NY Governor boycotting businesses boycotting Israel

[Donal]

New York governor Andrew Cuomo has signed an executive order requiring state agencies to divest themselves of businesses and individuals participating in the BDS (Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions) movement against the Israeli government over their dealings with the Palestinians.

Regardless of what one believes about the conflict itself, this is a massive over reach by a government official. This isn't about a state official standing up to another state official for a perceived violation of civil rights, as is the case with his call t boycott North Carolina and other states passing anti-LGBT legislation.

This is an attempt to freeze political speech. Andrew Cuomo is using his position as governor to prevent individuals and private groups from criticizing a foreign government in a way he finds offensive.

Just look at some of the quotes from the times article

Alphonso David, the counsel to the governor, said that the executive order was specifically aimed at the B.D.S. movement launched in 2005, but that it would apply to any boycott targeting Israel.

According to the executive order, Mr. Cuomo will command the commissioner of the Office of General Services to devise a list over the next six months of businesses and groups engaged in any “boycott, divestment or sanctions activity targeting Israel, either directly or through a parent or subsidiary.”

this isn't even targeting specific groups. It is targeting the mere act of refusing to do business with another country.

If he believes the organized BDS movement is a criminal enterprise, then prosecute it as such. That would in fact be his job. Do not try to intimidate people for expressing their opinions.

And he didn't even need an executive order. The bill passed the state senate. This is nothing but posturing.

 

[C_Felix]

I need a flow chart

 

[Ziggurat]

Regardless of what one believes about the conflict itself, this is a massive over reach by a government official.

Not in the least. He's simply taking the position that the state will not deal with companies which discriminate on the basis of nationality against Israelis. It's anti-discrimination. The government does that all the time, and this is a fairly mild form of it.

This is an attempt to freeze political speech.

No, it isn't. Nobody's speech is being silenced. And boycotting Israel isn't merely speech, it's also commerce. But even that isn't being prevented.

this isn't even targeting specific groups.

Of course it isn't. It would be an abuse of government power if it did target specific groups.

It is targeting the mere act of refusing to do business with another country.

Yes: it's targeting the act of discrimination. Again, government does that all the time. This is an especially mild form of anti-discrimination action.

If he believes the organized BDS movement is a criminal enterprise, then prosecute it as such. That would in fact be his job. Do not try to intimidate people for expressing their opinions.

Everyone is free to express their opinions all they want to. But when you refuse to do business with people, that's not merely speech anymore. That's why it's illegal to refuse to serve customers at a restaurant on the basis of race, for example. Do you object to those anti-discrimination actions?

Cuomo is in the right here (not something I would say very often about him), and you're in the wrong.

 

[sunmaster14]

New York governor Andrew Cuomo has signed an executive order requiring state agencies to divest themselves of businesses and individuals participating in the BDS (Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions) movement against the Israeli government over their dealings with the Palestinians.

Regardless of what one believes about the conflict itself, this is a massive over reach by a government official. This isn't about a state official standing up to another state official for a perceived violation of civil rights, as is the case with his call t boycott North Carolina and other states passing anti-LGBT legislation.

This is an attempt to freeze political speech. Andrew Cuomo is using his position as governor to prevent individuals and private groups from criticizing a foreign government in a way he finds offensive.

Just look at some of the quotes from the times article





this isn't even targeting specific groups. It is targeting the mere act of refusing to do business with another country.

If he believes the organized BDS movement is a criminal enterprise, then prosecute it as such. That would in fact be his job. Do not try to intimidate people for expressing their opinions.

And he didn't even need an executive order. The bill passed the state senate. This is nothing but posturing.

Are you saying that Cuomo shouldn't have done this (as a matter of justice or prudence or fairness), or instead that it is an abuse of his authority? Since all he is doing is prohibiting state agencies from doing business with people who observe the boycott, I don't think it's an abuse of his power. If the citizens of his state don't agree with it, they can vote him out of office at the next opportunity, or alternatively, they can vote in legislators who will pass a law to override his executive order with legislation.

