24 States Pass Laws Protecting Israel

Wisconsin is the latest of two dozen states that have passed laws intended to punish companies and individuals that support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, or BDS, movement that intends to stop Israel’s oppression of Palestinians. But is this action by states unconstitutional, in light of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution? 

By Mark Anderson

When Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) issued an executive order Oct. 27 directing state agencies to refrain from engaging with businesses that have “ties to the anti-Israel BDS movement,” the state became the 24th to forbid state contracts and other official activities with companies that they believe boycott Israel.

“We stand firmly against discrimination in any form and we wholly support our friends in Israel,” Walker was quoted as saying by Breitbart News, without explaining how the state defines a company with “ties” to BDS. “I look forward to leading a trade delegation to Israel to foster new trade partnerships between Wisconsin and Israeli businesses.”

That 15-member delegation to which Walker referred was in Israel until Nov. 2.

The executive order states: “Consistent with existing Wisconsin nondiscrimination provisions and regulations governing purchases . . . [state] agencies may not execute a contract with a business entity if that entity is engaging in a boycott of Israel. Further, agencies shall reserve the right to terminate any contract with a business entity that engages in a boycott of Israel during the term of the contract.”

Liberty Stickers

BDS stands for boycott, divestment, and sanctions, a civil-protest tactic adopted by Israel’s critics to work to end its occupation, expansive construction of settlements, and military assaults within Palestine, especially in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. BDS calls for consumers and companies in the U.S. and abroad to not buy Israeli made products and to curtail investments in and cease overall business with Israeli companies.

According to investigators such as Alison Weir, a former journalist who operates the “IfAmericansKnew. org” website about Israel-Palestine issues, lopsided press portrayals of the situation there have gravely aggravated the situation, clouding public perception about why Israel’s critics support BDS.

Among other things, Ms. Weir told AFP at a Dearborn, Mich. rally in July 2016 that during her on-the-scene visits to Palestine, whenever attacks are carried out by those on the Palestinian side against Israel—typically involving sporadic rocket forays that inflict comparatively little damage— those attacks are given prominent press coverage.

However, disproportionately destructive attacks by Israeli pilots—using U.S.-made warplanes and laser-guided bombs derived from the nearly $4 billion in official U.S. foreign-aid dollars provided in one lump sum annually to Israel’s government— often level entire buildings and blocks of buildings with brutal force, sometimes burying defenseless men, women, and children in the rubble. According to her organization’s research, 1,242 Israelis and at least 9,510 Palestinians have been killed between Sept. 29, 2000 and the present.

While many Palestinians are Christians, pro-Zionist Christian preachers such as John Hagee of San Antonio, Texas turn a blind eye to the extreme suffering endured by Palestinians in the land that Jesus Christ once walked, which includes Bethlehem.

THE ANTI-BDS TALLY

During the same week Walker made his anti-BDS announcement, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan signed an executive order blocking his state from awarding contracts to companies thought to be supportive of BDS.

This anti-BDS movement goes back at least as far as 2015, with some states having fully passed the legislation and others on the brink of doing so. Besides Maryland and Wisconsin, the other states with anti-BDS measures in place are Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. In addition, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order banning state agencies from investing in companies that support boycotts of Israel.

The Jewish press can be quite informative in anti-BDS mechanics. For example, a March 2016 Jerusalem Post article reported: “An Illinois state agency named 11 companies barred from doing business with the state for boycotting Israel or its settlements, the first such designation by an official U.S. body.”

But even the Post conceded that the situation can be tricky: “A number of the entities on the list approved . . . by the Illinois Investment Policy Board have pulled money from Israeli businesses that operate in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, but have not boycotted Israel within its 1967 [border] lines. At least two of the entities have said their disinvestment from Israel in recent years was based on commercial, not political, calculations.”

A key unanswered question is whether the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution—which delegates to Congress the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”—blocks or limits the states from being so deeply involved with commerce in the first place, regardless of the entities involved. AFP readers may want to contact their state legislators with that and related questions.

Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the roving editor for AFP. Email him at truthhound2@yahoo.com.

image_print

4 Comments on 24 States Pass Laws Protecting Israel

  1. do a search on “Dirty Tactics of the Jewish Lobby” Brother Nathaniel. Or Cynthia Mckinney.. What if most of the American Sheeple knew each CONgress traitor does or did have to make a pledge to put Israel’s interest first? Isnt it quite obvious ? You can site constitutional or law till pigs fly. They dont care about our law.

  2. GOYOPHOBIA:

    GENTILES IN HALACHA
    Foreword — Daat Emet
    In this article R’ Bar-Chayim discusses the attitude towards “Gentiles” in the Torah and in the Halacha and comes to an unambiguous conclusion:

    “The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as ‘man,’ and a Gentile.”

    That is to say, any notion of equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. R’ Bar-Chayim’s work is comprehensive, written with intellectual honesty, and deals with almost all the aspects of Halachic treatment of non-Jews. It also refutes the statements of those rabbis who speak out of wishful thinking and, influenced by concepts of modern society, claim that Judaism does not discriminate against people on religious grounds. R’ Bar-Chayim shows that all these people base their constructs NOT on the Torah but solely on the inclinations of their own hearts. He also shows that there are even rabbis who intentionally distort the Halachic attitude to Gentiles, misleading both themselves and the general public.

