Archive for the ‘Boycott Israel’ Category

Artists boycott Israel sponsored festival in Germany – Middle East Monitor

Four artists have cancelled their scheduled performances at an international festival in Berlin citing the festivals partnership with the Israeli embassy and their support for the Palestinian call for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

The Pop-Kultur festival, which is due to take place in Berlin next week, is an annual event that attracts thousands of visitors. While the two-day event also boasts over 30 sponsors including several internationally recognised brands, Israel appears to be the only foreign country taking a keen interest.

Tunisian singer-songwriter Emel Mathlouthi, one of the four to cancel their performance, said in a statement posted on Facebook yesterday that she was looking forward to playing until [I] realised the festival was sponsored by Israeli embassy. The musician went on to say: As things get tougher inside and outside Palestine, what each one of us can always do is show solidarity and empathy, as artists it starts by being true and faithful.

Announcing their cancellation, the Egyptian group Islam Chipsy said on Monday that they had cancelled their performance because of the participation of the Israeli embassy. The group posted on Facebook that they wanted to make it clear that their music seeks to resist violence, persecution and discrimination of any kind against each other.

Mohammad Abu Hajar of the Mazzaj Rap Band, who was previously jailed in Syria for his activism, explained why his group had cancelled its appearance last week:

It did not take us a minute to know what we had to do; we will not participate in a festival that accepts the partnership with an embassy representing a state and a government led by right-wing party Likud and Netanyahu which openly declared on many different occasions anti-Arab, anti-Muslim and anti-Black attitudes.

Given this and its perpetration of all previous governments colonial behaviour, we understand the partnership with an embassy as an attempt to whitewash the image of its government and an endorsement of its behaviour.

Read:Palestinians protest Radioheads support for apartheid Israel

Abu Hajar went on to say that the festival cannot achieve its stated aim of bringing artists from different backgrounds together on one stage under such conditions. Our stand is not against a culture, but resistance against a discriminatory, colonial government, he added. It is not merely an opinion that we disagree with, but a whole set of oppressive structures, manifesting themselves in the policies of the Israeli state.

Syrian DJ and producer Hello Psychaleppo, the third artist to cancel, said on Monday that at the time he agreed to take part in the festival over a couple of months ago, he was not aware that the Israeli embassy was amongst the sponsors of the event.

The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) welcomed the cancellations saying in a statement released yesterday: [PACBI] salutes the artists who have cancelled their participation in Pop-Kultur to protest Israels sponsorship.

As in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, a regime of oppression and racism should never be welcomed in cultural spaces claiming to advocate for openness, inclusion and human rights.

PACBI, a founding member of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) National Committee, went on to condemn Pop-Kulturs acceptance of Israels sponsorship describing the decision as a conscious act of complicity in whitewashing Israels regime of occupation and apartheid.

Pop-Kultur responded to the string of cancellations in a statement yesterday to confirm that the four artists had cancelled their performances at this years festival due to its partnership with the Israeli embassy. They also confirmed that the Israeli embassy partly contributes to the travel expenses for artists performing at the festival.

Meanwhile, Artists for Palestine UK (APUK) published an open letter addressed to UK musicians scheduled to perform at Pop-Kultur calling on them to withdraw from the event.

When you signed up to play Berlin Pop-Kultur, you possibly didnt know that the Israeli embassy in Germany was a sponsor. Maybe you also dont know that Palestinian civil society, living under Israeli military occupation or in exile, is appealing to artists not to take part in events sponsored by the state of Israel, in solidarity with the Palestinians long struggle for rights and freedom.

But now that you do know, will you follow the example of the musicians who have withdrawn from Pop-Kultur in the past few days?

APUK, whose pledge to uphold the cultural boycott of Israel has been signed by more than 1,200 UK artists continued:

You have the power to tell the Palestinians they are not alone under occupation and in exile. Please use your power. Please withdraw from Berlin Pop-Kultur.

Pop-Kultur is one of several cultural festivals which the Israeli embassy has been keen to support. The Edinburgh Fringe, one of the UKs major festivals, also partnered with the Israeli embassy. Critics say that under the banner of coexistence and cultural cooperation Israel is trying to whitewash its brutal occupation of Palestine and the long list of human rights abuses committed by its occupying forces against the Palestinians.

Read more:

Artists boycott Israel sponsored festival in Germany – Middle East Monitor

Fair Usage Law

August 16, 2017   Posted in: Boycott Israel  Comments Closed

Clarity on Israel Anti-Boycott Act – HuffPost

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act was introduced to reinforce bipartisan consensus that boycotting Israel is inimical to U.S. foreign policy interests. The Act simply extends existing U.S. law prohibiting participation in boycotts led by foreign governments against Israel to include boycotts led by international governmental organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union.

The Act should hardly be controversial; the current law passed in 1977. Yet three objections have been raised: that the new law would infringe on free speech, that the new law is confusingly written, and that the new law extends the prohibition to goods manufactured in the West Bank.

The American Civil Liberties Union believes that the law unconstitutionally impairs free speech, but the ACLU is wrong. Both this bill and existing law prohibit specific commercial conduct, not free speech. Any person and any company is free to boycott Israel and to advocate for boycotts of Israel under current law and the proposed law. But cooperation with foreign governments, and under the new law, with international governmental organizations, is prohibited. The same conduct that would be prohibited if done independently of a foreign government is prohibited if done at the behest of a foreign government. Intent matters; intent is a common element of criminal conduct, including hate crimes.

The current prohibition against cooperating with foreign governments to boycott Israel has withstood First Amendment challenges, and so has hate crime legislation. If current law is constitutional, then so is the proposed law.

Some have argued that the new law is hard to understand because it includes numerous cross-references, deletions, and additions. But that is how laws are written, and how they have to be written to fit into existing statutory framework. To suggest that the law was written this way to make it hard to follow reflects either disingenuity or ignorance of the legislative process. Aside from the sloppiness of its legal analysis, perhaps the most disturbing part of the ACLUs position is its benign description of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, which is a close paraphrase from the description on the BDS website. The BDS movement seeks to delegitimize Israel and advocates for policies that would effectively eliminate Israel as a Jewish state. One would have thought that intellectual honesty would have compelled the ACLU to at least mention the bipartisan concerns about BDS that motivated the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, but one would have been wrong.

The proposed legislation covers boycotts of goods manufactured on the West Bank. But one can vigorously support a two-state solution and see settlements as an obstacle to peace, as I do, and still understand why boycotts of the West Bank are counterproductive. In practice, boycotts of West Bank goods will hurt Israelis and Palestinians on both sides of the green line. More important, those who advocate boycotting West Bank goods assume that all that is needed to reach a two-state solution is pressure on Israel.

