It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Israel Anti Boycott Act (HR720/S720)

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I just heard of this one today ... it's been around a bit and I'd like ATS contribution to my understanding.

We all have our particular "American Values" that we hold dear and my tendency is to believe that a common one among most American's (US Citizens) is that 'we the people' make decisions (through our elected representatives) in accordance with our constitution without direct/main force 'Foreign Interference".

This is one of my American values that is being trampled upon from many directions these days.

The Isreal Anti Boycott Act is another example of the unseemly and grossly immoral effect of money/influence by outside interests in the policies of the United States.

What do you think? Is this consittutional? Is this moral/ethical?

The following link has a new segment on the proposed Federal bill and a transcript of the segment (for readers and links to more detailed information):

Their lead is as follows:


U.S. lawmakers are seeking to criminally outlaw support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel. If a proposed bipartisan law is passed, backers of BDS could face up to 20 years in prison and a million-dollar fine.


www.democracynow.org...

edit on 21-7-2017 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-7-2017 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-7-2017 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd



And the problem is a Klansmen or any real bigot can have a boycott and they will let that go but to join the organized one will be a crime.


It’s the vast power of the Zionist in America at work



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Sounds racist.

They were the original SJW's afterall.




posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

This is not good and I suspect unconstitutional.

What has America got to do with this? If it was inciting racial violence in America, that might make sense but this...



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd
How could this be enforced given that the first amendment gives us freedom of speech and freedom of association?

Is this for real? If it is it will be shot down by the scotus if of it ever becomes a law.

Sure this isn't fake?

edit on 21-7-2017 by TacSite18 because: (no reason given)


ETA

Just checked the ACLU. This is for real, and the aclu is on the job. This is not going anywhere.

Good find!
S&F



edit on 21-7-2017 by TacSite18 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   
How would you in theory put this law into action? now you want a bag of lemons for your Greek egg and lemon soup and would not picking something be the same as being anti something and put you probably at risk of the ambulance chaser style lawyers.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Ignoring the fact that outlawing a boycott is impossibe.

How do you show support for a boycott?



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: TacSite18
a reply to: FyreByrd
How could this be enforced given that the first amendment gives us freedom of speech and freedom of association?

Is this for real? If it is it will be shot down by the scotus if of it ever becomes a law.

Sure this isn't fake?


ETA

Just checked the ACLU. This is for real, and the aclu is on the job. This is not going anywhere.


Look it up yourself....

www.congress.gov...

And for a rightist slant:

www.nationalreview.com...

Something else that the left and right agree on - but our 'leaders' both d & r support. Democracy?????
edit on 21-7-2017 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: rockintitz
Well you start by openly discussing how Israel's "settlements" are flat-out wrong and follow that up by saying that until they stop people shouldn't buy products that come from those "settlements", they shouldn't be getting taxpayer paid funding and should have sanctions placed on them until they do stop.

Then you potentially get a 20 year bid and a million dollar fine.

It's disgusting.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: FyreByrd

Ignoring the fact that outlawing a boycott is impossibe.

How do you show support for a boycott?


They are concerned about 'institutional' divestment mostly. The strategy helped bring down the apartheid regime in South Africa during the 1970s. And large institutions are beginning to pull their 'investments' in Israel.

I believe that a listing of companies/products is do to be published by the somebody is due shortly and AIPAC doesn't want that information available.
edit on 21-7-2017 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Wow, just wow. So this will be along the same lines of being fined and possibly imprisoned in certain European countries for even trying to suggest the holocaust wasn't exactly as they claim.

I really hope this wakes some people up.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I find it helps to read the actual language before forming an opinion.

H.R. 1697

S. 720


This bill declares that Congress: (1) opposes the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution of March 24, 2016, which urges countries to pressure companies to divest from, or break contracts with, Israel; and (2) encourages full implementation of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 through enhanced, governmentwide, coordinated U.S.-Israel scientific and technological cooperation in civilian areas.


The article about the article and the actual article are pretty misleading. To support the HRC's resolution would be the real problem here. Institutional Antisemitism is not exactly something we should support unless we are now an Antisemitic nation ourselves. The UN's support of hate and why it's time to divest from the UN is what should be the topic.

I'd think that article was written in hopes that none of the readers would actually review what they are talking about.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd



What do you think? Is this consittutional? Is this moral/ethical?


Any infringement on the personal liberty of the individual by Government isn't moral or ethical. I am also against all Socialism for the very same reason. Government needs to stay out of my life...period.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

And here we have the anti semetic excuse pulled out.


If criticising the Israeli regime of netecheyo is anti semetic then i am anti semetic and proud.


Sorry but Israel land grabbingand provoking of its neighbours can go to hell.
edit on 21-7-2017 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

The UN is just playing the same old I'm only opposed to Zionism con game, while asking for actions that would punish the entire Jewish population of a country.

When is hate speech hate speech? Only when it's directed at certain groups, but it's OK if it's directed at others?

It's clear why the article was written to be deceptive in the extreme.
edit on 7/21/2017 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Congress doesn't want anything happening to their personal money laundering scheme!



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

This one is huge. There have been a plethora of examples of the U.S. government acting as a Zionist outpost, but this anti-boycott act is completely blatant and disgusting.

The right to boycott is the right to protest. This is essentially the U.S. and Israel spitting in the face of the American public.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
I find it helps to read the actual language before forming an opinion.

H.R. 1697

S. 720


This bill declares that Congress: (1) opposes the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution of March 24, 2016, which urges countries to pressure companies to divest from, or break contracts with, Israel; and (2) encourages full implementation of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 through enhanced, governmentwide, coordinated U.S.-Israel scientific and technological cooperation in civilian areas.


The article about the article and the actual article are pretty misleading. To support the HRC's resolution would be the real problem here. Institutional Antisemitism is not exactly something we should support unless we are now an Antisemitic nation ourselves. The UN's support of hate and why it's time to divest from the UN is what should be the topic.

I'd think that article was written in hopes that none of the readers would actually review what they are talking about.


There you have it. You simply cannot criticize anything that has to do with the POLITICAL NATION OF ISRAEL without someone using the shield of anti-Semitism labeling.

It would be pretty funny if it didn't have such serious implications.

The cracks in that shield are starting to become much more noticeable to the masses.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

You are in fact misrepresenting what I said to suit your narrative.


This bill declares that Congress: (1) opposes the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution of March 24, 2016, which urges countries to pressure companies to divest from, or break contracts with, Israel


The resolution is for countries to "pressure" (doublespeak for force) companies to stop doing business with Israel, not Zionists in Israel.

There is a huge difference between boycotting, which it does not make illegal and signing on to an Antisemitic resolution from the well known to be full of haters, Human Rights Council.

The article is betting nobody will read the language and buy into a lie. I'd imagine the real goal is to make the Party in control now look bad for Partisan reasons and no doubt many will fall for it and not bother to fact check.

edit on 7/21/2017 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Read what I actually said and see the above post.




top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join