US: States Use Anti-Boycott Laws to Punish Responsible Businesses | WPN World People News

Many United States states are using anti-boycott laws and executive orders to punish companies that refuse to do business with illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Human Rights Watch said on April 23, 2019. More than 250 million Americans, some 78 percent of the population, live in states with anti-boycott laws or policies.

Twenty-seven states have adopted laws or policies that penalize businesses, organizations, or individuals that engage in or call for boycotts against Israel. The laws or policies in 17 of those states explicitly target not only companies that refuse to do business in or with Israel, but also those that refuse to do business in Israeli settlements. Some states whose laws do not explicitly apply to settlements have also penalized companies that cut settlement ties.

“States with anti-boycott laws are effectively telling companies that if you do the right thing and disentangle yourselves from settlement abuses, you can’t do business with us,” said Andrea Prasow, deputy US advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. “States should encourage, not sanction, companies that avoid contributing to rights abuses.”

Many states have anti-boycott laws or policies that extend to individuals and companies that enter into business contracts with states. These laws and policies require people entering into contracts to assert that they will not engage in any boycott activity.

In January 2019, the US Senate passed a bill that endorsed state anti-boycott legislation, including those that encompass settlement business activity. In March, federal lawmakers introduced resolutions in both the Senate and House to condemn boycotts of Israel. None of these initiatives has yet to become US law.

It is impossible to do business in the settlements without contributing to or benefitting from human rights abuse and violations of international humanitarian law, Human Rights Watch has said. Anti-boycott laws aim to deter companies from cutting ties to settlements and thereby ending their involvement in human rights abuses there. States should scrap anti-boycott laws that penalize companies for taking action that ends their involvement in rights abuses.

The Foundation for Middle East Peace published a chart listing the 17 states whose anti-boycott laws or implementing guidelines penalize businesses that boycott Israel or the territories controlled by Israel, a phrase that applies to the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Israeli authorities have facilitated the transfer of more than 600,000 Israeli citizens to the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in violation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions that prohibit transferring civilians into occupied territory. Israeli settlements are inextricably bound up with serious rights abuses, including forcing Palestinian inhabitants of the occupied territories off land seized for settlers, and restricting their freedom of movement. The two-tiered discrimatory system in the occupied territory treats Palestinians separately and unequally, undermining their livelihoods and economy.

Business activities help to sustain illegal setlements and make them more economically viable. As set out in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, companies have a responsibility to take steps to identify and mitigate serious human rights risks across their operations. A business enterprise that contributes to human rights abuse should take the necessary steps to cease or prevent that contribution, and use its leverage to mitigate any remaining harm to the greatest extent possible. If a company cannot prevent or mitigate this harm, the only responsible path may be to terminate or refrain from entering into these operations. Doing business with Israel’s illegal settlements is an example of a situation in which companies cannot do business without contributing to serious human rights abuses.

In November 2018, the global tourism company Airbnb announced it would stop listing properties in settlements, as part of a new policy to bar listings that, among other things, contribute to “existing human suffering.” The day after it announced its decision, Israeli strategic affairs minister Gilad Erdan wrote to the governors of Ilinois, New York, Florida, Missouri, and California, encouraging them to take action “in relation to commercial dealings” with Airbnb. After several states took action against Airbnb, it changed course and said it would not remove settlement listings from its platform.

Some states have targeted companies that refuse to do business in settlements even if their laws do not explicitly extend to Israeli-controlled territories. Some of these businesses have said they will do business in Israel, but not in settlements. For example, New York, under a 2016 executive order issued by Governor Andrew Cuomo, published a list of 11 “institutions or companies determined to participate in boycott, divestment, or sanctions activity targeting Israel,” in which the state cannot invest. The blacklists includes two grocers concerned with products originating in settlements and two European pension funds that divested from Heidelberg Cement, whose subsdiary operates a quarry in a settlement.

The American Civil Liberties Union has challenged the constitutionality of several states’ laws as violations of freedom of expression. In Texas, it represents two university students who want to judge high school tournaments, a freelance writer and a reporter. These individuals were required to sign a certification that they are not engaged in boycotts of Israel or settlements or forgo opportunities and lose income.

US federal courts issued preliminary injunctions blocking the enforcement of anti-boycott laws in Kansas and Arizona following similar suits, leading legislators in both states to scale back their laws. An Arkansas federal court dismissed an analogous challenge to its similar law, which has been appealed. The Texas case remains pending.

Individuals have the right under international human rights law to express their views through non-violent means, including participating in boycotts. Authorities may restrict speech, but only under narrow and stringent conditions. David Kaye, the UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, has stated that “Boycott…has long been understood as a legitimate form of expression, protected under Article 19(2)” of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Kaye has argued that the anti-BDS legislation of US states “appears clearly aimed at combatting political expression” and that “economic penalties designed to suppress a particular political viewpoint” would not meet the conditions under the ICCPR for permissible restraints on speech.

The US has a history of peaceful boycotts, sometimes controversial and divisive, to challenge human rights abuses and seek political change, including the 1960s NAACP boycott of white-owned businesses in Mississippi and a 2018 boycott of the National Rifle Association. Boycotts also played key roles in international campaigns against apartheid in South Africa and atrocities in Darfur.

“Activists worldwide use boycotts to challenge rights abuses,” Prasow said. “But many US states have signaled a disturbing intolerance for boycotts that push back against Israel's abusive and illegal settlements.”

Source:Human Rights Watch