Jews and Palestinians are two peoples, each with claims to all of Israel and all of the West Bank. A two-state solution will require both Jews and Palestinians to relinquish their claims to land that they believe is rightfully theirs. Peace will only occur when both sides recognize and act on this reality. Putting pressure only on Israel, as if Israel can unilaterally solve this problem, will only stiffen Israeli resistance and encourage Palestinian intransigence. The path to peace lies in bringing the two sides together and building trust, not in pressuring only one side, as if only that side is wrong and as if that side can act without a partner willing to reciprocate. And yet under the proposed legislation, any American would be free to advocate for and participate in just such a boycott. All that would be prohibited is commercial conduct in compliance with foreign-organized boycotts of Israel.

By including within its purview the West Bank, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act does not legitimize West Bank settlements or represent a change in U.S. policy; the bill itself provides that it shall not be construed to alter the established policy of the United States or to establish new United States policy concerning final status issues associated with the Arab-Israeli conflict, including border delineation, that can only be resolved through direct negotiations between the parties.

One can legitimately ask if the proposed legislation could be drafted more clearly or to what extent it responds to a real threat. Those issues can and should be debated in Congress. But the progressive and peace communities should not oppose this bill based on the specious grounds that have thus far been advanced.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day’s most important news.

See more here:

Clarity on Israel Anti-Boycott Act – HuffPost

Fair Usage Law

August 13, 2017   Posted in: Boycott Israel  Comments Closed

Pink Floyd co-founder Roger Waters calls on musicians to boycott … – Zee News

New Delhi: Co- founder of the famous rock band ‘Pink Floyd’- Roger Waters, in an interview in Washington DCon Wednesdaycalled out to his fellow musicians for not abiding by the cultural boycott on Israel, Press TV reported.

Here is the Twitter post by Press TV:

Pink Floyd co-founder, Roger Waters calls on fellow musicians to boycott Israel pic.twitter.com/KXiwqfWlzB

Press TV (@PressTV) August 10, 2017

Roger Waters said:

‘Tom Yorke is wrong about not endorsing the policies of the Israeli govt by playing there. Spokespersons of that govt have said how excited they are that this is the next thing that’s happened for their Hasbara, which is explaining to the rest of the world what a wonderful and precious democracy Israel is. And willy- nilly when they cross the picket line, they are making a public statement that they DO endorse the policies of the government, whatever they say because that’s what would be reported in Israel and that is what gets reported around the world. That is why Radiohead are being so soundly criticized by anybody with progressive ideas about human rights.’

‘Civil soc in Palestine in 2005 started the PDS movement themselves. This isn’t something imposed by a bunch of foreign rock musicians. This is something that they started and they have made an appeal to all artists, writers, musicians, actors, directors, anybody in the rest of the world to observe the picket line which they have drawn and to ask us to observe a cultural boycott of the country. ‘

Read more:

Pink Floyd co-founder Roger Waters calls on musicians to boycott … – Zee News

Fair Usage Law

August 10, 2017   Posted in: Boycott Israel  Comments Closed

NC’s Right Move On Israel – The Daily Record (registration)

North Carolina taxpayers will no longer be forced to support corporate boycotts of the United States strongest Mideast ally and the only true democracy in the region.

Gov. Roy Cooper has signed House Bill 161, which will eliminate state pension plan investments from companies and groups participating in the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to exert economic pressure on Israel to withdraw from territory it seized during the 1967 Six-Day War.

The Democratic governor is taking flak from his left flank, as self-styled social justice organizations are apoplectic over the legislation that will take effect Oct. 1.

In a joint statement, 20 groups including Jewish Voice for Peace, the Muslim American Public Affairs Council and the N.C. Council of Churches called the bill a repressive tactic of silencing free speech and prohibiting protest.

The hand-wringing is naked hypocrisy. North Carolina isnt squelching anyones free speech; its employing the exact same tactic as businesses in the BDS movement voting with its wallet.

Private groups have every right to choose how they will and wont invest their money. If a majority of a company, charity or churchs membership believes the state of Israel is committing human rights abuses against the Palestinian people, it naturally follows that the organization would decline to enrich Israeli interests with the cash in its investment portfolio.

Local, state and national governments enjoy the same right. With taxpayer money being invested, its wise to prevent North Carolinas pension plan from being used to make divisive political statements that are supported by neither the voters nor their elected representatives.

Rep. Stephen Ross, R-Alamance, introduced the bipartisan bill. His co-sponsors include Rep. Jeff Collins, R-Nash; Rep. Ken Goodman, DRichmond; Rep. Jason Saine, R-Lincoln; and Rep. Michael Wray, D-Halifax.

Today is a significant day for North Carolina, Ross told his hometown newspaper, the Times-News of Burlington. Its important for our state to stand with Israel against boycotts that threaten Israels sovereignty. This bill protects North Carolinas economy from efforts to restrict trade and affirms our states economic commitments to Israel.

At the end of the day, this bill is less about Israel than it is about economic freedom. Corporations and governments vote with their wallets every day, as do individuals. On the personal level, its known as ethical consumerism. Our decisions on how to use our purchasing power should be guided by information on the causes favored by those with whom we transact business.

Supporters of the BDS movement are disingenuous in their criticism of House Bill 161. Their argument is self-defeating.

Boycotting those who boycott Israel is merely applying the same economic pressure they exert, but in reverse. Turnabout, after all, is fair play.

The Wilson Times

comments

Originally posted here:

NC’s Right Move On Israel – The Daily Record (registration)

Fair Usage Law

August 10, 2017   Posted in: Boycott Israel  Comments Closed

Elizabeth Warren Opposes Bill Targeting Israel Boycotts – Forward

Getty Images

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Groups opposing the proposed Israel Anti-Boycott Act registered another victory this week after progressive icon Sen. Elizabeth Warren joined the ranks of those critical of the legislation.

At an August 4 event, the Massachusetts Democrat was asked by an activist from Jewish Voice for Peace, a group fighting against the bill, for her opinion.

I do not support the boycott, I think the boycott is wrong, Warren said. But I think outlawing protected free speech activity violates our basic constitution.

This view seems to be in line with that of the American Civil Liberties Union, which asked senators to oppose the bill because it may prevent Americans from expressing their free speech in the form of boycotting Israeli products. Authors of the bill argue that it does not penalize individuals seeking to boycott Israel, and that it only targets companies adhering to boycott demands presented by foreign governments or international organizations.

