Millis aka t-Sam only tells you half the story - no surprise there then


By Jonathan Hoffman
July 14, 2011
Share

http://thejc.com/blogs/joe-millis/the-anti-bnp-young-man-makes-mincemeat...

Millis of couirse fails to print my response, but then why would he - since when has he ever been interested in balance and factual accuracy?

For those who are interested in balance and factual accuracy, here is my response to Joel Weiner:

Dear Joel

I wonder if you are aware that the anti-boycott law passed by the Knesset makes a boycott move a civil offence and not a criminal one. It does not make boycott attempts illegal so does not “cut down on the people’s right to protest”. It simply brings the private cost to the boycotter closer to the public cost of his/her boycott – good economics in other words. It says to the would–be boycotter “you are free to boycott but your action may no longer be costless to you.” What’s wrong with that Joel?

As for “helping their campaign to portray Israel as a totalitarian state” – as you well know the Israel-haters will do this regardless of reality. They want nothing less than the extinction of Israel as a Jewish state – if you don’t believe me come to the Ahava counter-demo on Saturday and listen to them chant “From the River to the Sea Palestine will be Free”. Or look at the PSC’s logo. If you think that withdrawal from the settlements will satisfy the haters I assure you it won’t – what credit do they give Israel for withdrawing from Gaza?

If you don’t like my IRA analogy then look at the US anti-boycott laws cited above by “Shirl”. In 1977, the United States Congress passed laws making it illegal for US companies and individuals to cooperate with the Arab boycott against Israel and authorising the imposition of not only civil but also criminal penalties against U.S. violators.

Do keep making Israel’s case Joel but be really careful not to ‘follow the herd’ of the bleeding heart average communal UK leftist who does not think or get his/her facts right before s/he reacts.

Kind regards
Jonathan

COMMENTS

Joe Millis

Thu, 07/14/2011 - 12:22

Rate this:

0 points

More strawman arguments from Hoffman. Is this the view of the ZF, by the way? Or are you out on a limb, because Engage, Academic Friends of Israel, BICOM and this here paper are against it? If you are so convinced of your position why don't you and your supporters set up on your own and try to win the battle for hearts and minds in the free market of ideas? You aren't craven and scared are you?
Who is this T-sam of whom you speak?


richmillett

Thu, 07/14/2011 - 12:24

Rate this:

0 points

Can someone explain the importance of this law? I mean can't those who are boycotted sue the boycotters anyway for loss of trade?


Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 07/14/2011 - 12:27

Rate this:

0 points

You are an extremely rude man

The ZF view - as given to the JC for their story on this (see tomorrow's paper) -is as follows:

The passing of this Bill (which makes the boycott a civil – not a criminal – offence) is hardly surprising given that the boycott represents an existential threat to Israel. Other democracies faced with existential threats have also resorted to measures which curtail normal freedoms (eg the UK ’s use of internment against suspected IRA terrorists).

A boycott is itself anti-democratic: it violates freedom of trade, freedom of association and freedom of exchange of ideas. The Knesset can hardly be blamed for making boycotters pay a price. The Supreme Court is there as a check on the Knesset’s actions if necessary. No other country in the region has such a democratic array of institutions.


Joe Millis

Thu, 07/14/2011 - 12:28

Rate this:

0 points

This law stops people making a political stand by calling for a boycott of settlement goods, by attaching the ability of the alleged victim to claim damages. It's like a UK Bill to stop people calling for a boycott of, say, Loyalist-made goods in Norn Iron because of support for the Republicans. Ridiculous even to contemplate in a modern, functioning democracy that is sure of itself.


Joe Millis

Thu, 07/14/2011 - 12:31

Rate this:

0 points

Strawman argument, Hoffman. No one has ever argued that it is a criminal offence. A boycott and a call for a boycott are legitimate, non-violent protests against something you don't like. You don't want to bar non-violent protests, do you?

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS