Why anti-Israel BDS activism deserves special treatment by lawmakers

  • 0

To the editor: While I agree that free speech should include the right to criticize and even boycott Israel, I dispute that the anti-BDS bill by state Assemblyman Richard Boom (D-Santa Monica) is an infringement on that right. (“Boycotts of Israel are a protected form of free speech,” editorial, July 5)

California does not tolerate discriminatory business practices and shouldn’t allow the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement to serve as a pretext for such practices. California has executed a memorandum of understanding with Israel to collaborate on projects of mutual concern, and the Los Angeles City Council created the Los Angeles – Eilat Innovation and Cooperation Task Force, which is actively pursuing partnership opportunities with Israeli companies, including innovation to mitigate the drought.

BDS efforts, including restricting participation of Israelis at academic conferences, are absolutely counter to these policies, and that’s why the City Council voted unanimously to support Bloom’s bill to restrict the state’s business with companies that use their anti-Israel and anti-Semitic goals as a pretext for discriminatory business practices.

By choosing not to do business with BDS-affiliated interests, California won’t be complicit in efforts to undermine its own collaboration with Israel.

Bob Blumenfield, Los Angeles

The writer is a Los Angeles City Council member.

..

To the editor: The Times’ “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” editorial ignored BDS’ pernicious and hateful character.

Anti-BDS legislation doesn’t stop anyone from speaking. Rather, it protects the interests of California, the United States and Israel, because Israel is a great ally, trading partner and friend.

The state of Israel came into existence only after the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews. It remains a safe home to Jews. Nonetheless, it faces an existential threat feeding off of anti-Semitism, and BDS cloaks that threat.

But anti-Semitism continues today. We see it, for example, in a tweet by a presidential candidate and in many City Council meetings, where some gadflies wear swastikas, among other offenses. Such vile communications are protected by the 1st Amendment.

While respecting free speech, anti-BDS legislation protects our interests without stopping or hindering BDS proponents from tweeting, hollering, blogging, carrying placards or otherwise venting, whether it be to malign and condemn Israel or share any other belief.

Paul Koretz, Los Angeles

The writer is a Los Angeles City Council member.

..

To the editor: After I watched the documentary “5 Broken Cameras” (which was nominated for a 2013 Academy Award) at a screening, a brief talk was given.

We were told “boycott” referred to products made by Israeli businesses in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, and the “divestment” referred to American companies doing business that promoted Israeli occupation in the West Bank (such as Caterpillar Inc., which has sold bulldozers to Israel used to destroy Palestinians homes in the West Bank).

I may have been given a wrong description of BDS, and there are differing views. Nonetheless, the news media (including The Times) have done a poor job of providing unbiased, in-depth information on BDS.

James Nelson, Stanton

Why anti-Israel BDS activism deserves special treatment by lawmakers

  • 0