Just FYI, when there was an Arab boycott of Israel, which actually dated back to before there was an Israel, and petered out over a period of 50 years, the US government passed tough anti-boycott laws which actually authorized fines and jail terms for offenders. That strikes me as far more draconian, but perhaps more justifiable since it was perceived as advancing the US government's foreign policy interests.

Whether or not a US state has legitimate foreign policy interests, separate and distinct from that of the federal government, is another question. Seems rather dubious, but perhaps there are other state interests which are implicated (e.g. substantial business contacts between NY state and companies which could be adversely affected by the BDS movement).

 

[TragicMonkey]

Boycott the boycott of the boycott! Then we can boycott the boycott boycott boycott, and then boycott that! The sincerest way to express your support for something is a septuple boycott.

 

[Beerina]

Convincing people to join BDS is speech, but BDS is action. The BDS people would have no problem if they could command the powers of the state to twist Israel's arm directly, so you can't complain an infraction in the opposite.

 

[shemp]

Boycott the boycott of the boycott! Then we can boycott the boycott boycott boycott, and then boycott that! The sincerest way to express your support for something is a septuple boycott.

I hereby boycott your septuple boycott!*

* Could somebody please tell me which side I'm on?

 

[Cain]

Not in the least. He's simply taking the position that the state will not deal with companies which discriminate on the basis of nationality against Israelis.

Oh, so that's why the boycott exists... in your delicately constructed fantasy world.

It's anti-discrimination.

He's taking the position that the state of NY will not deal with companies that perceive Israel's policies as racist. Claiming the Jewish state is racist is racist. Obviously.

 

[applecorped]

Not in the least. He's simply taking the position that the state will not deal with companies which discriminate on the basis of nationality against Israelis. It's anti-discrimination. The government does that all the time, and this is a fairly mild form of it.



No, it isn't. Nobody's speech is being silenced. And boycotting Israel isn't merely speech, it's also commerce. But even that isn't being prevented.



Of course it isn't. It would be an abuse of government power if it did target specific groups.



Yes: it's targeting the act of discrimination. Again, government does that all the time. This is an especially mild form of anti-discrimination action.



Everyone is free to express their opinions all they want to. But when you refuse to do business with people, that's not merely speech anymore. That's why it's illegal to refuse to serve customers at a restaurant on the basis of race, for example. Do you object to those anti-discrimination actions?

Cuomo is in the right here (not something I would say very often about him), and you're in the wrong.

This


Sauce goose gander

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh, so that's why the boycott exists... in your delicately constructed fantasy world.

I'm not the one constructing fantasies. See below.

He's taking the position that the state of NY will not deal with companies that perceive Israel's policies as racist.

No he isn't. This isn't about how companies perceive Israeli policies. It's about how companies act to discriminate against others based on nationality.

Claiming the Jewish state is racist is racist. Obviously.

This is a fantasy. It has nothing to do with what one claims, and everything to do with how one acts. When you refuse to deal with an Israeli company because it's an Israeli company, that's discrimination, regardless of how you feel about the policies of the Israeli government.

You're unhinged from reality, and not in your normal trolling ways either.

 

[Darat]

Is the boycott itself illegal? I'm asking as I would have thought it would be hard for a government to refuse to do business with a company based on the company's "non-illegal" policies?

 

[Donal]

Not in the least. He's simply taking the position that the state will not deal with companies which discriminate on the basis of nationality against Israelis. It's anti-discrimination. The government does that all the time, and this is a fairly mild form of it.

Israel is not a race. It is a country. a political entity. The boycott is targeting the government of Israel over certain policies and the companies that facilitate those policies. Participants in BDS are refusing to do business with a government and companies based on their actions, not ethnicity or nationality or religion.

No, it isn't. Nobody's speech is being silenced. And boycotting Israel isn't merely speech, it's also commerce. But even that isn't being prevented.