New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand decided last week to withdraw her sponsorship of the bill after hearing from critical constituents during a town hall meeting.

Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com or on Twitter @nathanguttman

Original post:

Elizabeth Warren Opposes Bill Targeting Israel Boycotts – Forward

Fair Usage Law

August 8, 2017   Posted in: Boycott Israel  Comments Closed

50 Senators Want to Make It a Crime to Boycott Israel

In 1966, the NAACP of Claiborne County, Mississippi launched a boycott of several white-owned local businesses on the basis of racial discrimination.

It was so impactful that the local hardware store filed a lawsuit against the individuals and organizations who coordinated the boycott. After 10 long years of litigation, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in favor of the white businesses and ordered the NAACP to pay for all their lost earnings.

Years later, in 1982, theU.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 to overturnthe lower courts decision on the basis that nonviolent boycotts are a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment. In announcing the unanimous decision, Justice John Paul Stevenssaid, One of the foundations of our society is the right of individuals to combine with other persons in pursuit of a common goal by lawful means.

That should have been the end of it. But now, Americans right to boycott is under attack once again thanks to avicious anti-boycott billmaking its way through the Senate.

In particular, it appears to target the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. BDS is an international movement calling on individuals, institutions, and governments to boycott Israeli products until it ends its occupation of Palestinian lands. The boycott is explicitly nonviolent and is supported by activists, celebrities, faith-based groups, and political and social justice organizations around the world.

The proposed Israel Anti-Boycott Act would make it afelonyfor Americans to support BDS, with a penalty of up to $1 million and 20 years in prison.

Unfortunately, the bill enjoys bipartisan support:32 Republicans and 15 Democratsare currently signed on as cosponsors, including party leaders like Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), and Ted Cruz (R-TX). In response, theACLU issued a letterurging members of the Senate to oppose the bill based on itsdirect violation of the First Amendment.(Following the publication of the ACLUs letter, several members of Congress have agreed to review their sponsorship, but so far none have removed their names.)

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act would function by amending an earlier law from 1979, which prohibits American citizens and corporations from complying with boycotts called for by foreign nations against U.S. allies. The new law would include boycotts fostered and imposed by international governmental organizations like the United Nations. In this, its a direct response to the2016 UN Human Rights Council resolutiondiscouraging businesses from operating in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

In one way, its genius. By claiming a connection between BDS and the UN a connection the UN has never embraced, in that resolution or any other the bill attempts to work aroundNAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.

But the BDS movement isnota product of the UN it has nothing to do with it at all, except to the degree that its based on international law. TheBDS call to actionwas issued in 2005 by a coalition of 170 Palestinian political parties, professional associations, refugee networks, and civil society organizations. BDS is a tactic, not an organization, and the boycott has always been grassroots and decentralized, meaning anyone anywhere can partake in BDS by making the simple decision to do so.

Whether the congressional supporters of the Israel Anti-Boycott Act misunderstand or are intentionally misrepresenting BDS is uncertain, but the Supreme Court decision of 1982 is clear as crystal: Americans right to peaceful boycott with the aim to bring about political, social, and economic change is protected by the First Amendment. That means this bill is more than egregiously immoral its unconstitutional.

The bills language also lumps Israels settlements in with the countrys internationally recognized borders.

Significantly, it declares the UN Human Rights Councils 2016 position on Israeli settlements an action to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel. Yet that resolution took no position on the boycotting of goods produced in Israel proper it only took aim at Israelisettlementsin Palestinian territory, which are illegal under international law.

U.S. policysince 1979has recognized that the Israeli settlements are inconsistent with international law.By contrast, the new bill effectively erases any distinction between Israel and its settlements in the West Bank. If its passed, anyone who chooses not to do business with or buy items manufactured in illegal Israeli settlements can be convicted, fined, and even jailed.

Efforts to curb this kind of activism are often touted as efforts to combat anti-Semitism. Yet polls show thatonly 17 percent of American Jewssupport the continued construction of settlements. The bill is so controversial, in fact, that the liberal pro-Israel organization J Street, which has long opposed BDS,recently announced its oppositionto the proposed law on the basis that it divides [opponents of the global BDS movement] by making the issue about the settlements.

Its difficult to know exactly how broadly the law, if passed, will be enforced. Its intentionally vague language leaves a lot to the imagination, and perhaps thats exactly whats intended. The real goal may be to frighten people from engaging in the completely legal act ofliving outtheir values in their economic choices.

But we cant let fear prevent us from exercising our rights and fulfilling our moral obligations. The silver lining is that every effort to quell the BDS movement has served to strengthen it. Each attempt at criminalizing the boycott, whether on the state or federal level, has been met with a spike in Google searches for BDS and related terms.

And with the uproar caused by this new bill, the right-wing pro-Israel lobby just may prove to be the BDS movements best ally.

This article originally appeared on Foreign Policy in Focus.

More:

50 Senators Want to Make It a Crime to Boycott Israel

Fair Usage Law

August 6, 2017   Posted in: Boycott Israel  Comments Closed

Anti-Israel Boycott Act Targets Discrimination, Not Free Speech – The Jewish Press – JewishPress.com

Photo Credit: Youtube

{Originally posted to the Tower Magazine website}

The Anti-Israel Boycott Act currently being debated in the Senate is an anti-discrimination legislation that does not restrict free speech, in contradiction tocritics claims,Northwestern University law professor Eugene Kontorovich explainedThursday at a briefing on Capitol Hill.

The Senates Anti-Israel Boycott Act, sponsored by Sen. Ben Cardin (D Md.), expands onlaws adopted in the 1970s to fight the Arab Leagues boycott of Israel, includingthe Ribicoff Amendment to the Tax Reform Act of 1976. The RibicoffAmendment requires U.S persons to report operations in, with, or related to countries known to participate in unsanctioned boycotts. It seeks to prevent U.S. companies from being used to advance the policies of foreign governments thatundermine U.S. policy.

In order to the enforce the 1970s legislation, the U.S Department of Commerce established theOffice of Anti-Boycott Compliance. Although there are stiff criminal penalties for engaging in unsanctioned boycotts at the behest of foreign countries, only violations by businesses have been prosecuted, and no individual has ever been sentenced for such violations.

The Anti-Israel Boycott Act simply extends the 1970s legislation by prohibiting American companies from abiding by unsanctioned boycotts organized by international organizations, not just foreign countries. The impetus for the legislation is the United Nations Human Rights Councils unprecedented decision to create a database of companies that do business inthe West Bank, a move seen as a precursor to a boycott. (Kontorovich noted that Israeli companies that do business with the UN will most likely be the first companies targeted by this boycott.)

