Legal Points:
· EAA Anti-Boycott Law
The US currently has a law making it illegal for a US entity to participate in a boycott of a country that is friendly to the US when the boycott pressure is from a foreign originator. This law was created expressly to foil the Arab League’s secondary boycott against Israel. The Arab League’s primary boycott of Israel is restricted to the members of the Arab League boycotting Israel, actions which are outside the scope of US legislative interests. However, a secondary boycott was also maintained by the Arab League. The Arab League central office in Syria administers a blacklist of international companies that have relationships (business or otherwise) with Israel, and Arab League members boycott these companies as well. The US anti-boycott law makes it illegal to boycott Israel due to pressure from these foreign (Arabic) interests. Essentially, the US wishes to be the one to control commerce in America, and not let foreign entities encroach upon this right.
There have been many successful prosecutions over the years in the US against American companies that have tried to boycott Israel in order to receive economic benefits from Arab League members.
US participants in the BDS boycott have successfully avoided prosecution until now, since BDS claims that they fall into a category that is not covered by this law. The anti-boycott law specifies that it must be a foreign nation or state that is the instigator of the unlawful boycott. BDS found a legal organization that asserts that since BDS is neither a state nor a nation, it is not subject to the law.
However, the new scholarly legal paper clearly refutes this contention. In fact, it was always the objective of the United States government to prevent any foreign boycott from being carried out in the United States. BDS is clearly violating the spirit of the anti-boycott law as well as the letter of the law, as BDS is properly considered a representative of the Palestinian nation, which subjects BDS and its supporters to the enforcement provisions of the EAA Anti-Boycott Law.
· Anti-Trust (Sherman Act)
American unions that adhere to the BDS boycott, in addition to violating US anti-boycott laws, may also be violating US anti-trust legislation, which preclude unions from negatively impacting US commerce in manners outside the scope of their traditional objectives (and boycotting Israel obviously falls into this category)
· RICO
These regulations were created originally to combat organized crime/mafia organizational structures, where not only the one committing the crime is charged, but also the boss(es) of the criminal gangs are held liable, even if they didn’t commit the crime themselves.
What better metaphor can there be for the operation of the Arab League, Hamas, and BDS than this?
You have the Arab League, ironically similar to what the anti-Semitic world claims is the (Jewish) Protocol of the Elders, senior representatives of Arabic nations and states, designing boycotts to further their designs for Middle East domination.
Yet, since nowadays the members of the Arab League wish for peaceful relations with the international community, rather than carry out their escapades directly, they use organizations such as BDS to maintain their activities.
And BDS, together with various representatives of the Palestinian nation including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist organizations, continue with the rejectionist attitudes towards Israel, with the ultimate goal of complete elimination of the Jewish State.
Hamas and BDS share the same objectives, and more than this, the new scholarly legal paper asserts that there are strong indications that BDS and Hamas share information, finances, and resources. This subjects BDS and its supporters to the anti-terrorism laws that were put in place by the United States in the wake of the 2001 al Qaeda terror attacks.
And, as Hamas is known to use woman, children and UN schools in Gaza as (human) shields to hide their ammunition and control centers, BDS uses innocent Americans, unaware of their illegal nature and true ambitions, to act as human shields in their boycotts and divestment activities.
The hope is that with the new information provided in the new scholarly legal paper, US legislators will use all legal means available to prosecute BDS and the American organizations and individuals who participate in BDS boycotts, whether they are companies or unions.
And, for US academic institutions, managers of financial funds, and non-profits that have already or are considering ceasing investments, cooperation and/or relationships with Israel, to re-consider and investigate in more depth, so that they can understand exactly who BDS is, what they stand for, and not be misled by their mischaracterizations and lies.
Does any organization really want to align itself with such a disingenuous and dangerous movement as BDS?
No comments:
Post a Comment