Boycotts of Israel are a political tactic of avoiding economic, political and cultural ties with the State of Israel, with individual Israelis or with Israeli-based companies or organizations.[1] Boycott campaigns are used by those who oppose Israel's existence, or oppose Israel's policies or actions over the course of the Arab–Israeli conflict, in order to object to Israeli policies in general, or its economy or military in particular. Contents

Boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses in Mandatory Palestine

Arab League boycott of Israel

Organisation of Islamic Cooperation boycott

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) urges its members to join in the Arab League boycott of Israel.[8][9] Ten members of OIC (in addition to those that are also members of the Arab League) have joined the diplomatic boycott: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Chad, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Mali, Niger, and Pakistan. The call was renewed on 22 May 2018, when the OIC recommended to its 57 members a selective ban on some Israeli goods because of the events in Gaza and the opening of the United States embassy in Jerusalem.[10]

Diplomatic boycott by Arab League and others

Arms embargoes

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign

Academic and cultural boycotts

Reception

United States government response

In the United States, the Export Administration Act discourages, and in some circumstances, prohibits U.S. companies and individuals from furthering or supporting the boycott of Israel. The Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is responsible for penalties are imposed for each "knowing" violation with fines of up to $50,000 or five times the value of the exports involved, whichever is greater, and imprisonment of up to five years. During the mid-1970s the United States adopted two laws that seek to counteract the participation of U.S. citizens in other nation's economic boycotts or embargoes. These "antiboycott" laws are the 1977 amendments to the Export Administration Act (EAA) and the Ribicoff Amendment to the Tax Reform Act of 1976 (TRA). While these laws share a common purpose, there are distinctions in their administration. The antiboycott laws were adopted to encourage, and in specified cases, require U.S. firms to refuse to participate in foreign boycotts that the United States does not sanction. They have the effect of preventing U.S. firms from being used to implement foreign policies of other nations which run counter to U.S. policy. The Arab League boycott of Israel is the principal foreign economic boycott that U.S. companies must be concerned with today. The antiboycott laws, however, apply to all boycotts imposed by foreign countries that are unsanctioned by the United States. The antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) apply to the activities of U.S. persons in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States. The term "U.S. person" includes all individuals, corporations and unincorporated associations resident in the United States, including the permanent domestic affiliates of foreign concerns. U.S. persons also include U.S. citizens abroad (except when they reside abroad and are employed by non-U.S. persons) and the controlled in fact affiliates of domestic concerns. The test for "controlled in fact" is the ability to establish the general policies or to control the day-to-day operations of the foreign affiliate.[195] The scope of the EAR, as defined by Section 8 of the EAA, is limited to actions taken with intent to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott. What do the laws prohibit? Conduct that may be penalized under the TRA and/or prohibited under the EAR includes:[196] Agreements to refuse or actual refusal to do business with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies

Agreements to discriminate or actual discrimination against other persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin or nationality.

Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about business relationships with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.

Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person. Implementing letters of credit containing prohibited boycott terms or conditions. The TRA does not "prohibit" conduct, but denies tax benefits ("penalizes") for certain types of boycott-related agreements. What must be reported? The EAR requires U.S. persons to report quarterly requests they have received to take certain actions to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott.[195] The TRA requires taxpayers to report "operations" in, with, or related to a boycotting country or its nationals and requests received to participate in or cooperate with an international boycott. The Treasury Department publishes a quarterly list of "boycotting countries." Penalties The Export Administration Act (EAA) specifies penalties for violations of the Antiboycott Regulations as well as export control violations. These can include: Criminal The penalties imposed for each "knowing" violation can be a fine of up to $50,000, or five times the value of the exports involved, whichever is greater, and imprisonment of up to five years. During periods when the EAR are continued in effect by an Executive Order, issued pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the criminal penalties for each "willful" violation can be a fine of up to $50,000 and imprisonment for up to ten years.[195] Administrative For each violation of the EAR, any or all of the following may be imposed: General denial of export privileges;

The imposition of fines of up to $11,000 per violation; and/or

Exclusion from practice. Boycott agreements under the TRA involve the denial of all or part of the foreign tax benefits discussed above. When the EAA is in lapse, penalties for violation of the Antiboycott Regulations are governed by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The IEEPA Enhancement Act provides for penalties of up to the greater of $250,000 per violation, or twice the value of the transaction for administrative violations of Antiboycott Regulations, and up to $1 million and 20 years imprisonment per violation for criminal anti-boycott violations.[195]

Israeli government response

Australia

French supreme court verdict

On 22 May 2012, the Cour de Cassation (one of the French final appeals courts) ruled that publicly calling for a boycott of Israeli products constitutes incitement and discrimination based on nationality. The verdict by the Cour de Cassation was the final verdict in a lengthy legal battle, which consisted of a series of convictions, acquittals, and appeals.[162] French lawyer Michael Ghnassia wrote that the ban on publicly calling for a boycott of Israeli products does not violate freedom of speech because such boycotts affect all Israelis, and is therefore "based on a racial, religious or national criterion and rather than representing a simple opinion, is a discriminatory action".[209]

United Kingdom

A UK court dismissed in 2013 claims that the University and College Union was institutionally anti-Semitic due to motions it had passed in favour of a boycott of Israel. The judgement, by an employment tribunal, was strongly critical of the claims, referring to them as "an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means" and displaying a "worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression".[210] In 2017 a UK Administrative Court ruled the British government had acted unlawfully in implementing regulations that sought to limit divestment campaigns against Israeli companies.[211]

See also