While theoriginal Arab League anti-Israel boycott no longer has much force (Kontrovich noted that the boycotts office is in Damascus), the UNHRCs boycott efforts are active and threatening to gain force.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) launched a campaign against the Senate legislation last month, claiming that it attacks free speech. However,Kontorovich explained a number of reasons why the ACLUs criticism is misplaced. (Cardin and Sen. Rob Portman [R Ohio] also answered the ACLUs objections.)

The Anti-Israel boycott Act doesnt change the existing boycott law, but merely addsacategory of prohibited boycott, Kontorovich. While the existing law has been the basis of a number of prosecutions over the years, no prosecuted company ever used the Constitution as a defense.

The law is also very clear that it does not outlaw expressions of support for aboycott, but rather providing material support to an unsanctioned boycott campaign organized by foreign governments andorganizations. The prohibited actions are describedby the Office of Anti-Boycott Enforcement.

Kontorovich reiterated that whilethe Senate bill allows individuals and companies to boycott Israel privately, it prohibits them from engaging in a boycott at the behest of foreign powers.

Henoted that while 22 U.S. states have already adoptedanti-BDS laws, whichforbid the state from contracting with entities that support discrimination based on nationality,theACLU hasnt challenged these laws as violations of free speech rights.

Kontorovich added that, if successful, the ACLUs misguided objections to the bill could undermine the existing anti-boycott laws. (In an open letter attacking the new legislation, the ACLU described the original boycott legislation as being overblown.)

They could also undermine existing U.S. sanctions against countries such as Iran, Russia, and North Korea. If the facilitation of boycottsa commercial activityis protected as free speech, then their violation could also be similarly protected.

Later during the session, Kontorovich noted that the BDS campaign is premised on the conviction that Israels occupation of the West Bank is a uniquely evil activity that necessitates a boycott. The hypocrisy of the UNHRCs decision to single out Israel isamplified by the fact that two of the countries that support its databaseTurkey, which occupies Northern Cyprus, and Morocco, which occupies Western Saharasuffer no consequences for their occupations.

Kontorovich has previously published a study documenting how 44 companies from around the world operate freely in occupied territory without consequence, whileonly Jewish companies operating in the West Bank face repercussions.The study reveals that international businesses play a crucial role supporting occupation and settlement enterprises around the world in places such as Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh and Crimea, Kontorovich said last month as he presentedhis findings beforethe UNHRC, but the Council has never condemned any of this business activity.

Kontorovich suggested a number of actions that could possibly deter the UNHRCs efforts to boycott Israel. These includedcompiling a database of all companies that do business in occupied territories worldwide. This would affect companies such as the Swiss insurance giant Zurich, which just started doing business in Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus, and which contributes to NGOs that target Israel for boycotts.However, he noted that such a measure would need to be voted on by the UNHRC.

He also considered the viability of threatening to cut off American funds to the UNHRC, but was ultimately skeptical that this would derail the groups efforts to boycott Israel.

Kontorovich said that the best chance to head off the UNHRCs boycott would be for Washington to withdraw from the organization, but seemed skeptical as to whether the Trump administration would do so.

Read more:

Anti-Israel Boycott Act Targets Discrimination, Not Free Speech – The Jewish Press – JewishPress.com

Fair Usage Law

August 6, 2017   Posted in: Boycott Israel  Comments Closed

‘Boycott is not the answer,’ Jewish group says ahead of Waters gigs … – The Jerusalem Post

Roger Waters. (photo credit:REUTERS)

As Pink Floyd co-founder Roger Waters got ready to take the stage in Washington, D.C. this weekend, a local Jewish group launched a campaign to try to contain the voices of protesters against the prominent BDS activist to social media.

The campaign took the form of a video, produced and sponsored by the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, is an effort to educate local Washingtonians on the ways Waters uses music to divide people.

Waters is known for his efforts to antagonize musicians who choose to perform in Israel – instead of boycotting the country, as he does – and once compared the Israeli government to Nazi Germany in a live video chat on Facebook last month.

Music has the power to change the world by bringing people together, the video stated. Music breaks down walls and gives people hope – Roger Waters should know that. Instead he’s using music to divide people.

By pressuring musicians to boycott Israel, Waters makes things worse, by shutting down the free flow of ideas, the video continues. It’s too bad that Roger Waters doesn’t understand that peace can only be achieved through dialogue and engagement. BDS will not bring peace. BDS is not the answer. More dialogue, more respect, more music is.

The video was produced in response to calls to hold protests outside Verizon, the venue where the concerts were held. The council sought to limit any resistance to Waters to the sphere of the Internet.

This is a sort of welcoming party for Waters, Ron Halber, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council said of the video, according to The Washington Post. We want him to know when he arrives in DC that the sort of hateful language that hes peddling and the myths he engages in are going to be met with fierce resistance.

Most recently the former Pink Floyd frontman went head-to-head with the lead singer of Radiohead, Thom Yorke, who defended his bands decision to perform in Tel Aviv.

Rogers drew accusations of antisemitism when a concert he held in Belgium in 2013, included an inflatable pig emblazoned with the Star of David and symbols of dictatorial regimes.

Share on facebook

See original here:

‘Boycott is not the answer,’ Jewish group says ahead of Waters gigs … – The Jerusalem Post

Fair Usage Law

August 5, 2017   Posted in: Boycott Israel  Comments Closed

Israel Must Be Boycotted Unless It Saves Our Lives – Algemeiner

Email a copy of “Israel Must Be Boycotted Unless It Saves Our Lives” to a friend

Saeb Erekat. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

Weve seen before how BDS activists talk big about boycotting Israel which really means thateveryoneelsemust boycott Israel.

We know, for example, how Omar Barghouti wants everyone to boycott Israeli universities, while he attended (attends?) one. Weve also seen how BDS groupshappily use Israeli website technology and even try tojustifyit.

Now we canaddSaeb Erekat to this list. Erekat haspublicly calledfor BDS policies to be adopted in Europe. But now he needs medical help in Israel, andhe doesnt hesitate to use it:

Palestinian Authority chief negotiator and secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Organization Saeb Erekat has a serious lung disease and is currently on the waiting list for a transplant in Israel and the US, according to a report Tuesday on the Ynet news site.

Erekat, 62, was diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis over a year ago and had been on medications that were effectively treating the disease. However, the drugs stopped working several months ago, and his condition has since deteriorated dramatically.

The chief PA negotiator has been receiving additional treatment at a hospital in central Israel, but doctors have warned that his condition cannot improve without an immediate transplant, the report said.

