A
special nine-judge panel of the Israeli Supreme Court, headed by
Supreme Court President Asher Gronis, will deliberate the
constitutionality of the "Boycott Law " on Sunday , February 16, at 9:00
am. Israel’s Supreme Court hears routine appeals by a three-judge
panel, wider panels being reserved to cases which involve substantial
constitutional issues.
Former
Knesset Member Uri Avnery and the Gush Shalom Movement have filed an
appeal to the Supreme Court in July 2011, immediately after the Knesset
enacted the "Boycott Law ". Voted into law at the culmination of a
heated debate, this piece of legislation makes anyone calling for a
boycott of Israel liable to heavy torts and fines, and calling for a
boycott of settlements in the Occupied Territories was defined as “a
form of boycotting Israel”. The Gush Shalom appeal was lodged via
attorneys Gaby Lasky and Neri Ramati. Later, other appellants joined in,
including ACRI (Civil Rights Assoc,), Adalah , MK Ahmed Tibi , the
Coalition of Women for Peace, Movement for Reform & Progressive
Judaism, the Arab Monitoring Committee and the group of citizens led by
Adv. Adi Barkai.
The
State Attorney’ office, which asked the court to reject the appeals,
nevertheless admitted in a document presented last year to the court
that the law adopted the Knesset “posed some constitutional problems". (
In fact, before the legislation passed its final vote, the Knesset’s
own legal advisor asked the Members who initiated this bill to drop it –
but in vain.)
Gush
Shalom movement , which had called for a boycott of settlement products
since its inception, is directly targeted by this law. For the past
three years. It has conducted activities under the overhanging threat of
heavy lawsuits. In its appeal, Gush Shalom assets that "The Boycott Law
is unconstitutional and anti-democratic, as it violates freedom of
expression, the right to equality and other fundamental rights of the
citizens of Israel", that these rights are violated in a
disproportionate way, and the launching a boycott is a legitimate part
of democratic discourse, whose use should not be limited.
' “The
boycott of the settlements and their products is not simply an issue of
the foreign relations of the State of Israel and its deteriorating
standing in the international community . This is also and especially an
internal Israeli issue, touching directly on the future of Israel and
on the debate which is cutting Israeli society down the middle for the
past forty seven years " says former Knesset Member Uri Avnery." A major
part of the Israeli public is completely opposed to the settlement
project, regarding it as a moral stain and a political disaster which
perpetuates the oppression of the Palestinians and blocks Israeli
citizens from achieving peace with their neighbors. It is the full right
of those who oppose the settlements to express their strong objection
by any democratic means, including and especially a boycott campaign.
It
is the right of concerned citizens to refrain from funding with their
shopping money the settlements to which they are strongly opposed. Just
as religious citizens are entitled to have a 'watchdog' charged with
alerting them that certain foods are not kosher under the criteria of
Jewish religious dietary laws, so are peace seekers entitled to have
their own watchdog alerting them that certain products originate at a
settlement in Occupied Territory , even when manufacturers and shippers
try obscure and conceal from consumers the origin of the product. Gush
Shalom has acted as such a watchdog for more than ten years. We
published lists of products originating in the settlements and our
activists distributed them at public events and at the entrances to
supermarkets, until the initiators of the ‘Boycott Law ' set out to gag
us..
' The
Boycott Law created a situation of clear and blatant discrimination.
In the State of Israel it is allowed to publish the names of
restaurants and shops selling non-kosher products and call upon the
public not to buy there. Not only is it allowed, but the boycott on
non-kosher products is funded by the Israeli taxpayer. Via the ample
budgets allocated to the Chief Rabbinate and Town Rabbinates. On the
other hand, anyone calling upon the public not to consume the products
of the settlements is liable to legal proceedings ending towehexpected
to damage claims by huge amounts with payment of huge sums in damages”.
The
Gush Shalom appeal cited various historical examples of boycott
campaigns which had led to changes in public consciousness and in
political situations, such as the boycott instituted by American Jews
against Nazi Germany in 1933 ; the boycotts which Gandhi declared
against British goods during the struggle to liberate India from
colonial rule, and the boycotts called by the African American community
in struggling against racial segregation.
The Sunday court deliberations might culminate with an immediate ruling or with the judges opting to have further proceedings.
Contact:
Adam Keller +972-54-2340749 ,
Adv. Gaby Lasky +972-54-4418988
Adv. Nery Ramati +972- 50-8648854Gush Shalom (Translated from Hebrew, the name means "The Peace Bloc") is the hard core of the Israeli peace movement.
No comments:
Post a Comment