In Israel, writes Yaron London, is okay to arrange a consumer boycott of a bank that undermines orthodox Jewish values or a factory that charges exorbitant prices. But it is forbidden to arrange a boycott that will hurt Israelis like the residents of Gilo whose neighborhood was built in an area the boycotters see as occupied territory
(photo www.timesofisrael.com)
by Yaron London – Yedioth Ahronoth
“The law designed to protect Israel from boycotts, undermines freedom of expression. The state’s attorneys admitted as much, but they claimed that freedom of expression is not unlimited. Their argument rests on the old fable about someone yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. However, fables don’t always fit the wearer. If the yeller knows there is no fire, then he deserves the full weight of the law, but what about a yeller who notices fire breaking out and by yelling, he saves many lives, and what about the person who smells cigarette smoke and his hysterical personality translates this into a fire?
This law is not so fussy. It treats boycotters as if all are anti-Semites seeking to destroy Israel. That is what the prime minister believes and that is what he told U.S. Jewish leaders who convened last week in Jerusalem. The truth is that among the boycott organizers there are typical Israel-haters, but there are also those who love Israel and believe we must be saved from ourselves.
The question of whether settling in the occupied territories endangers the state or ensures its future is open to subjective interpretation. There is no way to know if the well-intentioned boycotters that yell ‘fire’ are wrong or if flames are licking the bottoms of the seats. Who will judge? The law says the state judges. Legislators determined that the boycotters must be treated like leakers who disrupt a military operation because they believe it is immoral.
Obviously freedom of expression doesn’t justify the damages of all boycotts, but there is no doubt that applying the law that punishes boycotters infringes on freedom of expression. In the case of clashing yet equal principles, we must rely on the principal of proportionality, the fruit of common sense. Evidently, the likely economic damage of the boycott is minor even according to Minister Naftali Bennett – representative of the settlers – and they are the ones most hurt by it. Bennett mocked the boycotters and claimed the Israeli economy is so strong that there is no reason to fear a few loudmouthed Israel-haters. The prime minister went even further and said that previous boycotts of Israel helped the economy as they sharpened our ingenuity and contributed to the development of Israeli industry. If we rely on the two most qualified people to assess the damages from boycotts, we can see the law was born of anger at those who oppose the policy of occupation and settlement, and not of a need of greater importance than the need to preserve freedom of expression.
Proponents of the law also claim that we cannot accept a boycott on anyone because of where they live. It is okay to arrange a consumer boycott of a bank that undermines orthodox Jewish values, of a factory that charges exorbitant prices or of a café chain that oppresses working women. But it is forbidden to arrange a boycott that will hurt Israelis like the residents of Gilo, some of whom oppose creeping annexation but whose neighborhood was built in an area the boycotters see as occupied territory. The answer is that all boycotts involve collateral damage. They all hurt people who are not directly responsible for the injustice the boycotters are fighting.
The best known example is the boycott of dairy conglomerate Tnuva for the price of its cottage cheese. The boycott initiators did not consider the harm their actions caused to all employees of the production department. The High Court must wrestle with the question: is it okay to boycott due to the price of cheese but forbidden to boycott with the aim of changing policy that the boycott organizers consider disastrous.