Israeli lawmakers pass West Bank settlement boycott law

[Gerald]

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."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14111925


Note: 11 July 2011 Last updated at 20:29 GMT

[MH]

This law causes more damage than good in current political configuration but...
I admit that i really despise the ones that boycott certain parts of Israeli population.As long as state of Israel and Israeli citizens remain in West Bank by authority of Israel the settlers/citizens have rights to equal services and opportunities.
For me its out of question that some part of Israeli government sponsored individuals will decide to boycott this or that town for political reasons.
Their obligation is to give equal cervices to all parts of Israel.
Even if they disagree that West Bank is part of Israel.

On political and propaganda side it wasn't smart thing to do at the moment.
It seems it will be smeared all over news everywhere and together with the flotilla and some twists may be easily turned into-"told you Israel is fascist state".
As far as i know USA has similar legislation.

Once again the nuts in Israel and the occupied territories draw the agenda for Israel as a whole.

As far as i know USA has similar legislation.

Yes America has legislation that says you cannot boycott the produce of any of its citizens that have illegaly settled outside the country.

[Penguin]

What a dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb,dumb,dumb,dumb,dumb,dumb,dumb,dumb,dumb, law
did I mention that I think this law is not bright?

I just hope the Israeli Supreme Court has smarter heads than those who sit in the parliament.
In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court has in the past years often been the last resort of reason to insane law proposals. With so many lawyers sitting in the Bundestag, they should know better how to stay in bounds with our constitution, but, they always try, a litle too often for my taste.

One should not infringe in the right of not to consume anything, and also not on the right to inform anybody about their choices. I get on the nerves of my Mitmenschen every day with my likes and dislikes. And hey: what world would we live in, if somebody who writes into his little cooking blog: "I hate gefilte fisch", will be sued by the Israeli fishing industry?

As much as I think those people who support the don't-buy-israeli-thing stink, as much those people have the right to say why they don't want to buy from there. And as long as they don't step on my right to eat my Oranges from Israel in front of them
And I don't care which ethnicity the people who work on the Orange field have - as long as they are hot women without Orangenhaut - Orange skin, that's German for cellulite

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by MH

As long as state of Israel and Israeli citizens remain in West Bank by authority of Israel the settlers/citizens have rights to equal services and opportunities.

My heart bleeds for those settlers.

If the settlers don't have access to commercial products or services because of where they choose to live, they can always, you know...move. I don't see why other private citizens or companies should be forced to provide them with anything. Indeed, aren't the settlements already subsidized by the Israeli government, and thus by all Israeli taxpayers? That's not enough?

As far as i know USA has similar legislation.

Nope.

[MH]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

My heart bleeds for those settlers.




If the settlers don't have access to commercial products or services because of where they choose to live, they can always, you know...move.
.

Very smart.

Originally Posted by AngusJS

I don't see why other private citizens or companies should be forced to provide them with anything. Indeed, aren't the settlements already subsidized by the Israeli government, and thus by all Israeli taxpayers? That's not enough?
Nope.

They are subsidised by tax payers as any other citizen.
They don't get paid to live in WB.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Penguin

What a dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb,dumb,dumb,dumb,dumb,dumb,dumb,dumb,dumb, law
did I mention that I think this law is not bright?

I just hope the Israeli Supreme Court has smarter heads than those who sit in the parliament.

Usually it is.
So far has guarded Israel very well against some stupid initiatives.

They are subsidised by tax payers as any other citizen.
They don't get paid to live in WB.

Yeah yeah yeah.
Though of course that would not be true as is usual from you.

There are of course all the usual subsidies any citizen benefits from even though the settlements are illegal.
However you also have the Housing and Construction ministry, the Education ministry, the Defence ministry and the semi governmental WZO all found to be systematicly but fraudulently subsidising the illegal settlements.
So is that the same systematic but fraudulent tax payer subsidies any other citizen gets?

[MH]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yeah yeah yeah.
Though of course that would not be true as is usual from you.

There are of course all the usual subsidies any citizen benefits from even though the settlements are illegal.

Ilegal-its a matter of perspective.
Israel has not withdrawn from west bank therefore there is reason to discriminate Israeli citizens.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

However you also have the Housing and Construction ministry, the Education ministry, the Defence ministry and the semi governmental WZO all found to be systematicly but fraudulently subsidising the illegal settlements.
So is that the same systematic but fraudulent tax payer subsidies any other citizen gets?

So tell me in what why?
Unless you call building infrastructure roads school security protection subsidizing or bribing into living there.
Actually it cheaper to buy or rent house in some settlements deep in west bank but that's because usually nobody wants to live there.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by MH

They are subsidised by tax payers as any other citizen.
They don't get paid to live in WB.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/study-se...ities-1.280448

"While Israeli municipalities as a whole receive 34.7 percent of their income from [the government] and obtain another 64.3 percent from their own income, settlement municipalities obtain 57 percent from the [government], and only 42.8 percent from their own income," the study found.

Ilegal-its a matter of perspective.

No, legality is a matter of law.

So tell me in what why?

Probably because some stupid clever european liberal leftist arab anti semite said so
After all that is your usual level of "thought" on the subject.
Other people however may have thought on the subject before they made the claim in the first place.


Nice piece AngusJS, however if you note my use of the words "fraudulent" it puts those illegal payments by the Israeli govt. and a semi-state body outside the scope of that breakdown in your article.
As above the word illegal relates to law and is not a matter of perspective like in a "Israel is right no matter what the law says" type of view, plus of course the word "systematic" added to the word "fraudulent" adds gravity especially when it is the government who is being accused and it is an official judicial inquiry started by that government that made those findings.
It does kind of make it hard for MH to support his "truths" when the Israeli govt. itself set up a process which showed them to be false

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No, legality is a matter of law.

I'm surprised someone as blatantly biased as you can tell the difference.

I'm surprised someone as blatantly biased as you can tell the difference.

You are correct in a way, I am biased against people who feel they have to lie in order to try and make a case.
However if someone wants to post about the wonders of the Chinese or Turkish government and country despite all the evidence to the contrary then they will get the same treatment as anyone else who does it.
That is what is known as balance not bias.
So really the bias is in your perception Steve fed of course by the simple fact that only a few countries have any people posting here who will all too frequently just follow the national/party line no matter what the facts of the matter may be.

[Jimbuna]

Posted for reference/observation purposes.

Can we all please ensure we refrain from any comments that may be perceived as personal attacks.

Looking forward to an interesting debate.

[MH]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

http://www.haaretz.com/news/study-se...ities-1.280448

Good one but it describes the issue in very general way.
I wonder what are the spending and government help to settlements/towns with in the green line that are peripheral-will have to check it.
Elitat which is a most southern settlement with in green line has tax breaks.
Everything is actually cheaper there for Elitat residents.
Settlements in WB don't enjoy this....
I don't see on the ground anything that could justify the additional spending.
Not in a way or life or special benefits-nothing.
i would go even further and can tell you that banks sometimes will not give a loans to people who want to live in certain locations because of insurance issues.
I should claim that some isolated but small settlements coast the government more money.
The reason may be the issue of services per person that need to be given.
That means that relatively small communities enjoy services that otherways are given to much vaster population in Tel-Aviv for example.
The second reason might be security issue which coast a lot of money and is partly financed by ministry of defence.
Security issue/spending and method may vary from seterment to settlement depending on level of threats.
In light of concessions that previous governments were ready to make regarding WB its clear that this are not Begin times.
Therefore i think that all spending even if higher on the average are due to giving people the services they need plus security.

Israeli government dosnt encourage activity settling in west bank.
Its a matter of personal choice.