← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · londo
Thread ID: 15279 | Posts: 8 | Started: 2004-10-11
2004-10-11 13:28 | User Profile
As the push to cut off investments in Israel gains momentum in Protestant circles, Jewish organizations and their allies on Capitol Hill are racing to neutralize the burgeoning divestment movement.
This week, following a tense three-hour summit with upset Jewish communal officials, leaders of the Louisville-based Presbyterian Church (USA), with 2.5 million members, said they were determined to go ahead with their recently approved plan to divest selectively from Israel. The interfaith meeting came just days after Anglican Church officials visiting Israel said that they would push for consideration of a divestment plan to protest Israel's policies toward the Palestinians.
"The Presbyterian divestment could potentially create a snowball effect and resurrect what had been a moribund issue," said the interfaith affairs director of the Anti-Defamation League, Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor. "Now it has provoked the Anglicans, and we know it will not end there. We have to send a clear message to every church that they will have to face a united Jewish community on this issue."
In an effort to head off anti-Israel divestment efforts, a bipartisan group of 13 congressmen sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce stating that such campaigns violate America's laws regarding the Arab boycott of Israel. The letter, which was initiated by the Zionist Organization of America, was sent to the Commerce's Office of Anti-boycott Compliance. The congressmembers urged the office to "investigate the national boycott campaign against Israel, shut down the illegal divestment campaigns and impose the appropriate penalties."
A second bipartisan group of congressmen sent a letter to the Presbyterian Church's chief executive, the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, calling for the church to abandon its recently adopted divestment plan. The letter, organized by Howard Berman, a California Democrat, termed the church's divestment policy "irresponsible, counterproductive and morally bankrupt."
[url=http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=greenberg200409291150] Read the rest here. [/url]
2004-10-11 14:47 | User Profile
The letter stated that the resolution "leads us to only one conclusion: The Presbyterian Church has knowingly gone on record calling for jeopardizing the existence of the State of Israel."
No, Israel put itself in this position by not leaving the occupied territories. Furthermore, Israel's policies jeopardize the U.S. by putting the U.S. in the hideous position of trying to justify the unjustifiable.
Tuesday's interfaith summit also comes as the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a conservative Washington think tank, issued a report accusing mainline Protestant churches of disproportionately attacking Israel, while letting repressive regimes known for human rights abuses, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, off the hook.
While I have no use for the N.C.C., I have even less use for the I.R.D. This is a neocon front masquerading as a "conservative" organization.
2004-10-11 22:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]No, Israel put itself in this position by not leaving the occupied territories. Furthermore, Israel's policies jeopardize the U.S. by putting the U.S. in the hideous position of trying to justify the unjustifiable.
That's the problem with that culture. It is sociopathic in nature. Everything good that comes their way, they deserve because they're "God's chosen", everything bad is somebody else's fault. "Israel means never having to say you're sorry!"
While I have no use for the N.C.C., I have even less use for the I.R.D. This is a neocon front masquerading as a "conservative" organization.[/QUOTE]
The US is absolutely saturated with these covert, or fifth column groups. That's not an accident. These guys are a political virus.
2004-10-12 04:32 | User Profile
More stuff:
For Immediate Release May 14, 2002 Contact: BIS Public Affairs (202) 482-2721
Commerce Official Urges Compliance with Regulations Opposing Boycott of Israel
Commerce Under Secretary for Industry and Security Kenneth I. Juster today reiterated to U.S. companies that the Department will vigorously enforce its regulations prohibiting U.S. persons from taking any action in support of foreign government boycotts against Israel.
"The U.S. Government stands firm in its policy of opposing restrictive trade practices or boycotts against Israel," Juster said. "The Commerce Department is committed to using all of its resources to oppose economic boycotts against Israel and corporations that do business with Israel."
The Commerce Department's antiboycott regulations are administered by its Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). Those regulations prohibit U.S. persons from taking actions in support of unsanctioned foreign government boycotts, including the Arab League boycott of Israel. Prohibited actions include refusing to do business with Israel, refusing to employ citizens on the basis of race or religion, or furnishing to foreign governments information about an employee's race or religion, when taken in support of the boycott.
