Boycott law balagan

Editorial

Israel’s anti-boycott law, which threatens to fine advocates of economic boycotts against Israel or cut government funding to groups engaged in boycott-supporting activities, has outraged civil society advocates in Israel and created one of the most stunning rifts ever between that country and its overseas supporters.

“The boycott law is just another step by the legislators to eradicate democracy in Israel. The Knesset has led Israeli society another step closer to hell,” said Dr. Yishai Menuchin of the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel. Labor member of the Knesset Eitan Cabel said the measure is “another law in a series of fascist laws drafted by the government.” Less extreme, but also off the mark, the New Israel Fund claimed that the law “criminalizes freedom of speech,” which is not exactly true. Some will call it pilpul to point out that the law does not create criminal penalties, but civil ones – fines, to be specific. And, if a government opts to cut public funding to agencies that seek to boycott the country – the other penalty made possible under the law – we are not going to lose sleep over that.

On the other side, defenders of the law argue that this issue extends beyond the right to express opposition in a democratic society. Israel’s Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz took a strident position, arguing that boycotts are always wrong. “It’s a principle of democracy that you don’t shun a public you disagree with by harming their livelihood,” he said. “A boycott on a certain sector is not the proper manifestation of freedom of expression. It is an aggressive move meant to force a sector that thinks a different way to capitulate. Boycotts are aggressive and wrong.”

While it was clear that the measure had the support of Netanyahu’s cabinet and party, the prime minister himself didn’t feel sufficiently comfortable or proud of the bill to show up and vote for it. This is not Israel’s proudest moment – and the prime minister seemed to recognize the fact.

Meretz MK Ilan Gilon called the law a “black dysentery” (a bizarre phrasing that perhaps sounded better and made more sense in Hebrew) and added, “I know of nothing that causes more delegitimization for Israel abroad than these acts of legislation.”

There are, of course, myriad things that cause more delegitimization of Israel abroad than this or any other legislation, but Gilon’s assertion illustrates how distorted the view can be from close up. Gilon seems to say that Israel’s parliamentarians should be guided by overseas reactions, which we contend should come further down the list of considerations, certainly after Israel’s security and also after domestic public opinion, among other things. We hesitate, as we have written recently, to condemn Israeli policies merely because they might make it more difficult to be a Zionist in Canada. But this controversy is not so much about discomfort for overseas Zionists. Though we have certainly crowed for years about our love for “the only real democracy in the Middle East,” this is about more than having to defend a policy that is difficult to defend. It is about a policy that is, at its root, undemocratic and counter to our respect for free expression; a law that runs counter to the founding principles and guiding ethics of the state of Israel. This is a matter of core values that we, as Diaspora Jews, assume we share with our cousins in the Jewish state.

Beyond all of the noise and posturing, though, are two practical matters that have been almost overlooked.

From a purely pragmatic position, the anti-boycott law is unnecessary. Despite the howls and harangues of the boycott mob, Israel’s economy is raging. Unemployment is at an all-time low, tourism is at a 10-year high and economic growth was 4.5 percent in 2010. Under these circumstances, the law seems to use a sledgehammer to crush a fly.

Most significant, however, is that, before anyone is affected by this law, Israel’s Supreme Court will decide whether it is constitutional and democratic – and most commentators and civil society spokespeople believe the court will overturn it.

Constitutionality and democracy are determined by the checks and balances that exist in democratic states like Israel. In the end, this may be the uplifting moral of this whole sad story.

^TOP