The Anti-Boycott Law: Questions and Answers

Photo: CC-by-ND - Jennifer Moo via Flickr
Photo: CC-by-ND - Jennifer Moo via Flickr

On 11 July 2011, the Knesset plenum passed the Anti-Boycott Law, which enables the filing of civil lawsuits against those who call for a boycott of the State of Israel or any of its territories (e.g. Israeli settlements). Following the final approval of this law, ACRI has prepared a Q&A document, to explain the legal implications of this law.
 
To read the final version of the law (translated to English), click here.
 
 
Is it prohibited to call for a boycott of Israel? Is it a criminal offense?
 
Calling for a boycott, under the terms detailed in the law, is not a criminal offense but might be deemed as a civil wrong, which is subject for financial compensation. Meaning: there is no legal prohibition on calling for a boycott, but those who do so might be exposed to lawsuits and economic sanctions.
 
To whom does the law apply?
 
According to section 2(A) of the law, it applies to someone “who knowingly publishes a public call for a boycott against the State of Israel, where according to the content and circumstances of the publication there is reasonable probability that the call will lead to a boycott, and he who published the call was aware of this possibility.” According to this definition, the law applies to any person who publicly participates in a call for boycott, for example in signing a petition or by making a statement in the media, even if this person did not initiate the boycott.
 
Does the law apply only to Israelis?
 
It appears that the law applies to anyone who is in Israel when calling for boycott.
 
To which boycotts does the law apply?
 
The law applies to economic, cultural, or academic boycott of the settlements, the State of Israel, or any of its institutions. Therefore, for example, a boycott of academic institutions in Israel or in Israeli settlements, or a consumer boycott of settlement products – are included within this law.
 
What could be the implications of calling for boycott?
 
Anyone who publishes a call for boycott as defined in the law could be subject to a civil lawsuit (for compensation) filed by those who were harmed by this boycott, for damages, economic or otherwise, caused to them. Furthermore, according to section 2(b) of the law, if a company violates or cancels a contract because of a call for boycott, those who called for the boycott can be sued for any subsequent damages.
 
Further sanctions, that could apply to companies and organizations, are limiting their ability to participate in state tenders and limiting their eligibility to receive various kinds of support from the State (such as being considered a public institution, including for budgetary support or income tax benefits, receiving funding from the Council to Regulate Sports Gambling, guarantors under the Guarantors on Behalf of the State Law, and benefits under the Encouragement of Capital Investment Law or under to the Encouragement of Research and Development in Industry Law).
 
Does the plaintiff have to prove damages?
 
Section 2(c) of the law states that should the court find that a civil wrong as defined in this law was deliberately carried out, the court may order the defendant to pay compensations without proof of damage. This means that the court may order those who called for boycott to pay punitive damages even of there is no proof that their action caused the damage. In calculating the sum of these damages the court must take into consideration, among other things, the circumstances under which the wrong was carried out, its severity, and its extent.
 
Could those who call for boycott be arrested?
 
No. As stated above, the law defines a call for boycott as a civil wrong, which could lead to a civil lawsuit for damages or to the limitation of various economic benefits from the State. A call for boycott is not a criminal offense.
 
Has the law already taken effect?
 
The law is in effect since 13 July 2011, when it was published in Israel’s Book of Laws (link to PDF file in Hebrew). The only exception to this is section 4 of the law, which stipulates the sanctions of preventing various economic benefits from companies and organizations, and will take effect 90 days after this date.
 
But what about the petitions against this law, which are being filed to the High Court?
 
On an individual level, even if high court petitions are filed, the law is in effect as long as there is no High Court ruling that disqualifies it. Therefore, any person or organization that calls for boycott as defined in this law is exposed to a lawsuit and for other sanctions determined by this law.
 
In the public arena, it is very important to fight this law, including through a petition to the High Court, since this law is has a dangerous chilling effect on freedom of expression and freedom of protest in Israel, meaning that it could deter citizens from voicing criticism or from protesting, for fear of being harmed by the authorities.
 

Share:
  • Print
  • email
  • RSS
  • Tumblr
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Categories: Anti-Democratic Initiatives, Democracy and Civil Liberties, Freedom of Expression

Tags:, |

3 Responses to The Anti-Boycott Law: Questions and Answers

  1. Pingback: Bojkottslagen « Anna Veeder

  2. Milt Gould כתב:

    I confess that I know next to nothing regarding affairs in Eretz Yisrael. What I do know is that when a people are driven by their fears they make decisions based upon those fears rather than looking logically at the larger picture.

    I assume that The Anti-Boycott Law is both politically and religiously motivated. Walls and laws will never bring peace or security. Changing hearts and attitudes of people and how we relate to each other is crucial.

    It seems to me that we are living in an increasingly frightened, unthinking reactionary world. We don’t discuss. We yell. We don’t listen. We entrench ourselves in our own positions.

    Why can we not have a world where conflict and boycotts become unnecessary. It is not necessary to deal with our problems out of anger. It used to be that conservatives were characterized as narrow minded, angry and radical. But, now the liberals look the same. We have liberal fundamentalists and conservative fundamentalists and the common denominator is anger floating on a sea of fear.

    Whoever gets this e-mail I would hope would vote against tearing away the freedoms of a democratic society in Israel.

  3. Pingback: Anonymous