Suddenly, Israeli goods and services seem to be not so terrible!

Erekat could go to Europe or an Arab country to get the transplant and treatment. Butyou guessed it he chooses Israel.

The hypocrisy doesnt end there. The Palestinian Authority has recently slashed the number of medical permits for Gazans to get treated in Israel. YetErekat, of course,hasto get the best medical care possible.

Original post:

Israel Must Be Boycotted Unless It Saves Our Lives – Algemeiner

Fair Usage Law

August 3, 2017   Posted in: Boycott Israel  Comments Closed

Artists boycott Israel sponsored festival in Germany – Middle East Monitor

Four artists have cancelled their scheduled performances at an international festival in Berlin citing the festivals partnership with the Israeli embassy and their support for the Palestinian call for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. The Pop-Kultur festival, which is due to take place in Berlin next week, is an annual event that attracts thousands of visitors. While the two-day event also boasts over 30 sponsors including several internationally recognised brands, Israel appears to be the only foreign country taking a keen interest. Tunisian singer-songwriter Emel Mathlouthi, one of the four to cancel their performance, said in a statement posted on Facebook yesterday that she was looking forward to playing until [I] realised the festival was sponsored by Israeli embassy. The musician went on to say: As things get tougher inside and outside Palestine, what each one of us can always do is show solidarity and empathy, as artists it starts by being true and faithful. Announcing their cancellation, the Egyptian group Islam Chipsy said on Monday that they had cancelled their performance because of the participation of the Israeli embassy. The group posted on Facebook that they wanted to make it clear that their music seeks to resist violence, persecution and discrimination of any kind against each other. Mohammad Abu Hajar of the Mazzaj Rap Band, who was previously jailed in Syria for his activism, explained why his group had cancelled its appearance last week: It did not take us a minute to know what we had to do; we will not participate in a festival that accepts the partnership with an embassy representing a state and a government led by right-wing party Likud and Netanyahu which openly declared on many different occasions anti-Arab, anti-Muslim and anti-Black attitudes. Given this and its perpetration of all previous governments colonial behaviour, we understand the partnership with an embassy as an attempt to whitewash the image of its government and an endorsement of its behaviour. Read:Palestinians protest Radioheads support for apartheid Israel Abu Hajar went on to say that the festival cannot achieve its stated aim of bringing artists from different backgrounds together on one stage under such conditions. Our stand is not against a culture, but resistance against a discriminatory, colonial government, he added. It is not merely an opinion that we disagree with, but a whole set of oppressive structures, manifesting themselves in the policies of the Israeli state. Syrian DJ and producer Hello Psychaleppo, the third artist to cancel, said on Monday that at the time he agreed to take part in the festival over a couple of months ago, he was not aware that the Israeli embassy was amongst the sponsors of the event. The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) welcomed the cancellations saying in a statement released yesterday: [PACBI] salutes the artists who have cancelled their participation in Pop-Kultur to protest Israels sponsorship. As in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, a regime of oppression and racism should never be welcomed in cultural spaces claiming to advocate for openness, inclusion and human rights. PACBI, a founding member of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) National Committee, went on to condemn Pop-Kulturs acceptance of Israels sponsorship describing the decision as a conscious act of complicity in whitewashing Israels regime of occupation and apartheid. Pop-Kultur responded to the string of cancellations in a statement yesterday to confirm that the four artists had cancelled their performances at this years festival due to its partnership with the Israeli embassy. They also confirmed that the Israeli embassy partly contributes to the travel expenses for artists performing at the festival. Meanwhile, Artists for Palestine UK (APUK) published an open letter addressed to UK musicians scheduled to perform at Pop-Kultur calling on them to withdraw from the event. When you signed up to play Berlin Pop-Kultur, you possibly didnt know that the Israeli embassy in Germany was a sponsor. Maybe you also dont know that Palestinian civil society, living under Israeli military occupation or in exile, is appealing to artists not to take part in events sponsored by the state of Israel, in solidarity with the Palestinians long struggle for rights and freedom. But now that you do know, will you follow the example of the musicians who have withdrawn from Pop-Kultur in the past few days? APUK, whose pledge to uphold the cultural boycott of Israel has been signed by more than 1,200 UK artists continued: You have the power to tell the Palestinians they are not alone under occupation and in exile. Please use your power. Please withdraw from Berlin Pop-Kultur. Pop-Kultur is one of several cultural festivals which the Israeli embassy has been keen to support. The Edinburgh Fringe, one of the UKs major festivals, also partnered with the Israeli embassy. Critics say that under the banner of coexistence and cultural cooperation Israel is trying to whitewash its brutal occupation of Palestine and the long list of human rights abuses committed by its occupying forces against the Palestinians.

Fair Usage Law

August 16, 2017   Posted in: Boycott Israel  Comments Closed

Clarity on Israel Anti-Boycott Act – HuffPost

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act was introduced to reinforce bipartisan consensus that boycotting Israel is inimical to U.S. foreign policy interests. The Act simply extends existing U.S. law prohibiting participation in boycotts led by foreign governments against Israel to include boycotts led by international governmental organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union. The Act should hardly be controversial; the current law passed in 1977. Yet three objections have been raised: that the new law would infringe on free speech, that the new law is confusingly written, and that the new law extends the prohibition to goods manufactured in the West Bank. The American Civil Liberties Union believes that the law unconstitutionally impairs free speech, but the ACLU is wrong. Both this bill and existing law prohibit specific commercial conduct, not free speech. Any person and any company is free to boycott Israel and to advocate for boycotts of Israel under current law and the proposed law. But cooperation with foreign governments, and under the new law, with international governmental organizations, is prohibited. The same conduct that would be prohibited if done independently of a foreign government is prohibited if done at the behest of a foreign government. Intent matters; intent is a common element of criminal conduct, including hate crimes. The current prohibition against cooperating with foreign governments to boycott Israel has withstood First Amendment challenges, and so has hate crime legislation. If current law is constitutional, then so is the proposed law. Some have argued that the new law is hard to understand because it includes numerous cross-references, deletions, and additions. But that is how laws are written, and how they have to be written to fit into existing statutory framework. To suggest that the law was written this way to make it hard to follow reflects either disingenuity or ignorance of the legislative process. Aside from the sloppiness of its legal analysis, perhaps the most disturbing part of the ACLUs position is its benign description of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, which is a close paraphrase from the description on the BDS website. The BDS movement seeks to delegitimize Israel and advocates for policies that would effectively eliminate Israel as a Jewish state. One would have thought that intellectual honesty would have compelled the ACLU to at least mention the bipartisan concerns about BDS that motivated the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, but one would have been wrong. The proposed legislation covers boycotts of goods manufactured on the West Bank. But one can vigorously support a two-state solution and see settlements as an obstacle to peace, as I do, and still understand why boycotts of the West Bank are counterproductive. In practice, boycotts of West Bank goods will hurt Israelis and Palestinians on both sides of the green line. More important, those who advocate boycotting West Bank goods assume that all that is needed to reach a two-state solution is pressure on Israel. Jews and Palestinians are two peoples, each with claims to all of Israel and all of the West Bank. A two-state solution will require both Jews and Palestinians to relinquish their claims to land that they believe is rightfully theirs. Peace will only occur when both sides recognize and act on this reality. Putting pressure only on Israel, as if Israel can unilaterally solve this problem, will only stiffen Israeli resistance and encourage Palestinian intransigence. The path to peace lies in bringing the two sides together and building trust, not in pressuring only one side, as if only that side is wrong and as if that side can act without a partner willing to reciprocate. And yet under the proposed legislation, any American would be free to advocate for and participate in just such a boycott. All that would be prohibited is commercial conduct in compliance with foreign-organized boycotts of Israel. By including within its purview the West Bank, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act does not legitimize West Bank settlements or represent a change in U.S. policy; the bill itself provides that it shall not be construed to alter the established policy of the United States or to establish new United States policy concerning final status issues associated with the Arab-Israeli conflict, including border delineation, that can only be resolved through direct negotiations between the parties. One can legitimately ask if the proposed legislation could be drafted more clearly or to what extent it responds to a real threat. Those issues can and should be debated in Congress. But the progressive and peace communities should not oppose this bill based on the specious grounds that have thus far been advanced. The Morning Email Wake up to the day’s most important news.

Fair Usage Law

August 13, 2017   Posted in: Boycott Israel  Comments Closed

Pink Floyd co-founder Roger Waters calls on musicians to boycott … – Zee News

New Delhi: Co- founder of the famous rock band ‘Pink Floyd’- Roger Waters, in an interview in Washington DCon Wednesdaycalled out to his fellow musicians for not abiding by the cultural boycott on Israel, Press TV reported. Here is the Twitter post by Press TV: Pink Floyd co-founder, Roger Waters calls on fellow musicians to boycott Israel pic.twitter.com/KXiwqfWlzB Press TV (@PressTV) August 10, 2017 Roger Waters said: ‘Tom Yorke is wrong about not endorsing the policies of the Israeli govt by playing there. Spokespersons of that govt have said how excited they are that this is the next thing that’s happened for their Hasbara, which is explaining to the rest of the world what a wonderful and precious democracy Israel is. And willy- nilly when they cross the picket line, they are making a public statement that they DO endorse the policies of the government, whatever they say because that’s what would be reported in Israel and that is what gets reported around the world. That is why Radiohead are being so soundly criticized by anybody with progressive ideas about human rights.’ ‘Civil soc in Palestine in 2005 started the PDS movement themselves. This isn’t something imposed by a bunch of foreign rock musicians. This is something that they started and they have made an appeal to all artists, writers, musicians, actors, directors, anybody in the rest of the world to observe the picket line which they have drawn and to ask us to observe a cultural boycott of the country. ‘

Fair Usage Law

August 10, 2017   Posted in: Boycott Israel  Comments Closed

NC’s Right Move On Israel – The Daily Record (registration)

North Carolina taxpayers will no longer be forced to support corporate boycotts of the United States strongest Mideast ally and the only true democracy in the region. Gov. Roy Cooper has signed House Bill 161, which will eliminate state pension plan investments from companies and groups participating in the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to exert economic pressure on Israel to withdraw from territory it seized during the 1967 Six-Day War. The Democratic governor is taking flak from his left flank, as self-styled social justice organizations are apoplectic over the legislation that will take effect Oct. 1. In a joint statement, 20 groups including Jewish Voice for Peace, the Muslim American Public Affairs Council and the N.C. Council of Churches called the bill a repressive tactic of silencing free speech and prohibiting protest. The hand-wringing is naked hypocrisy. North Carolina isnt squelching anyones free speech; its employing the exact same tactic as businesses in the BDS movement voting with its wallet. Private groups have every right to choose how they will and wont invest their money. If a majority of a company, charity or churchs membership believes the state of Israel is committing human rights abuses against the Palestinian people, it naturally follows that the organization would decline to enrich Israeli interests with the cash in its investment portfolio. Local, state and national governments enjoy the same right. With taxpayer money being invested, its wise to prevent North Carolinas pension plan from being used to make divisive political statements that are supported by neither the voters nor their elected representatives. Rep. Stephen Ross, R-Alamance, introduced the bipartisan bill. His co-sponsors include Rep. Jeff Collins, R-Nash; Rep. Ken Goodman, DRichmond; Rep. Jason Saine, R-Lincoln; and Rep. Michael Wray, D-Halifax. Today is a significant day for North Carolina, Ross told his hometown newspaper, the Times-News of Burlington. Its important for our state to stand with Israel against boycotts that threaten Israels sovereignty. This bill protects North Carolinas economy from efforts to restrict trade and affirms our states economic commitments to Israel. At the end of the day, this bill is less about Israel than it is about economic freedom. Corporations and governments vote with their wallets every day, as do individuals. On the personal level, its known as ethical consumerism. Our decisions on how to use our purchasing power should be guided by information on the causes favored by those with whom we transact business. Supporters of the BDS movement are disingenuous in their criticism of House Bill 161. Their argument is self-defeating. Boycotting those who boycott Israel is merely applying the same economic pressure they exert, but in reverse. Turnabout, after all, is fair play. The Wilson Times comments

Fair Usage Law

August 10, 2017   Posted in: Boycott Israel  Comments Closed

Elizabeth Warren Opposes Bill Targeting Israel Boycotts – Forward

Getty Images Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Groups opposing the proposed Israel Anti-Boycott Act registered another victory this week after progressive icon Sen. Elizabeth Warren joined the ranks of those critical of the legislation. At an August 4 event, the Massachusetts Democrat was asked by an activist from Jewish Voice for Peace, a group fighting against the bill, for her opinion. I do not support the boycott, I think the boycott is wrong, Warren said. But I think outlawing protected free speech activity violates our basic constitution. This view seems to be in line with that of the American Civil Liberties Union, which asked senators to oppose the bill because it may prevent Americans from expressing their free speech in the form of boycotting Israeli products. Authors of the bill argue that it does not penalize individuals seeking to boycott Israel, and that it only targets companies adhering to boycott demands presented by foreign governments or international organizations. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand decided last week to withdraw her sponsorship of the bill after hearing from critical constituents during a town hall meeting. Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com or on Twitter @nathanguttman

