Sound familiar? - Comment - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
  • p.TextOutput { R static java.lang.String p.mt = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; R static java.lang.String p.publicInterfaces = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValued'; R static java.lang.String p.beanClass = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; RW java.lang.String value = '0'; R transient java.lang.Object _data = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.NumberInputPolicy'; },ModelStore=com.polopoly.model.ModelStoreInMap p.TextOutput { R static java.lang.String p.mt = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; R static java.lang.String p.publicInterfaces = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValued'; R static java.lang.String p.beanClass = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; RW java.lang.String value = '0'; R transient java.lang.Object _data = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.NumberInputPolicy'; },ModelStore=com.polopoly.model.ModelStoreInMap
    • Shalom
    • 12.07.11 | 05:55 (IDT)

    Antiboycott Laws: During the mid-1970's the United States adopted two laws that seek to counteract the participation of U.S. citizens in other nation's economic boycotts or embargoes. These "antiboycott" laws are the 1977 amendments to the Export Administration Act (EAA) and the Ribicoff Amendment to the 1976 Tax Reform Act (TRA). While these laws share a common purpose, there are distinctions in their administration. Objectives: The antiboycott laws were adopted to encourage, and in specified cases, require U.S. firms to refuse to participate in foreign boycotts that the United States does not sanction. They have the effect of preventing U.S. firms from being used to implement foreign policies of other nations which run counter to U.S. policy. Primary Impact: The Arab League boycott of Israel is the principal foreign economic boycott that U.S. companies must be concerned with today. The antiboycott laws, however, apply to all boycotts imposed by foreign countries that are unsanctioned by the United States. Who Is Covered by the Laws? The antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) apply to the activities of U.S. persons in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States. The term "U.S. person" includes all individuals, corporations and unincorporated associations resident in the United States, including the permanent domestic affiliates of foreign concerns. U.S. persons also include U.S. citizens abroad (except when they reside abroad and are employed by non-U.S. persons) and the controlled in fact affiliates of domestic concerns. The test for "controlled in fact" is the ability to establish the general policies or to control the day to day operations of the foreign affiliate. The scope of the EAR, as defined by Section 8 of the EAA, is limited to actions taken with intent to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott. What do the Laws Prohibit? Conduct that may be penalized under the TRA and/or prohibited under the EAR includes: Agreements to refuse or actual refusal to do business with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies. Agreements to discriminate or actual discrimination against other persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin or nationality. Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about business relationships with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies. Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person. Implementing letters of credit containing prohibited boycott terms or conditions. Penalties: The Export Admnistration Act (EAA) specifies penalties for violations of the Antiboycott Regulations as well as export control violations. These can include: Criminal: The penalties imposed for each "knowing" violation can be a fine of up to $50,000 or five times the value of the exports involved, whichever is greater, and imprisonment of up to five years. During periods when the EAR are continued in effect by an Executive Order issued pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the criminal penalties for each "willful" violation can be a fine of up to $50,000 and imprisonment for up to ten years. Administrative: For each violation of the EAR any or all of the following may be imposed: General denial of export privileges; The imposition of fines of up to $11,000 per violation; and/or Exclusion from practice. Boycott agreements under the TRA involve the denial of all or part of the foreign tax benefits discussed above. When the EAA is in lapse, penalties for violation of the Antiboycott Regulations are governed by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The IEEPA Enhancement Act provides for penalties of up to the greater of $250,000 per violation or twice the value of the transaction for administrative violations of Antiboycott Regulations, and up to $1 million and 20 years imprisonment per violation for criminal antiboycott violations.

    from the article: Israel passes law banning calls for boycott
    First published 23:05 11.07.11 | Last updated 23:05 11.07.11
Haaretz Headlines
Raed Al-Attar, left, seen in image of Gilad Shalit's release from Hamas abduction, October 2013.

Hamas releases new video of Shalit in captivity

In video, Hamas also claims IDF took body of Palestinian instead of that of Hadar Goldin during 'Black Friday' incident in Rafah.

Minister Gilad Erdan.

Minister fights fallout after new police chief tapped

Gilad Erdan hopes to expand the roles of senior police officers to keep them in the force.

Hura, a Bedouin town east of Be’er Sheva with 18,000 residents.

This Bedouin town is leaving the past in the dust

Led by a dynamic PhD chemist, the Negev town of Hura is developing infrastructure and business.

Gabi Ashkenazi

Promised Podcast / Post-Bibi Midsummer Night’s Dream

New poll sheds light peace and the occupation; some question whether Gabi Ashkenazi is the left's great hope - all this and more in this week's edition.