Home
Archives
Jerusalem Center Homepage
View the current issue
Jerusalem Center Videos
Additional Resources
Top Commentators:
- Elliott Abrams
- Fouad Ajami
- Shlomo Avineri
- Benny Avni
- Alan Dershowitz
- Jackson Diehl
- Dore Gold
- Daniel Gordis
- Tom Gross
- Jonathan Halevy
- David Ignatius
- Pinchas Inbari
- Jeff Jacoby
- Efraim Karsh
- Mordechai Kedar
- Charles Krauthammer
- Emily Landau
- David Makovsky
- Aaron David Miller
- Benny Morris
- Jacques Neriah
- Marty Peretz
- Melanie Phillips
- Daniel Pipes
- Harold Rhode
- Gary Rosenblatt
- Jennifer Rubin
- David Schenkar
- Shimon Shapira
- Jonathan Spyer
- Gerald Steinberg
- Bret Stephens
- Amir Taheri
- Josh Teitelbaum
- Khaled Abu Toameh
- Jonathan Tobin
- Michael Totten
- Michael Young
- Mort Zuckerman
Think Tanks:
- American Enterprise Institute
- Brookings Institution
- Center for Security Policy
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Heritage Foundation
- Hudson Institute
- Institute for Contemporary Affairs
- Institute for Counter-Terrorism
- Institute for Global Jewish Affairs
- Institute for National Security Studies
- Institute for Science and Intl. Security
- Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
- Investigative Project
- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
- RAND Corporation
- Saban Center for Middle East Policy
- Shalem Center
- Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Media:
- CAMERA
- Daily Alert
- Jewish Political Studies Review
- MEMRI
- NGO Monitor
- Palestinian Media Watch
- The Israel Project
- YouTube
Government:
Back
(Lawfare Project) Proponents of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel claim that such actions are protected by the First Amendment, and that the application of state anti-discrimination laws to prohibit or penalize BDS activities is unconstitutional. In the context of BDS activity perpetrated in New York State, existing state law expressly prohibits discriminatory commercial conduct aimed at disadvantaging others because of their national origin. The statutory prohibition is limited to business activity and does not forbid advocacy, picketing, or other forms of speech. Section 296 (13) of New York State's Human Rights Law, commonly referred to as the "Arab Boycott Law," was enacted to curtail Arab boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses. Courts have steadfastly affirmed that section 296(13) must be read broadly to include and prohibit discrimination in all forms of commercial activity and business practices. It is irrelevant that the impetus for the boycott may be disagreement with the actions of the Israeli government.2016-02-08 00:00:00Full Article
The Illegality of BDS in New York State
(Lawfare Project) Proponents of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel claim that such actions are protected by the First Amendment, and that the application of state anti-discrimination laws to prohibit or penalize BDS activities is unconstitutional. In the context of BDS activity perpetrated in New York State, existing state law expressly prohibits discriminatory commercial conduct aimed at disadvantaging others because of their national origin. The statutory prohibition is limited to business activity and does not forbid advocacy, picketing, or other forms of speech. Section 296 (13) of New York State's Human Rights Law, commonly referred to as the "Arab Boycott Law," was enacted to curtail Arab boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses. Courts have steadfastly affirmed that section 296(13) must be read broadly to include and prohibit discrimination in all forms of commercial activity and business practices. It is irrelevant that the impetus for the boycott may be disagreement with the actions of the Israeli government.2016-02-08 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
|
Search:
|