The Arab League Boycott Of Israel - 1472 Words

Weiss reports that for a number of years, language has been included in successive foreign operations appropriations legislations concerning the Arab League boycott. Most recent of which is Section 7035 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, FY2015 (P.L 113-235). Some of the more important statements of the act are: (i) the Arab League boycott of Israel, and the secondary boycott of American firms that have commercial ties with Israel, is an impediment to peace in the region and to United States investment and trade in the Middle East and North Africa; (ii) the Arab League boycott, which was regrettably reinstated in 1997, should be immediately and publicly terminated, and the Central Office for the Boycott of†¦show more content†¦According to the Department of Commerce’s Office of the Antiboycotting Compliance (OAC), the legislation was enacted to â€Å"encourage, and in specified cases, requires U.S. firms to refuse to participate in foreig n boycotts that the United States does not sanction (Security). The US’s reaction to the Arab League boycott of Israel lays the foundation for the reaction of states and federal to the BDS Movement. A number of the reactions by different states including Illinois and South Carolina were discussed above. The federal regulations in an attempt to stamp the US’ anti-Arab League boycott of Israel included, the Export Administration Act of 1979 (EAA) and the Ribicoff Amendment to the Tax Reform Act of 1976 (TRA). Under section 8 of the EAA, all US persons and company were prohibited from complying with an unsanctioned foreign boycott and require anyone who is requested to do so, to report such request to the OAC in the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). The EAA recommends penalties for violators. As is seen, the US has long opposed boycotts of Israeli entities. Some Members of Congress have argued the US needs to continue this trend and enact legislation which will protect the integrity of trade as well as protect the state of Israel. In fact, it could be argued that protecting trade freedom of Israel is the only way to protect the state as a trade isolation would leave it vulnerable and susceptible to different forms of deterioration. In 2015