    For the English readers’ convenience we will briefly mention the topics dealt with in R’ Bar-Chayim’s article:

    Laws in regard to murder, which clearly state that there is Halachic difference between murder of a Jew and of a Gentile (the latter is considered a far less severe crime).
    A ban on desecrating the Sabbath to save the life of a Gentile.
    A Jew’s exemption from liability if his property (e. g. ox) causes damage to a Gentile’s property. But if a Gentile’s property causes damage to a Jew’s property, the Gentile is liable.
    The question of whether robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah’s law or only by a Rabbinic decree.
    A ban on returning a lost item to a Gentile if the reason for returning it is one’s sympathy towards the Gentile and compassion for him.
    The sum which a Gentile overpays in a business transaction due to his own error is forfeit; whether a Jew is permitted to intentionally deceive a Gentile is also discussed.
    One who kidnaps a Jew is liable to death, but one who kidnaps a Gentile is exempt.
    A Jew who hurts or injures a Gentile is not liable for compensation of damage, but a Gentile who hurts a Jew is liable to death.
    One who overcharges a Gentile ought not return him the sum that the Gentile overpaid.
    A Gentile — or even a convert to Judaism — may not be appointed king or public official of any sort (e. g. a cabinet minister).
    One who defames a female proselyte (claiming that she was not virgin at the time of her marriage) is liable to neither lashes nor fine.
    The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may hate a Gentile.
    One may take revenge against or bear a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise, the commandment “love your neighbour” applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles.
    One who sees Gentile graveyards should curse: “Your mother shall be greatly ashamed…”
    Gentiles are likened to animals.
    If an ox damaged a Gentile maidservant, it should be considered as though the ox damaged a she-ass.
    The dead body of a Gentile does not bear ritual impurity, nor does a Gentile who touches the dead body of a Jew become impure — he is considered like an animal who touched a dead body.
    One is forbidden to pour anointing oil on a Jew, but there is no ban on pouring that oil on a Gentile because Gentiles are likened to animals.
    An animal slaughtered by a Gentile is forbidden, even if the ritual slaughter performed was technically correct, because Gentiles are deemed like animals.

    (Daat Emet does not agree that this is the Halachic reason for invalidating a Gentile’s ritual slaughter — but this is not the place to delve into the subject).
    Their members (genitals) are like those of asses” — Gentiles are likened to animals.

    Between the Jews and the Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought R’ Bar-Chayim’s arguments and conclusions are clear, Halachically accurate, and supported by almost all the existent major Halachic works. It would be superfluous to say that R’ Bar-Chayim fully embraces this racist Halachic outlook as the word of the Living G-d, as he himself pointed out in the “Conclusion” of his article:

    “It is clear to every Jew who accepts the Torah as G-d’s word from Sinai, obligatory and valid for all generations, that it is impossible to introduce ‘compromises’ or ‘renovations’ into it.”

    On the other hand, we want to make it clear that Daat Emet — as well as any reasonable people who do not embrace Halachic laws as the word of the Living G-d — are repulsed by such evil, racist discrimination.

    In the Hebrew text we have abridged the second part of R’ Bar-Chayim’s article,

    “Between Jews and Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought,” because, in our view, the Halacha is the law which obligates every religious Jew while concepts of the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and Jewish thought are not binding on anyone, as our rabbis have already written:

    “And so the Aggadic constructs of the disciples of disciples, such as Rav Tanchuma and Rabbi Oshaya and their like — most are incorrect, and therefore we do not rely on the words of Aggadah” (Sefer HaEshkol, Laws of a Torah Scroll, p. 60a); we have expanded on this issue in the portion of Vayeshev.

    GOOGLE:

    THE JEWS ARE CALLED MEN

    Tzfi’a 3

    THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN JEWS AND GENTILES IN TORAH

    Rabbi David Bar Chaim

    Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav

    ANTISEMITISM IS A JEWISH JOKE THAT JEWS HIDE BEHIND – THEY ARE THE GREATEST RACISTS IN THE WORLD!

  3. For and on the “record”: I forthwith violate these unlawful statutory controls that “forbid” any kind of boycotts against the entity known as “STATE OF ISRAEL” inc, which was started by the Rothschilds and currently run by Benyamin Netanyahu, being the supposed municipal corporate form of governance on the land-mass called Israel, which is the accepted English transliteration of Y’israel or renamed Yacob/Jacob. The above stated muni-corp is not a Biblical entity and has nothing to do with YHVH’s promise to Ibraham/Abraham, which was fulfilled in Yeshua/Jesus. The same above mentioned Rothschilds also control the muni-corp on DC known as UNITED STATES, along with a strong influence on all STATE OF’s/COUNTY OF’s/CITY and TOWN of’S/COMMONWEALTH OF’s. All are unconstitutional entities for governance, except by contract through Article 1-Section 10-clause 1. In the name of Yeshua, Amen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


css.php