Israel just removed citizen's right to protest. Can I PLEASE make a Nazi comparison mom[/QUOTE] :godwin:
[QUOTE=Fatal-Error;31069184]:godwin:[/QUOTE] Let's get it on, then. The Gaza Strip is the equivalent of...
The thing I find interesting about this is that it's really one of the first times for the government to acknowledge that there is dissent from within the Israeli population towards its current policies, as opposed to making it seem that these criticisms only originate from outside the country. The article posted here and from what I've read on the topic on the [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/world/middleeast/12israel.html?_r=1&hp]New York Times[/url] has the main sponsor of the bill essentially saying that they do not appreciate such calls from wtihin. In the NY times article, he says “the fact that the calls to boycott the State of Israel increasingly have come from within our own midst, and that makes it hard to wage a battle against a boycott in the world.” To me that shows that the government is actually afraid of actions internally as much as they are from those external sources. And that it hardly, at least to me, speaks for the opinion of the people. [QUOTE=Devodiere;31067247]Yeah a few have had a go at them and while Obama hasn't said it directly, it's pretty obvious. Problem is though, it's completely pointless. When was the last time international pressure caused a country to change their domestic policy, in any country? France banning the Burqa, anything the US does Patriot act related, anything China does (Tibet, human rights, internet censoring), it never accomplishes anything and just damages relations. Regardless of the shit they do, it's more a matter of convincing the people to change their views as domestic protest works a million times better than international protest. Changing the people though, must be done at a completely civil level, citizens to citizens.[/QUOTE] Well, it depends on what you consider to be a success. The problem with the things you've shown as an example is that it ignores that most states are not willing to be too aggressive with criticizing the policies of their economic and/or strategic allies so that their relationship is not damaged. President Obama like other world leaders have criticized the settlements but stopped their actions right there. A nation, particularly one that is reliant on the trade and/or security of another nation, will readily respond to the displeasure of the nations it works with- the US is doing this right now to Pakistan by slashing the aid it gives to the country. Though it's not always in a "good" direction- the US has of course applied its own sorts of "pressure" as well as that of its partners in certain countries of Latin America during the Cold War that they either said were drifting towards the Soviets or not toeing the economic line of Washington and found ways to force policy and even regime changes. A good example of what could happen when states actually do apply a lot of pressure happened with Apartheid South Africa. Before the 80s most western nations were solidly backing that regime and usually ignoring apartheid all together, rather complementing that nation on its economic progress and "democracy" in the face of Communism. Many groups that opposed that regime were classified as either communists or terrorists, and many times both. The factions that formed the MK to enter into armed resistance against the apartheid regime were classified as terrorists by the US. One of the first non-Soviet aligned politician that broke with this standard was the Swedish PM Olaf Palme who was the first to raise the call for economic boycotts against that government until Apartheid was removed. Within the US, there were movements to break the Apartheid regime by severing the foreign aid the US was providing to South Africa. To that end the "Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986" was drafted stipulating embargo and the halting of economic aid until South Africa met several conditions, of which included ending apartheid and releasing Nelson Mandela. This passed through Congress, only to be vetoed by President Reagan. There was a possibility to override this- Senator Ted Kennedy at this time managed to rally the Democrats and Republicans together in the Senate to do just that- the latter was particularly impressive since Reagan called on his Republicans to not override his veto. It was the first time a foreign-policy veto by the president was overturned by Congress in the 20th century too, and it set off a series of events that saw other European nations and Japan enact similar policies. Eventually the regime, facing mass protests on the streets and opposition from its allies, began on the road to end apartheid. That was significant I think and shows it can be done. The real problem is more one that allies will rarely call out their other allies and risk their interests over these things. On the news we see the token criticisms and denunciations, but these rarely mean anything in the grand scheme of things.
[QUOTE=TAU!;31062478]I haven't been too focused on Israeli-Palestinian relations as of recent, but have any US politicians or the President tried convincing the Israeli government to stop the building of settlements?[/QUOTE] [B]George W. Bush Administration[/B] “Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, consistent with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338.” G W Bush [B]Clinton Administration[/B] “The Israeli people also must understand that . . . the settlement enterprise and building bypass roads in the heart of what they already know will one day be part of a Palestinian state is inconsistent with the Oslo commitment that both sides negotiate a compromise.” Bill Clinton “We write you because we are concerned that unilateral actions, such as expansion of settlements, would be strongly counterproductive to the goal of a negotiated solution and, if carried forward, could halt progress made by the peace process over the last two decades. Such a tragic result would threaten the security of Israel, the Palestinians, friendly Arab states, and undermine U.S. interests in the Middle East.” letter written to Netanyahu 1996 [B]George H.W. Bush Administration[/B] “My position is that the foreign policy of the United States says we do not believe there should be new settlements in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem. And I will conduct that policy as if it’s firm, which it is, and I will be shaped in whatever decisions we make to see whether people can comply with that policy. And that’s our strongly held view.” George H W Bush [B]Reagan Administration[/B] “The Reagan Plan states that ‘the United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transition period (5 years after Palestinian election for a self-governing authority). Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlements freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be free and fairly negotiated.” [B]Carter Administration[/B] “Our position on the settlements is very clear. We do not think they are legal.” Jimmy Carter [B]Ford Administration[/B] “Substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the convention and cannot be considered to have prejudged the outcome of future negotiations between the parties on the locations of the borders of states by the Middle East. Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors.” [B]Nixon Administration[/B] "My Government regrets and deplores this pattern of activity, and it has so informed the Government of Israel on numerous occasions since June 1967. We have consistently refused to recognize those measures as having anything but a provisional character and do not accept them as affecting the ultimate status of Jerusalem. . . ." Charles Yost, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations [B]Johnson Administration[/B] “Although we have expressed our views to the Foreign Ministry and are confident there can be little doubt among GOI leaders as to our continuing opposition to any Israeli settlements in the occupied areas, we believe it would be timely and useful for the Embassy to restate in strongest terms the US position on this question. You should refer to Prime Minister Eshkol's Knesset statement and our awareness of internal Israeli pressures for settling civilians in occupied areas. The GOI is aware of our continuing concern that nothing be done in the occupied areas which might prejudice the search for a peace settlement. By setting up civilian or quasi-civilian outposts in the occupied areas the GOI adds serious complications to the eventual task of drawing up a peace settlement. Further, the transfer of civilians to occupied areas, whether or not in settlements which are under military control, is contrary to Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, which states "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.’” "Airgram from the Department of State to the Embassy in Israel." Links [URL]http://www.fmep.org/analysis/analysis/israeli-settlements-in-the-occupied-territories[/URL] [URL]http://www.cmep.org/content/us-statements-israeli-settlements_short#Johnson[/URL]
This bill is scaring the shit out of me. The claim is that they just want to protect smaller groups from collapsing but there's just about enough laws taking care of that, and this law practically only shuts people's mouths up, it's especially noteable because that dumbshit clearly states that the problem is homegrown boycott, basically people who want to pronounce their different ideology can't do it anymore. To be more precise they can, but then the boycotted organization can demand a compensation regardless of how much did the boycott harm them. Of course our government also has no burning issues to deal with from the inside, so they can just think up bills like that. I mean who cares about the medical organizations striking because they're not getting paid right? It's not like there's a boycott on them, it's just the government not paying them their salary. It's totally fine. Subsequently a bill to make a large biometric database of all the citizens is closing in to pass. Hooray for democracy. Next up it'll probably be illegal to engage into any activity with Arabic people, regardless of whether they're against Israel or not. This is quickly sliding into making this country some kind of isolated dictatorship. Thing is that unlike countries like Iran or China this country is not big or capable enough to just stand alone, and will collapse. [i]Fuck this government.[/i]
