While upholding as entirely constitutional the basic idea behind the anti-BDS laws - that boycotting people because of their connection to Israel is not speech, and can be regulated as a form of discrimination. #BDSfail We'll keep winning, @CAIRNational keep spinning.
"The court agrees that the mere refusal to engage in commercial/economic relationships with Israel or entities doing business in Israel is not inherently expressive and therefor does not find shelter under the First Amendment." - Fed.Dist. Ct. in Texas, broadly anti-BDS laws (2/3
Judge went on to misread general language in the law as potentially applying to protests and actual speech - though no state has every applied it that way. That part the ct struck down -but the regulation of economic boycotts that is the heart of anti-BDS laws he sustained. (3/3)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
On recently published UNHRC blacklist: 1) There is absolutely no prohibition in international law from doing business in occupied or disputed territories. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf… 2) Everyone knows this. Even the most progressive governments don ban their firms from such business.
3) The UNHRC knows there is no rule against such business activity. As @KoheletForum has shown, many leading multinationals do massive business in occupied territories around the world, but UNHRC has not thought to blacklist them. en.kohelet.org.il/publication/wh…
4) Thus either UNHRC does not care about the rights of most humans, or they know such business is not illegal, and are creating a blacklist of businesses with ties to Jews. Its a little bit of the former, but mostly the latter.
THREAD: Why @SecPompeo is right to say settlements not illegal. 1) The 1978 memo's conclusion depended on the view that Israel is an occupying power. That view was wrong at the time, because one cannot occupy territory to which one has a sovereign claim. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
2) Even on its own terms, memo's conclusions no longer apply. It said the state of occupation, and with it Qs about settlements, would end when peace treaties signed w/ Jordan. That happened in '94; State Dept just failed to update policy to reflect changes on the ground
3) Even if there was an occupation, the notion that people voluntarily moving - or in some cases returning - to such a territory is a war crime is an idea invented solely for the case of Israel, and has never been applied elsewhere.
THREAD on the EJC decision re Israel product labelling: 1) Its as bad as was expected by observers, including myself. The Court affirms the EU's unique labelling policy that only applies to Israeli products. Reupping my analysis when policy first adopted nytimes.com/2015/11/13/opi…
2) The most glaring aspect of EU's decision is that is says consumers have right to know if a product made in occupied territories or where serious int'l law problems exist. But EU does not req "Made in Moroccan Settlements" labels, or any other such labels anywhere in the world
3) Nor are the poised to introduce such requirements, because everyone knows this is not abut what law requires, but what the Jewish State deserves. So don't hold your breath for "Made in Tibet," Made in Occupied Donbass, Russian Settlements Crimea, or other labels
As someone one who has argued that Israel should admit Omar & Tlaib - not out of some false demand of "openness" but to avoid opportunity for Dems to use their barring as a pretext to slam Israel, I must also say that decision to bar them is legitimate and understandable (THREAD)
Countries routinely deny visas to those with extremist views. The US excludes people for ideologies fundamentally hostile to US (ie communism); the UK and others deny entry to public figures with bigoted views as being "not conducive to the public good." Omar/Tlaib qualify.
But it is likely that Democrats will take the easy way out, pouncing on the visa denial to slam Israel, instead of reckoning with the anti-Semitism in their midsts.
Irish bill on "occupied territories," likely to pass upper house today, is a travesty in many ways, but a teaching moment as well. It shows criticism of Israel re settlements not about int'l law at all, just uses that as an epithet.
2) The bill adopts unique definition of "occupied territories" that applies only to Israel, excludes WSahara, Crimea, NCyprus, etc. Authors care so little about int'l law they're happy to legitimize those occupations to reduce political cost of beating up on Israel.
3) It adopts a definition of "settler" that is entirely unknown to international law, going even beyond the broadest baseless definitions suggested by UNHRC in context of Israel. It is purely made up.