TJP

Codifying Laws in Support of Israel's Apartheid

Byron A. Ellis – February 13, 2009

In the mid 70’s the United States adopted two antiboycott laws that seek to prevent U.S citizens from participating in boycotts and embargoes of other nations. These antiboycott laws are the 1977 amendments to the Export Administration Act (EAA) and the Ribicoff Amendment to the 1976 Tax Reform Act (TRA).

The primary objective of the antiboycott laws was to counter the Arab League boycott of Israel. These laws required U.S. firms to abstain from participating in foreign boycotts not sanctioned by the U.S. government.

The U.S. Department of Commerce notes that the antiboycott laws apply to the activities of U.S. persons in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States. Accordingly, U.S. person includes all individuals, corporations and unincorporated associations resident in the United States, including the permanent domestic affiliates of foreign concerns. U.S. persons also include U.S. citizens abroad (except when they reside abroad and are employed by non-U.S. persons) and the controlled in fact affiliates of domestic concerns.

The law prohibits refusal to do business with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies; discrimination against other persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin or nationality; furnishing of information about business relationships with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies; furnishing of information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person.

The penalties for 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; willful violation could result in imprisonment for up to ten years.

The laws appear to be designed to support and maintain Israel’s apartheid. Recent history has proven that economic boycotts led to the dismantling of South African apartheid and that Blacks, Hispanics and many progressive whites do not support apartheid regimes. Therefore, it will be tricky and potentially costly for the Obama administration to justify the U.S. government protection and legal codification of apartheid in Israel.

In spite of the U.S. laws, campaigns to divest from apartheid Israel have been gaining momentum on college campuses across the United States.

And, groups, such as Diverse Watch actively report boycott campaigns that attempt to isolate the apartheid nation of Israel.

According to Democracy Now, the Reagan administration supported the apartheid government in South Africa and even labeled Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress a notorious terrorist organization. Mr. Mandela was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993.

The U.S. government did not oppose apartheid in South Africa and history proved that it was on the wrong side of justice. Nonetheless, many U.S. citizens of all backgrounds were appalled at the oppression and brutal treatment of Black South Africans and took decisive actions to disinvest from South Africa.

U.S. government, under Bush, opted to repeat history by supporting apartheid Israel and its brutalizing oppression and occupation of Palestine. We can only hope that the Obama administration will not continue to support the tradition of apartheid in Israel.

The silence of the Bush administration during the recent mass murder of over 1,000 Gazans, including babies, and mothers should not be repeated, never again.

It is unlikely that the Democratic coalition of progressive whites, Hispanics, and Blacks will remain intact if the Democratic Party continues to support the oppression and annihilation of the Palestinian people, and the occupation of Palestine.

The Democratic administration must be on the right side of justice and that does not mean abandonment of Israel, it merely means modification of their behaviors. Contemporary history has shown that oppression and occupation are temporary states and a state of equilibrium can only exist when the apartheid regime is dismantled.

Post Comment

SAVE DARFUR