[QUOTE=Starpluck;31071095][B]George W. Bush Administration[/B] “Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, consistent with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338.” G W Bush [B]Clinton Administration[/B] “The Israeli people also must understand that . . . the settlement enterprise and building bypass roads in the heart of what they already know will one day be part of a Palestinian state is inconsistent with the Oslo commitment that both sides negotiate a compromise.” Bill Clinton “We write you because we are concerned that unilateral actions, such as expansion of settlements, would be strongly counterproductive to the goal of a negotiated solution and, if carried forward, could halt progress made by the peace process over the last two decades. Such a tragic result would threaten the security of Israel, the Palestinians, friendly Arab states, and undermine U.S. interests in the Middle East.” letter written to Netanyahu 1996 [B]George H.W. Bush Administration[/B] “My position is that the foreign policy of the United States says we do not believe there should be new settlements in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem. And I will conduct that policy as if it’s firm, which it is, and I will be shaped in whatever decisions we make to see whether people can comply with that policy. And that’s our strongly held view.” George H W Bush [B]Reagan Administration[/B] “The Reagan Plan states that ‘the United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transition period (5 years after Palestinian election for a self-governing authority). Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlements freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be free and fairly negotiated.” [B]Carter Administration[/B] “Our position on the settlements is very clear. We do not think they are legal.” Jimmy Carter [B]Ford Administration[/B] “Substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the convention and cannot be considered to have prejudged the outcome of future negotiations between the parties on the locations of the borders of states by the Middle East. Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors.” [B]Nixon Administration[/B] "My Government regrets and deplores this pattern of activity, and it has so informed the Government of Israel on numerous occasions since June 1967. We have consistently refused to recognize those measures as having anything but a provisional character and do not accept them as affecting the ultimate status of Jerusalem. . . ." Charles Yost, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations [B]Johnson Administration[/B] “Although we have expressed our views to the Foreign Ministry and are confident there can be little doubt among GOI leaders as to our continuing opposition to any Israeli settlements in the occupied areas, we believe it would be timely and useful for the Embassy to restate in strongest terms the US position on this question. You should refer to Prime Minister Eshkol's Knesset statement and our awareness of internal Israeli pressures for settling civilians in occupied areas. The GOI is aware of our continuing concern that nothing be done in the occupied areas which might prejudice the search for a peace settlement. By setting up civilian or quasi-civilian outposts in the occupied areas the GOI adds serious complications to the eventual task of drawing up a peace settlement. Further, the transfer of civilians to occupied areas, whether or not in settlements which are under military control, is contrary to Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, which states "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.’” "Airgram from the Department of State to the Embassy in Israel." Links [URL]http://www.fmep.org/analysis/analysis/israeli-settlements-in-the-occupied-territories[/URL] [URL]http://www.cmep.org/content/us-statements-israeli-settlements_short#Johnson[/URL][/QUOTE] \facepalm [b]WHY ARE WE STILL SUPPORTING THESE PEOPLE?[/b]
[QUOTE=goon165;31081616]\facepalm [b]WHY ARE WE STILL SUPPORTING THESE PEOPLE?[/b][/QUOTE] Perhaps the democratic white knight for once will do something and slap Israel in the face? I mean until now some leaders at least tried to withdraw from these places. But it's just stupid when you pass a law against everything your main supporting force told you to do. I'm not some kind of extreme left wing activist of Israel (Although for most FP this is the politically correct position to stand at), and hell usually I don't care about politics at all, but when you get a law restricting either sides from pronouncing their beliefs, moreover when it goes against everything all of your supporters constantly preach, it's just so stupid I literally can't believe those shits passed a law like that. Sad thing is that it may have been passed in a democratic way but, and I'll take it to the extreme here, Hitler also arose to leadership through democracy, it's just that he wasn't democratic at all.
[QUOTE=ScreamingGerbil;31062383]Wow I hate our government so much.[/QUOTE]
Seems like Israelis can learn something from Egypt and Tunisia, I say you stage massive protests and tell Netanyahu to get out
[QUOTE=ThePutty;31083013]Seems like Israelis can learn something from Egypt and Tunisia, I say you stage massive protests and tell Netanyahu to get out[/QUOTE] Absurdly Netanyahu was absent during the voting process. As was a little less than half of the Knesset, and that's how it always is, and that's why laws like this pass. Also unlike Egypt and Tunisia, you'd be amazed by how many people actually support this law.
[QUOTE=STeel;31081758]Perhaps the democratic white knight for once will do something and slap Israel in the face?[/QUOTE] It's been ages since any Western country has even remotely tried to do anything to Israel. They're too busy pumping military money into them.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;31058578]And we call this the only democracy in the Middle East? They're no better than their neighbors.[/QUOTE] Yes, they are really the only democracy in the Middle East. Israel's neighbors have their share of bad human rights as well. There is no Association for Civil Rights in Syria or Lebanon. [quote]Sad thing is that it may have been passed in a democratic way but, and I'll take it to the extreme here, Hitler also arose to leadership through democracy, it's just that he wasn't democratic at all.[/quote] Except he also got his way to power by failed coups, blackmail, threats, assassination, and bullying his opponents. There is no way on Earth this situation can be compared to Hitler's rise to power.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.