Fair Usage Law

August 8, 2017   Posted in: Boycott Israel  Comments Closed

50 Senators Want to Make It a Crime to Boycott Israel

In 1966, the NAACP of Claiborne County, Mississippi launched a boycott of several white-owned local businesses on the basis of racial discrimination. It was so impactful that the local hardware store filed a lawsuit against the individuals and organizations who coordinated the boycott. After 10 long years of litigation, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in favor of the white businesses and ordered the NAACP to pay for all their lost earnings. Years later, in 1982, theU.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 to overturnthe lower courts decision on the basis that nonviolent boycotts are a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment. In announcing the unanimous decision, Justice John Paul Stevenssaid, One of the foundations of our society is the right of individuals to combine with other persons in pursuit of a common goal by lawful means. That should have been the end of it. But now, Americans right to boycott is under attack once again thanks to avicious anti-boycott billmaking its way through the Senate. In particular, it appears to target the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. BDS is an international movement calling on individuals, institutions, and governments to boycott Israeli products until it ends its occupation of Palestinian lands. The boycott is explicitly nonviolent and is supported by activists, celebrities, faith-based groups, and political and social justice organizations around the world. The proposed Israel Anti-Boycott Act would make it afelonyfor Americans to support BDS, with a penalty of up to $1 million and 20 years in prison. Unfortunately, the bill enjoys bipartisan support:32 Republicans and 15 Democratsare currently signed on as cosponsors, including party leaders like Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), and Ted Cruz (R-TX). In response, theACLU issued a letterurging members of the Senate to oppose the bill based on itsdirect violation of the First Amendment.(Following the publication of the ACLUs letter, several members of Congress have agreed to review their sponsorship, but so far none have removed their names.) The Israel Anti-Boycott Act would function by amending an earlier law from 1979, which prohibits American citizens and corporations from complying with boycotts called for by foreign nations against U.S. allies. The new law would include boycotts fostered and imposed by international governmental organizations like the United Nations. In this, its a direct response to the2016 UN Human Rights Council resolutiondiscouraging businesses from operating in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In one way, its genius. By claiming a connection between BDS and the UN a connection the UN has never embraced, in that resolution or any other the bill attempts to work aroundNAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. But the BDS movement isnota product of the UN it has nothing to do with it at all, except to the degree that its based on international law. TheBDS call to actionwas issued in 2005 by a coalition of 170 Palestinian political parties, professional associations, refugee networks, and civil society organizations. BDS is a tactic, not an organization, and the boycott has always been grassroots and decentralized, meaning anyone anywhere can partake in BDS by making the simple decision to do so. Whether the congressional supporters of the Israel Anti-Boycott Act misunderstand or are intentionally misrepresenting BDS is uncertain, but the Supreme Court decision of 1982 is clear as crystal: Americans right to peaceful boycott with the aim to bring about political, social, and economic change is protected by the First Amendment. That means this bill is more than egregiously immoral its unconstitutional. The bills language also lumps Israels settlements in with the countrys internationally recognized borders. Significantly, it declares the UN Human Rights Councils 2016 position on Israeli settlements an action to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel. Yet that resolution took no position on the boycotting of goods produced in Israel proper it only took aim at Israelisettlementsin Palestinian territory, which are illegal under international law. U.S. policysince 1979has recognized that the Israeli settlements are inconsistent with international law.By contrast, the new bill effectively erases any distinction between Israel and its settlements in the West Bank. If its passed, anyone who chooses not to do business with or buy items manufactured in illegal Israeli settlements can be convicted, fined, and even jailed. Efforts to curb this kind of activism are often touted as efforts to combat anti-Semitism. Yet polls show thatonly 17 percent of American Jewssupport the continued construction of settlements. The bill is so controversial, in fact, that the liberal pro-Israel organization J Street, which has long opposed BDS,recently announced its oppositionto the proposed law on the basis that it divides [opponents of the global BDS movement] by making the issue about the settlements. Its difficult to know exactly how broadly the law, if passed, will be enforced. Its intentionally vague language leaves a lot to the imagination, and perhaps thats exactly whats intended. The real goal may be to frighten people from engaging in the completely legal act ofliving outtheir values in their economic choices. But we cant let fear prevent us from exercising our rights and fulfilling our moral obligations. The silver lining is that every effort to quell the BDS movement has served to strengthen it. Each attempt at criminalizing the boycott, whether on the state or federal level, has been met with a spike in Google searches for BDS and related terms. And with the uproar caused by this new bill, the right-wing pro-Israel lobby just may prove to be the BDS movements best ally. This article originally appeared on Foreign Policy in Focus.

Fair Usage Law

August 6, 2017   Posted in: Boycott Israel  Comments Closed

Anti-Israel Boycott Act Targets Discrimination, Not Free Speech – The Jewish Press – JewishPress.com

