US companies not free to boycott Israel

[HashiriyaS14]

This is not new apparently, but it is pretty disturbing.

It appears that US companies can be prosecuted under federal law if they choose to boycott Israel. I don't necessarily support the boycott as that isn't really my MO, but I do think that US companies should be free to buy (and not buy) from whomever they choose without the government and political sensibilities nosing into it.

Any thoughts?

http://www.bis.doc.gov/complia...e.htm

[AZhitman]

I don't even need to read the story to know I disagree with it.

If I'm a Muslim-owned US business, am I then foced to do business with a country whose policies I disagree with?

The government needs to stay the hell out of private industry in a big way... This reeks of Socialism and is one more step towards the dismantling of our great Capitalist traditions.

[marlin29311]

I don't even need to read the story to know I disagree with it.

If I'm a Muslim-owned US business, am I then foced to do business with a country whose policies I disagree with?

The government needs to stay the hell out of private industry in a big way... This reeks of Socialism and is one more step towards the dismantling of our great Capitalist traditions.

+1 - forced business not only drives up prices, but it also limits the ability for a company to work in a more efficent manner. In a global economy, everyone can win if we all play the game together - everyone gets the good they want at the price that makes the most sense - start placing restrictions, in the end the consumer loses.

[OriginalWheelman]

Seriously, wtf. Free Enterprise

[Cold_Zero]

It should be pointed out that these two pieces of legislation were approved by a Democrat controlled Congress (94th and 95th Congress) and that Jimmy Carter would have signed the Export Administration Act (EAA) into Law and that Abraham Ribicoff proposed the Amendment to the 1976 Tax Reform Act.

Guys, we are talking about regulating interstate commerce.I dont have that much heart burn about this piece of legislation. As it appears to prevent US industry and groups from conspiring to take down foreign countries (economically or politically) that we have good relations with, by forcing US corporations, industries and exports from doing business with said countries. Also, if you look at the questions on the questionnaires that were used as examples, I was shocked. Imagine that information about their legal commerce could be forced from US businesses (small or large) that could be used against them or against the country. Here is an example, I shakedown Ford (US Auto Manufacturer) who operates in Canada, in order to obtain information on their business dealings with Israel. I threaten them with boycotts or legal action in order to obtain the information. Once I receive the information, I use it to create a larger boycott in order to take down Israel’s economy, industry or the entire country.

What is worrisome is the use of 'individual' in the legislation.

[HashiriyaS14]

^^Yeah, and I want to clarify that I wasn't posting this to target either end of the political spectrum. Pro-Israel forces are pretty evenly distributed betwixt left and right.

Somehow though, regardless of who penned and signed the thing, it doesn't seem like the point of this legislation could conceivably be to "stop companies from taking down countries we have good relations with". That doesn't seem like a credible threat to me.

I think it's political. I think that pro-Israel interests got this passed likely in exchange for having backed some other initiative, although I'd have to look into it further. I am with Greg here in that I think that is despicable.

[Cold_Zero]

I will reserve my righteous indignation for now, seeing is that this has been US law for 33 years now and I was (what?) 5 years old when it was passed?

I was just trying to take a look outside the box in my apology of these two bills. But you are totally right, Hash. The Pro Israel lobby has forces on both sides of the political spectrum.bud

[smockers83]

I wouldn't call it socialism nor would I say forcing a company to business in a region would drive up prices. In fact, it should do the opposite.

Do I necessarily agree with the law? Not entirely, but the reasons make sense. It prevents other parts of the world saying, "Hey, the US participated in this boycott."

[Armelius]

I would tend to agree with you completely only I do remember that during WWI there were Germans here in the US and they were pro-Germany until their counterparts in Britain wanted them to boycott German made goods while the US remained neutral.

In corporatism it's fairly normal that the state would dictate open book polices to the corporations with it's licenses and to make conditions on the corporation while it does business with in the state.

It might have something to do with this though:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/865408.html

I don't remember these laws applying to South Africa unless Reagan called for a boycott. Can't quite remember that.

[ishkabibble]

Couldn't they get around the law by including some bacon with every purchase?

I dont have that much heart burn about this piece of legislation.

How did I know that was coming.

[AZhitman]

Couldn't they get around the law by including some bacon with every purchase?

You, sir, are a bridge-builder and aisle-crosser the likes of which Pres Obama has never seen.

[Cold_Zero]

I don't remember these laws applying to South Africa unless Reagan called for a boycott. Can't quite remember that.

If the United States sanctioned a boycott, then American Businesses would be free to boycott South Africa. And because S/A was the only state to still embrace Apartheid it would surprise me if Congress had pass laws condemning the country.

[480sx]

This legislation is strait BS, although i had heard of it before, here interestingly enough. Think about the message this law sends the rest of the world.

[Jesda]

Well-written libertarian response from Jesda goes here.