BIS is closely monitoring recent reports of renewed calls by certain foreign governments for boycotts of Israeli businesses and U.S. companies that do business with Israel. BIS has a long record of aggressive enforcement of the antiboycott regulations with over $26 million in civil penalties imposed, a criminal conviction, and denials of export privileges where violations have been found.
Questions concerning Commerce's antiboycott regulations can be directed to its Office of Antiboycott Compliance by telephone (202-482-2381) or via email
[url]http://www.bxa.doc.gov/news/2002/antiboycottcompliance5_14_02.htm[/url]
Office of Antiboycott Compliance
[url]http://www.bxa.doc.gov/AntiboycottCompliance/Default.htm[/url]
Congressmembers Urge U.S. Action Against Divestment Campaign IMRA ^ | 9-29-04
Posted on 09/29/2004 5:26:47 AM PDT by SJackson
ZOA: Congressmembers Urge U.S. Action Against Divestment Campaign
September 28, 2004 Contact: (212) 481-1500 Attn: NEWS EDITOR
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO COMMERCE DEPT: ANTI-ISRAEL DIVESTMENT CAMPAIGNS VIOLATE U.S. ANTI-BOYCOTT LAWS
NEW YORK- A bipartisan group of thirteen Members of Congress has sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, urging the shutdown of anti-Israel divestment campaigns, because they violate U.S. laws regarding the Arab boycott of Israel.
The letter was initiated by the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). It was led by U.S. Representatives Jim Saxton (R-NJ) and Rob Andrews (D-NJ), and also signed by Representatives Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Pete Sessions (R-TX), Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), Michael McNulty (D-NY), Peter King (R-NY), Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU), Martin Frost (D-TX), Philip Crane (R-IL), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO).
The letter, which was sent to the Commerce Department's Office of Anti-boycott Compliance, noted that by urging Americans to divest their holdings in companies doing business with Israel, the divestment organizers are illegally "furnishing information about U.S. companies that have business relationships in or with Israel, and specifically advocate that these companies be boycotted." Such actions are "expressly prohibited by the anti-boycott provisions of the Export Administration Act, which were enacted in response to congressional concerns about the Arab boycott of Israel."
The Congressional letter noted that divestment supporters are actively promoting the boycott of Israel on the internet and have launched divestment campaigns on more than thirty college campuses, including the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
The divestment campaign "poses serious economic consequences for our country," the letter pointed out, noting that according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Arab boycott of Israel is a "substantive impediment" to U.S. trade and investment. "The financial future of U.S. companies and the status of our country's international trade ... are at stake."
The Congressmembers urged the Office of Anti-boycott Compliance to "investigate the national boycott campaign against Israel, shut down the illegal divestment campaigns, and impose the appropriate penalties."
The letter added that the issue is "urgent" because a national student divestment conference is scheduled to be held at Duke University on October 15, 2004.
Susan B. Tuchman, director of the ZOA's Center for Law and Justice, which has been active on this issue, said: "These thirteen Members of Congress are to be commended for their forthright and principled stand against the divestment proponents, who are violating U.S. law by illegally promoting economic warfare against America's ally, Israel."
[url]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1230185/posts[/url]
2004-10-12 09:17 | User Profile
Faust,
This crap sounds like an international version of the 1964 "Civil Rights" Act. I don't see where the feds have the grounds to tell a private company that they have to do business with Israel if they don't want to. From reading these articles it seems that they can.
[QUOTE]BIS is closely monitoring recent reports of renewed calls by certain foreign governments for boycotts of Israeli businesses and U.S. companies that do business with Israel. BIS has a long record of aggressive enforcement of the antiboycott regulations with over $26 million in civil penalties imposed, a criminal conviction, and denials of export privileges where violations have been found.[/QUOTE]
Too bad the feds aren't as aggresive in enforcing the Logan Act against those who agitate on behalf of Israel as unregistered agents of that country.
2004-10-12 12:54 | User Profile
Sertorius,
Yes this is just sick. Remember one company was fined just for telling an Arab that all their products were made in U.S.A.