Money is speech, haven't you heard? And yes, by ending business relationships with these small businesses and individuals, they are hurting private citizens for expressing a political opinion. Not for doing anything illegal are actually discriminating against a minority.

Of course it isn't. It would be an abuse of government power if it did target specific groups.

Its targeting people expressing a certain opinion about a foreign government's policy.

Yes: it's targeting the act of discrimination. Again, government does that all the time. This is an especially mild form of anti-discrimination action.

No, it is political strong arming. Going around and compiling lists of people with a certain opinion about a foreign government?

Everyone is free to express their opinions all they want to. But when you refuse to do business with people, that's not merely speech anymore. That's why it's illegal to refuse to serve customers at a restaurant on the basis of race, for example. Do you object to those anti-discrimination actions?

Again money is speech. Do keep up. Refusing to do business with a government because of their policies is not discrimination.

If BDS was calling for outright refusal to do business with any Jews or any Israelis even if they have nothing to do with the government's actions towards the Palestinians, that would be wrong and I would support this measure. And that would fit your ham fisted attempt to reference the Jim Crow South.

Cuomo is in the right here (not something I would say very often about him), and you're in the wrong.

A government punishing free speech is never in the right.

 

[sunmaster14]

Is the boycott itself illegal? I'm asking as I would have thought it would be hard for a government to refuse to do business with a company based on the company's "non-illegal" policies?

The boycott is not illegal. Your second question is nonsensical. A government can prohibit a company from doing illegal things, by definition, so any action which falls short of that would be pussyfooting around. There are many instances of governments not doing business with certain types of companies. One common example is that often companies which are not unionized are excluded from doing business with government (often through the use of PLAs). Even discrimination based on race in government contracting and employment is quite common. It's framed as affirmative action, and such policies avoid admitting they're exclusionary, but they usually are.

 

[Darat]

The boycott is not illegal. Your second question is nonsensical. ...snip...

What a silly thing to say. Certainly in the UK government at all levels couldn't by law refuse to consider doing business with a company that was boycotting Israel, because boycotting Israel is not illegal. (Several local authorities have tried to do the opposite and found themselves on the wrong side of the law).

Given the common root of our legal system I am surprised that in the USA the government can legally decide not to do business with a company that is otherwise behaving in a legal way.

Your way seems to open up a huge issue of corruption and conflict of interest that can simply be avoided by not allowing such partisanism to be used in deciding government contracts.

 

[sunmaster14]

What a silly thing to say. Certainly in the UK government at all levels couldn't by law refuse to consider doing business with a company that was boycotting Israel, because boycotting Israel is not illegal. (Several local authorities have tried to do the opposite and found themselves on the wrong side of the law).

Given the common root of our legal system I am surprised that in the USA the government can legally decide not to do business with a company that is otherwise behaving in a legal way.

Your way seems to open up a huge issue of corruption and conflict of interest that can simply be avoided by not allowing such partisanism to be used in deciding government contracts.

The US is apparently not as capitalist as you thought. And the UK apparently is not as socialist as I thought.

 

[Ziggurat]

Israel is not a race. It is a country.

No ****, Sherlock. That's why I said nationality, not race.

The boycott is targeting the government of Israel

Doesn't matter if you think that's what it targets, it still affects the rest of Israel.

Participants in BDS are refusing to do business with a government and companies based on their actions, not ethnicity or nationality or religion.

Wrong. It most definitely does affect companies based on their nationality. See below.

Money is speech, haven't you heard?

I've heard that claim, but it's based upon a completely wrong interpretation of the relevant court rulings.

And yes, by ending business relationships with these small businesses and individuals, they are hurting private citizens for expressing a political opinion.

And that's the intended effect of the BDS movement as well. But I guess you're immune to irony.

Not for doing anything illegal are actually discriminating against a minority.

I said nothing about anything illegal. And you clearly don't know the definition of "minority", though I never said anything about that either.