Photo Credit: Youtube {Originally posted to the Tower Magazine website} The Anti-Israel Boycott Act currently being debated in the Senate is an anti-discrimination legislation that does not restrict free speech, in contradiction tocritics claims,Northwestern University law professor Eugene Kontorovich explainedThursday at a briefing on Capitol Hill. The Senates Anti-Israel Boycott Act, sponsored by Sen. Ben Cardin (D Md.), expands onlaws adopted in the 1970s to fight the Arab Leagues boycott of Israel, includingthe Ribicoff Amendment to the Tax Reform Act of 1976. The RibicoffAmendment requires U.S persons to report operations in, with, or related to countries known to participate in unsanctioned boycotts. It seeks to prevent U.S. companies from being used to advance the policies of foreign governments thatundermine U.S. policy. In order to the enforce the 1970s legislation, the U.S Department of Commerce established theOffice of Anti-Boycott Compliance. Although there are stiff criminal penalties for engaging in unsanctioned boycotts at the behest of foreign countries, only violations by businesses have been prosecuted, and no individual has ever been sentenced for such violations. The Anti-Israel Boycott Act simply extends the 1970s legislation by prohibiting American companies from abiding by unsanctioned boycotts organized by international organizations, not just foreign countries. The impetus for the legislation is the United Nations Human Rights Councils unprecedented decision to create a database of companies that do business inthe West Bank, a move seen as a precursor to a boycott. (Kontorovich noted that Israeli companies that do business with the UN will most likely be the first companies targeted by this boycott.) While theoriginal Arab League anti-Israel boycott no longer has much force (Kontrovich noted that the boycotts office is in Damascus), the UNHRCs boycott efforts are active and threatening to gain force. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) launched a campaign against the Senate legislation last month, claiming that it attacks free speech. However,Kontorovich explained a number of reasons why the ACLUs criticism is misplaced. (Cardin and Sen. Rob Portman [R Ohio] also answered the ACLUs objections.) The Anti-Israel boycott Act doesnt change the existing boycott law, but merely addsacategory of prohibited boycott, Kontorovich. While the existing law has been the basis of a number of prosecutions over the years, no prosecuted company ever used the Constitution as a defense. The law is also very clear that it does not outlaw expressions of support for aboycott, but rather providing material support to an unsanctioned boycott campaign organized by foreign governments andorganizations. The prohibited actions are describedby the Office of Anti-Boycott Enforcement. Kontorovich reiterated that whilethe Senate bill allows individuals and companies to boycott Israel privately, it prohibits them from engaging in a boycott at the behest of foreign powers. Henoted that while 22 U.S. states have already adoptedanti-BDS laws, whichforbid the state from contracting with entities that support discrimination based on nationality,theACLU hasnt challenged these laws as violations of free speech rights. Kontorovich added that, if successful, the ACLUs misguided objections to the bill could undermine the existing anti-boycott laws. (In an open letter attacking the new legislation, the ACLU described the original boycott legislation as being overblown.) They could also undermine existing U.S. sanctions against countries such as Iran, Russia, and North Korea. If the facilitation of boycottsa commercial activityis protected as free speech, then their violation could also be similarly protected. Later during the session, Kontorovich noted that the BDS campaign is premised on the conviction that Israels occupation of the West Bank is a uniquely evil activity that necessitates a boycott. The hypocrisy of the UNHRCs decision to single out Israel isamplified by the fact that two of the countries that support its databaseTurkey, which occupies Northern Cyprus, and Morocco, which occupies Western Saharasuffer no consequences for their occupations. Kontorovich has previously published a study documenting how 44 companies from around the world operate freely in occupied territory without consequence, whileonly Jewish companies operating in the West Bank face repercussions.The study reveals that international businesses play a crucial role supporting occupation and settlement enterprises around the world in places such as Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh and Crimea, Kontorovich said last month as he presentedhis findings beforethe UNHRC, but the Council has never condemned any of this business activity. Kontorovich suggested a number of actions that could possibly deter the UNHRCs efforts to boycott Israel. These includedcompiling a database of all companies that do business in occupied territories worldwide. This would affect companies such as the Swiss insurance giant Zurich, which just started doing business in Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus, and which contributes to NGOs that target Israel for boycotts.However, he noted that such a measure would need to be voted on by the UNHRC. He also considered the viability of threatening to cut off American funds to the UNHRC, but was ultimately skeptical that this would derail the groups efforts to boycott Israel. Kontorovich said that the best chance to head off the UNHRCs boycott would be for Washington to withdraw from the organization, but seemed skeptical as to whether the Trump administration would do so.

Fair Usage Law

August 6, 2017   Posted in: Boycott Israel  Comments Closed

‘Boycott is not the answer,’ Jewish group says ahead of Waters gigs … – The Jerusalem Post

Roger Waters. (photo credit:REUTERS) As Pink Floyd co-founder Roger Waters got ready to take the stage in Washington, D.C. this weekend, a local Jewish group launched a campaign to try to contain the voices of protesters against the prominent BDS activist to social media. The campaign took the form of a video, produced and sponsored by the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, is an effort to educate local Washingtonians on the ways Waters uses music to divide people. Waters is known for his efforts to antagonize musicians who choose to perform in Israel – instead of boycotting the country, as he does – and once compared the Israeli government to Nazi Germany in a live video chat on Facebook last month. Music has the power to change the world by bringing people together, the video stated. Music breaks down walls and gives people hope – Roger Waters should know that. Instead he’s using music to divide people. By pressuring musicians to boycott Israel, Waters makes things worse, by shutting down the free flow of ideas, the video continues. It’s too bad that Roger Waters doesn’t understand that peace can only be achieved through dialogue and engagement. BDS will not bring peace. BDS is not the answer. More dialogue, more respect, more music is. The video was produced in response to calls to hold protests outside Verizon, the venue where the concerts were held. The council sought to limit any resistance to Waters to the sphere of the Internet. This is a sort of welcoming party for Waters, Ron Halber, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council said of the video, according to The Washington Post. We want him to know when he arrives in DC that the sort of hateful language that hes peddling and the myths he engages in are going to be met with fierce resistance. Most recently the former Pink Floyd frontman went head-to-head with the lead singer of Radiohead, Thom Yorke, who defended his bands decision to perform in Tel Aviv. Rogers drew accusations of antisemitism when a concert he held in Belgium in 2013, included an inflatable pig emblazoned with the Star of David and symbols of dictatorial regimes. Share on facebook

Fair Usage Law

August 5, 2017   Posted in: Boycott Israel  Comments Closed

Israel Must Be Boycotted Unless It Saves Our Lives – Algemeiner

Email a copy of “Israel Must Be Boycotted Unless It Saves Our Lives” to a friend Saeb Erekat. Photo: Wikimedia Commons. Weve seen before how BDS activists talk big about boycotting Israel which really means thateveryoneelsemust boycott Israel. We know, for example, how Omar Barghouti wants everyone to boycott Israeli universities, while he attended (attends?) one. Weve also seen how BDS groupshappily use Israeli website technology and even try tojustifyit. Now we canaddSaeb Erekat to this list. Erekat haspublicly calledfor BDS policies to be adopted in Europe. But now he needs medical help in Israel, andhe doesnt hesitate to use it: Palestinian Authority chief negotiator and secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Organization Saeb Erekat has a serious lung disease and is currently on the waiting list for a transplant in Israel and the US, according to a report Tuesday on the Ynet news site. Erekat, 62, was diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis over a year ago and had been on medications that were effectively treating the disease. However, the drugs stopped working several months ago, and his condition has since deteriorated dramatically. The chief PA negotiator has been receiving additional treatment at a hospital in central Israel, but doctors have warned that his condition cannot improve without an immediate transplant, the report said. Suddenly, Israeli goods and services seem to be not so terrible! Erekat could go to Europe or an Arab country to get the transplant and treatment. Butyou guessed it he chooses Israel. The hypocrisy doesnt end there. The Palestinian Authority has recently slashed the number of medical permits for Gazans to get treated in Israel. YetErekat, of course,hasto get the best medical care possible.

Fair Usage Law

August 3, 2017   Posted in: Boycott Israel  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."