The feds were not very aggresive in enforcing this "antiboycott" law in the early 1980's when it came to South Africa.
I found this with Google. [QUOTE]company fined $6,000 for violating new boycott law....
[url]http://www.unknownnews.net/0626-2.html[/url]
Company fined $6,000 for answering customer's question "Is any of this stuff made in Israel?"
by Helen & Harry Highwater, Unknown News June 27, 2003
A Missouri company has been fined $6,000 for answering a customer's question and not reporting to the federal government that the question was asked. The question that's punished by law is: Are any of these products made in Israel, or made of Israeli materials?
The Kansas City Star reports: The anti-boycott provisions bar U.S. companies from providing information about their business relationships with Israel. They also require that receipt of boycott requests be reported to the Bureau of Industry and Security, formerly known as the Bureau of Export Administration. We ask: Why is this question forbidden? Why is any question forbidden?
It sounds more like the USSR than the USA, to punish people for asking a forbidden question, or for not immediately reporting to the government that someone else asked a forbidden question.
Only a few years ago, during South Africa's apartheid era, it was considered the height of good moral backbone to ask whether a product came from that country. Today, many Americans are asking such questions about products they suspect came from France, after the French government declined to join "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
The article doesn't make it clear whether these restrictions apply only to US companies selling stuff outside the US, or whether the law applies to everyone. Either way, it's reprehensible.
[Editor's note: Here's what the Office of Antiboycott Compliance says: "The antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) apply to all "U.S. persons," defined to include individuals and companies located in the United States and their foreign affiliates."]
If K-Mart is having a sale on cheap plastic chess sets and we ask the clerk whether the board or pieces were made in Israel, is the clerk allowed to answer? Must the store promptly file a form with the Bureau of Industry and Security reporting that we asked?
Well, we'll be asking the forbidden question in every store we enter. Not because we're boycotting Israel ââ¬â we're not. Heck, if we were boycotting products from countries whose policies are abhorrent, we'd start by boycotting anything marked "made in USA."
We'll be asking the forbidden question because we believe in freedom. In a free society, the government doesn't tell people what questions they can ask, and what questions they can't, and what questions must be promptly reported to the authorities.
We had heard of this law before ââ¬â banning people from even asking about boycotting Israeli products ââ¬â but we had foolishly assumed it wasn't often enforced.
According to the article, though, "more than $26 million in fines" have been levied for violations of this law, suggesting that enforcement of the Forbidden Question Law is not at all uncommon. The fine in this case was $6,000, so assuming that's average and doing the math, more than 4,000 Americans or American companies have been fined ââ¬â for asking the forbidden question, or failure to report that someone else asked the forbidden question.
North Kansas City company settles charge related to boycott of Israel
by Dan Margolies, Kansas City Star June 25, 2003
Cook Composites and Polymers Co. has agreed to pay a $6,000 fine to settle charges that it violated Commerce Department regulations aimed at countering the Arab boycott of Israel.
The department's Bureau of Industry and Security had charged that, in response to a request from a customer in Bahrain, Cook had furnished information stating that the goods being shipped were not of Israeli origin and did not contain Israeli materials.
The bureau also charged that Cook had failed to report its receipt of the request.
Cook, of North Kansas City, neither admitted nor denied the allegations, but agreed to pay the $6,000 civil penalty.
The antiboycott provisions bar U.S. companies from providing information about their business relationships with Israel. They also require that receipt of boycott requests be reported to the Bureau of Industry and Security, formerly known as the Bureau of Export Administration.
Cook's chief executive, Charles Bennett, was in Paris this week and unavailable for comment. A spokeswoman for the company, Rita Durocher, said the fine marked the first time Cook has had a run-in with a federal agency.
"If you go back and look at our record, we've been flawless with other government agencies," she said.
Cook makes polyester gels and other coating resins. It operates plants throughout North America.
The settlement with the Commerce Department came after the Bush administration in November warned U.S. companies not to heed calls to boycott Israeli goods and services. The warning followed a call by the 22-member Arab League to reactivate its decades-long boycott of Israel.