Its targeting people expressing a certain opinion about a foreign government's policy.

Again, irony.

Again money is speech.

Nope. Still wrong.

If BDS was calling for outright refusal to do business with any Jews or any Israelis even if they have nothing to do with the government's actions towards the Palestinians, that would be wrong and I would support this measure.

Guess what: they do.
https://bdsmovement.net/bdsintro

"Anyone can boycott Israeli goods, simply by making sure that they don’t buy produce made in Israel or by Israeli companies. Campaigners and groups call on consumers not to buy Israeli goods and on businesses not to buy or sell them."

I eagerly await your endorsement of Cuomo's move.

 

[Mycroft]

He's taking the position that the state of NY will not deal with companies that perceive Israel's policies as racist. Claiming the Jewish state is racist is racist. Obviously.

To repeat what Zig has already said, it's not about what they "perceive", it's about what they do. Perhaps if you rephrase your comment without the straw-man then dialog can continue.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[theprestige]

The questions are simple:

Should you be free to not do business with Israelis?

And:

Should the state of New York be free to not do business with you, if you so choose?

To me, the answers to both questions are obviously yes and yes.

 

[Cain]

No he isn't. This isn't about how companies perceive Israeli policies. It's about how companies act to discriminate against others based on nationality.

Lamer than I expected.

In your original post you said these companies are discriminating on the basis of nationality. No, they are boycotting to stop what they perceive as racist and oppressive policies. I am talking about what's motivating the boycott, but now you're reduced to this pathetic semantic wanking by saying it's all about "acting" rather than "perceiving." Except everyone agrees they're acting. That's what a boycott is -- consumers and companies taking action. We disagree over why they're acting. Please try to follow along.

Here I thought I was extending the fig leaf by saying the boycotters were acting against what they perceived as racist policies -- as if I'm leaving open the question as to whether or not Israel's policies are even racist. It was to underscore the importance of motive. I even italicized the word "why" in my reply -- "Oh, that's why the boycott exists..."

This is a fantasy. It has nothing to do with what one claims, and everything to do with how one acts. When you refuse to deal with an Israeli company because it's an Israeli company, that's discrimination, regardless of how you feel about the policies of the Israeli government.

Yeah, what on earth does an Israeli company have to do with the Israeli government? It's not as if they pay taxes.

 

[Ziggurat]

In your original post you said these companies are discriminating on the basis of nationality. No, they are boycotting to stop what they perceive as racist and oppressive policies.

You have substituted intent for action. The intent may be to stop Israeli policies they perceive as racist, but the actions which they are doing is still discriminating on the basis of nationality.

I am talking about what's motivating the boycott

And I'm talking about what the boycott actually does. And what it actually does is discriminate on the basis of nationality. You haven't proven me wrong, you've just tried to change the subject.

but now you're reduced to this pathetic semantic wanking by saying it's all about "acting" rather than "perceiving."

The distinction between action and perception is not merely semantic.

Except everyone agrees they're acting.

Apparently not, since people were claiming that this counter-boycott was based upon opinions and not actions.

We disagree over why they're acting.

How would you know if we disagree about why they are acting? I never said anything about why they are acting, I only said anything about what actions they are taking. Their motives have been entirely irrelevant to everything I've said, so no appeal to their motives can possibly change anything about my argument either. This is basic logic, and you failed it.

Please try to follow along.

... he said, after demonstrating that he can't follow along.

Here I thought I was extending the fig leaf by saying the boycotters were acting against what they perceived as racist policies -- as if I'm leaving open the question as to whether or not Israel's policies are even racist. It was to underscore the importance of motive. I even italicized the word "why" in my reply -- "Oh, that's why the boycott exists..."

Your efforts were in vain, since you were completely wrong about the entire basis of the argument to begin with. Boo hoo, sucks to be you.

Yeah, what on earth does an Israeli company have to do with the Israeli government? It's not as if they pay taxes.

It's not as if they have a choice about paying taxes.