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
(New York Daily News) Eugene Kontorovich - New York Gov. Cuomo's recent executive order requiring state agencies to divest from companies that boycott Israel has led boycott proponents to claim he's violating the First Amendment, which safeguards free expression, and particularly political speech. But there is no free speech problem here. States have a right to refuse to spend their money on what they view as bigoted or improper conduct. The First Amendment protects speech, not conduct. The Supreme Court unanimously held, in Rumsfeld vs. FAIR, that the government can deny federal funding to universities that boycott military recruiters. Companies may boycott Israel to prevent further harassment from the BDS movement, to curry favor with Arab states or out of mere anti-Semitism. Those actions have no message. That is why refusals to do business are not speech. Federal law already bans participation in certain kinds of boycotts of Israel - those sponsored by foreign countries - and no one has ever doubted the constitutionality of these measures. Israel boycotts - which target all businesses from a particular country - have the key hallmark of impermissible discrimination: They cut off business to people and companies not because of their own particular conduct, but on the basis of who they are. Boycott activists claim they merely object to Israeli government policies. But it is not the Israeli government targeted by boycotts, but those with some Israeli connection. The writer is a professor at Northwestern University School of Law. 2016-06-14 00:00:00Full Article
Boycotting Israel Isn't Free Speech
(New York Daily News) Eugene Kontorovich - New York Gov. Cuomo's recent executive order requiring state agencies to divest from companies that boycott Israel has led boycott proponents to claim he's violating the First Amendment, which safeguards free expression, and particularly political speech. But there is no free speech problem here. States have a right to refuse to spend their money on what they view as bigoted or improper conduct. The First Amendment protects speech, not conduct. The Supreme Court unanimously held, in Rumsfeld vs. FAIR, that the government can deny federal funding to universities that boycott military recruiters. Companies may boycott Israel to prevent further harassment from the BDS movement, to curry favor with Arab states or out of mere anti-Semitism. Those actions have no message. That is why refusals to do business are not speech. Federal law already bans participation in certain kinds of boycotts of Israel - those sponsored by foreign countries - and no one has ever doubted the constitutionality of these measures. Israel boycotts - which target all businesses from a particular country - have the key hallmark of impermissible discrimination: They cut off business to people and companies not because of their own particular conduct, but on the basis of who they are. Boycott activists claim they merely object to Israeli government policies. But it is not the Israeli government targeted by boycotts, but those with some Israeli connection. The writer is a professor at Northwestern University School of Law. 2016-06-14 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|