In a statement released at the time by the department, Commerce Undersecretary for Industry and Security Kenneth Juster reminded American companies that the "U.S. government is strongly opposed to restrictive trade practices or boycotts targeted against Israel."
Knowing violators of the anti-boycott provisions face fines of up to $50,000, or five times the value of the exports at issue, and possible imprisonment. Offenders can also be denied export privileges.
The Bureau of Industry and Security says it has imposed more than $26 million in fines for violations of the provisions.
More than a decade ago, the Commerce Department sent compliance officers to Kansas City to check out tips that Marion Merrell Dow Inc. and Marley Cooling Tower Co. may have cooperated with the Arab boycott. Nothing came of the investigation, and no penalties were imposed.
In Cook's case, the Bureau of Industry and Security charged that Cook failed to report a letter of credit it received on Dec. 1, 1997, from ABN AMRO Bank in Manama, Bahrain. The letter asked it to confirm that the goods being shipped "are not of Israeli origin nor do they contain any Israeli"material.
The bureau also charged that on Jan. 20, 1998, Cook, through its freight forwarder, provided a U.S. bank with a copy of a commercial invoice confirming that the goods were not of Israeli origin and did not contain Israeli material.
Cook, with 558 employees overall and 120 employees locally, is one of North Kansas City's biggest employers. The company bills itself as the No. 1 producer of gel coats in the world and, together with affiliated companies, the No. 2 producer of resins.
Since 1990, Cook has had a joint venture relationship with the chemicals division of TotalFinaElf, a multibillion-dollar petrochemicals giant based in Paris. Published by The Kansas City Star
Here's the official Q&A about this law, as found at the federal government's Office of Antiboycott Compliance website
Antiboycott Laws: During the mid-1970's 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 1976 Tax Reform Act (TRA).
Objectives: 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.
Primary Impact: 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.
Who Is Covered by the Laws? The antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) apply to all "U.S. persons," defined to include individuals and companies located in the United States and their foreign affiliates. These persons are subject to the law when their activities relate to the sale, purchase, or transfer of goods or services (including information) within the United States or between the U.S. and a foreign country. This covers U.S. exports and imports, financing, forwarding and shipping, and certain other transactions that may take place wholly offshore.
Generally, the TRA applies to all U.S. taxpayers (and their related companies). The TRA's reporting requirements apply to taxpayers' "operations" in, with, or related to boycotting countries or their nationals. Its penalties apply to those taxpayers with foreign tax credit, foreign subsidiary deferral, FSC (Foreign Sales Corporation), and IC-DISC (Interest Charge-Domestic International Sales Corporation) benefits.
What do the Laws Prohibit? Conduct that may be penalized under the TRA and/or prohibited under the EAR includes:
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.
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."
How To Report: EAR reports are filed quarterly on form BIS 621-P for single requests or BIS 6051-P for multiple requests available from the Department of Commerceââ¬â¢s Office of Antiboycott Compliance (OAC) in Washington, D.C. To obtain these forms, telephone OACââ¬â¢s Reports Processing Unit at (202) 482-2448. TRA reports are filed with tax returns on IRS Form 5713. This form is available from local IRS offices.
Penalties: The EAR prescribe the 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.
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 $12,000 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.
The $10,000 maximum per violation specified in the EAA is adjusted periodically pursuant to law for inflation. The maximum civil penalty for any violation committed from October 23, 1996 through November 1, 2000 is $11,000 per violation. The maximum civil penalty for any violation committed after November 1, 2000 is $12,000 per violation. ...
[url]http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:7AJMg-xg_5sJ:www.elitefitness.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-257005+Isreal+%22Anti+boycott%22+&hl=en[/url] [/QUOTE]
2004-10-12 13:33 | User Profile
Faust,
What crap.
While I personally won't allow another government to tell me what I can buy and who to buy it from, (I reserve that decision to myself) I damn sure don't think for a minute that the feds have any business in this.
2004-10-12 19:27 | User Profile
Antiboycott laws? Is there anything about Israeli/neocon influence that isn't disgusting?