Legislation would enhance anti-boycott measures

[Violet_Crumble]

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Four U.S. lawmakers from both parties introduced legislation aimed at enhancing anti-Arab boycott measures.

The legislation introduced Nov. 12 would require the U.S. Trade Representative to list the countries participating in the Arab League boycott against Israel; declare whether the countries have been represented at meetings at the central boycott office in Damascus and whether they maintain boycott offices; and assess whether their practices have had an impact on U.S. business in Israel.

U.S. Reps. Shelly Berkley (D-Nev.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) and Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) introduced the measure.

"Though the United States Trade Representative reports each year on the boycott, I believe that it could be improved through additional requirements," Berkley said in a statement. "Improving reporting can enhance efforts to end all trade boycotts of Israel and allow for better measurement of the progress toward ending such boycotts."

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/11/15/1009181/legislation-would-enhance-anti-boycott-measures

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So it's okay for the US to boycott countries, but not for other countries to boycott who they want? Maybe the US should pull its head in and mind its own business for a change...

[Kurska]

1. Considering many Israeli companies are listed on the American stock market

and America has huge economic ties with Israel including massive investments in the Israeli economy by American citizens, yes a boycott does affect America and is a issue our congress should address.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. But in the article it says the boycott has little impact, so that's no reason for the US to meddle..

Some of those 'massive investments' include funding of illegal settlements, something the US govt should be stamping down on instead of being so hypocritical about what other countries do when it comes to boycotting...

[Kurska]

5. Right, so you're saying America shouldn't stand up for its allies or its economic interests because

"the negative effect is so small".

Not to mention TRADE AGREEMENTS with Saudi Arabia and other nations which require it not to observe the boycott of Israel, yet they continue to do it, obviously another country ignoring its treaty obligations to America isn't important either. That is mentioned in the article but it isn't mentioned that study after study have found many nations are completely ignoring that clause and that the US has yet to crack down on that.

Does America even view the settlements as illegal? Much less running fund raising for them?

It is amazing how some people can't moderate themselves long enough to admit countries should keep to their word on trade agreements if it means them breaking their word hurts Israel.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/saboycott.html

Source on the trade agreement thing.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. I'm saying it's hypocritical to try to punish others for what they themselves do...

I dislike the whole holier than thou attitude about boycotts when Israel and the US boycott others themselves. I'm also not very impressed with the way the US tries to force its own stance on other counties. When it comes to the WTO, why is Israel being given special treatment by the WTO when it didn't demand that the US must drop its boycott of Cuba to be a member?

And yes, the US does view the settlements as being illegal. That's because the settlements are illegal under international law and there's no use pretending otherwise...

[Kurska]

8. I couldn't care less about the WTO, they are a bunch of con-artists.

I'm talking about the bilaterial trade agreement that the US and Saudi Arabia signed, which matters very much to me, considering Saudi Arabia is violating it openly. The US doesn't have a trade agreement with anyone requiring them to stop boycotting cuba, neither does Israel and if they did it would be a matter for the country they signed it with to enforce it, not the WTO.

The US "force its own stance" is the US enforcing its trade agreements, if Saudi Arabia didn't like the "US's stance" it shouldn't have signed the US's free trade treaty. Oh and before you say it, it makes perfect sense for the US to demand trading partners not boycott their current trading partners, especially when the US has significant investments in that trading partner.

And yes of course a boycott of Cuba is stupid, it is incredibly and utterly stupid, but again I couldn't give a hell and half what the WTO thinks of it.

Also, I think we both know that International law doesn't work that way (when it works at all), so don't feign ignorance. What you're asking to "crack down on" is not illegal in America.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. Don't make the mistake of thinking I care less about Free Trade Agreements...

They're a load of crap and not beneficial to any country other than the US. We were taken for a ride, though when we signed that agreement, we weren't signing it with Israel as well....

Uh, international law doesn't work in what way, exactly? International law does state that the settlements are illegal, and I'm pretty sure the Obama administration and past US administrations hold the view that the settlements are illegal. I'm a bit confused as to why yr appearing to argue that the settlements aren't illegal. That's an argument that's unsustainable...

[Kurska]

11. I'm not saying that the settlements aren't illegal under international law.

I'm saying that it is clearly not illegal to raise funds for them under domestic law and we both know 99 times out of 100 domestic law is going to trump international law.

It doesn't matter who we signed it with, it matters they uphold their end of the agreement and they haven't, so the government needs to step in and do something.

[Jim Sagle]

3. A monument to genuine and constructive bipartisanship.

Our political system so seldom seems to work anymore. This counterexample is indeed heartwarming.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. Yes, it's so heartwarming to see such idiocy cross party lines!

But let's not forget other great moments of bipartisanship, such as support for the invasion of Iraq! I know that makes me feel so warm and fuzzy about the US political system and the wisdom of those who drive it!

[Jim Sagle]

7. Usually bipartisanship SSSSSSUXXXX, so it's refreshing to see a case where it RRRRAWWWXXXX!!!!!!!

:beer:

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Yeah, this one and the invasion of Iraq were real rrawking heartwarmers! n/t

[Jim Sagle]

12. Not the same issue at all.

And not the same phenomenon, either. One issue illustrated political cowardice; the other demonstrated prosemitism.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. I didn't say they were the same issue, but both are political cowardice..

prosemitism? WTF does that mean?

[Jim Sagle]

14. You know what it means.

And no, both are NOT political cowardice. One is simple decency.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. I know what it's supposed to mean, but that's not how you use it...

What it doesn't mean is blind and unquestioning support of Israel or anything Israel does, and that's how you use it. It's not simple decency for the US to be a bully and try to force other countries to not boycott countries who do the wrong thing if that country's a buddy of the US. And how hypocritical is it of the US to then turn around and boycott countries that have good relations with other allies of the US. If any other country tried to interfere with the choice of the US to boycott other countries the way the US does to them, there'd be a lot of complaining about it. Only the sort of people who crack jokes and make light of extremist settlers destroying olive trees would find what the US does to be 'simple decency'

[Jim Sagle]

17. In the court of world opinion, Israel doesn't just get questioned, it's kept on the stand 24x7.

What a lame trope from you. But take comfort; it's shared by a loony, foaming at the mouth world.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Sure that's how apologists who support extremist settlers would feel...

There's nothing rational in yr or their views, especially calling the rest of the world a loony, foaming at the mouth one. There's nothing loony or foaming at the mouth in being opposed to the mistreatment of any people...

[Jim Sagle]

21. Fixating on one relatively minor crisis while ignoring the rest of the world is as irrational as it

gets.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Yep, which is why I made the comment yr replying to...

Try and broaden yr horizons, Jimbo. No-one but you is stopping you from trying...

[Jim Sagle]

23. Now yer just spinning around like a top.

I comment in other folders, unlike you.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Either yr incredibly dense or dishonest. I vote a mixture of both...

Yet again, you accuse me of not posting anywhere else. Do a search and stop lying, because I do post upstairs. And of course I didn't accuse you of not posting anywhere else at DU, so how about you try to keep it honest and reply to what I actually say for a change?

[azurnoir]

15. Take a closer look at the "gang of 4"

Berkley, Weiner and Ros-Lehtinen are all "indebted" to the ProIsrael lobby Sue Myrick is not but her 2010 campaign funding seems a bit thin

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/index.php

[oberliner]

18. Do they get it because of what they do or vice versa?

Chicken or the egg do you think?

[azurnoir]

20. as with the chicken and egg it is a matter of evolution n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. Its a matter of transparency

And its a good thing