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.

 

This Texas town says you can’t apply for Harvey aid if you boycott Israel

page: 1
23
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   


.... it stems from a bill signed into law by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in May, which makes it illegal for the state to contract or invest in businesses that boycott Israel or Israeli-occupied Palestinian land. A clause in the application for relief money on Dickinson’s website notes that by “executing this Agreement below, the Applicant verifies that the Applicant: (1) does not boycott Israel; and (2) will not boycott Israel during the term of this Agreement.”

This Texas town says you can’t apply for Harvey aid if you boycott Israel


Over the last decade, as the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has stalled out, Palestinian activists and their allies abroad have pushed a campaign of “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” (BDS) to pressure Israel to abandon its occupation of the West Bank and its blockade of Gaza. In response, pro-Israel politicians and advocates have pushed a series of laws — like the one in Texas — designed to make it difficult to participate in BDS.


The ACLU has come out saying that this is an unconstitutional law, and, in this particular instance, I agree with them.




posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: IamonlyhumanThe ACLU has come out saying that this is an unconstitutional law, and, in this particular instance, I agree with them.


i'd call it blackmail.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: RoScoLaz5
Boycotting is a form of blackmail.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

While the law itself is very stupid, is there really going to be any business in Texas that it would apply to?
Out of 10s of thousands of businesses in Texas, who the hell is going to care about boycotting Israel?
I would bet you could probably count them on one hand.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   
This city is run by scumbags apparently.

I hope they get sued. Can't see the city's position winning in court.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

If by blackmail and we factor into account that is you want to buy or sell you have to take a mark then we may be on the same page .

edit on 20-10-2017 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   
How's that controleable?
Just by asking people and believing them or not?
Don't know actually, if I've ever bought Israeli products (or not for that matter!)
Would I buy Israeli products?
Maybey...depends on a lot.

And what if:
You seriously do not care?

I bet you (who need help) can all do a 'Hillary' and lie about it.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Daalder
Perhaps the main object is to deter those who announce a policy of boycotting Israel, with a view to discouraging the practice.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Daalder
Perhaps the main object is to deter those who announce a policy of boycotting Israel, with a view to discouraging the practice.



So threats and intimidation?



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

That law is definitely unconstitutional. If nothing else it's an infringement of the First Amendment (free speech). For years there's been a push by conservative state legislatures to break down the separation of church and state at the state level.

A few years ago, NC considered a bill that would allow the establishment of an official state religion. The argument is that the another part of the First, the Establishment Clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"), doesn't apply to states. Presumably, by that logic, states can therefore be theocracies.

However, in this case, they really wouldn't have a leg to stand on if the money in question is coming from the federal government.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Daalder
Perhaps the main object is to deter those who announce a policy of boycotting Israel, with a view to discouraging the practice.



So threats and intimidation?


And that just strengthens the argument that the law is an infringement upon individuals' First Amendment right to free speech.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   
could this get turned around and kind of coerce businesses to buy at least a few things from Isreal, just to be able to say, nope, I ain't boycotting them??
to me, it's just another instance of the gov't sticking their nose into business decisions, not letting them run their business according to how they feel is the best methods. probably being backed by the same people who are so outspoken in support of businesses' rights to run their businesses however they want when it comes to anti-discrimination laws.
what if a business was to market with the a "made in america" avenue... or a restaurant that chooses to serve only food grown in the local area? seems to me that such kinds of businesses would be boycotting Isreal as well as many other places in the world. should they be forced to change their business plan for aid?



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Here it is in the application on the city's website:


11. Verification not to Boycott Israel. By executing this Agreement below, the Applicant verifies that the Applicant: (1) does not boycott Israel; and (2) will not boycott Israel during the term of this Agreement.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Sounds like a union between church & state to me.

Maybe this is what Alex Jones' deal is.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   
So it's OK to boycott an American entity like the NFL but not Israel. Interesting.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
So it's OK to boycott an American entity like the NFL but not Israel. Interesting.





posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: RoScoLaz5
Boycotting is a form of blackmail.



It's a form of freedom of expression.

Tell us how it's blackmail, please?



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: WhereAmEYE
"Boycotting is a form of blackmail."
Tell us how it's blackmail, please?

It is a threat designed to coerce another party into a course of action.
What is blackmail, but a threat designed to coerce the victim of blackmail into a course of action?

And when a blackmailer says "I will show this photograph to your wife unless you send me large amounts of cash", is that not freedom of expression?
edit on 20-10-2017 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: WhereAmEYE
"Boycotting is a form of blackmail."
Tell us how it's blackmail, please?

It is a threat designed to coerce another party into a course of action.
What is blackmail, but a threat designed to coerce the victim of blackmail into a course of action?

And when a blackmailer says "I will show this photograph to your wife unless you send me large amounts of cash", is that not freedom of expression?


Well blackmail is a criminal act.

Genocidal Imperialist states can't be blackmailed by private enterprises or individuals, not in the traditional sense of the term.

Israel can't make a complaint to US law enforcement authorities regarding apparent "blackmail" form boycotting, which isn't blackmail to begin with.

Merely choosing not to buy goods made in Israel does not constitute blackmail.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka
My comment was originally made in response to a suggestion that the Texan law was blackmail.
The person who made that suggestion was obviously using the same definition as me ("threat intended to enforce behaviour").

edit on 20-10-2017 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join