Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Canadian Court Says West Bank Wines Cannot Be Labeled "Products of Israel"

In Kattenburg v. Attorney General of Canada, (Federal Ct. Canada, July 29, 2019), a judge of Canada's Federal Court held that labeling wine produced by wineries in the West Bank settlements of Shiloh and Psagot as "Products of Israel" is false, misleading and deceptive in violation of § 7(1) of Canada's Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and § 5(1) of Canada's Food and Drugs Act. The court said in part:
Both parties and both interveners agree that, whatever the legal status of the settlements may be, the fact is that they are not within the territorial boundaries of the State of Israel.
The court added:
[S]ome individuals opposed to the creation of Israeli Settlements in the West Bank express their opposition to the settlements and their support for the Palestinian cause through their purchasing choices, boycotting products produced in the Settlements. In order to be able to express their political views in this manner, however, consumers need to have accurate information as to the origin of the products under consideration. Identifying Settlement Wines incorrectly as “Products of Israel” inhibits the ability of such individuals to express their political views through their purchasing choices, thereby limiting their Charter-protected right to freedom of expression.
The Globe and Mail reports on the decision.

Wednesday, June 12, 2019

Israel's Supreme Court Approves Disputed Sales of Greek Orthodox Church Properties

Jerusalem Post and AFP report on a decision of the Israeli Supreme Court on Monday approving the 2004 sale (or in one case, the 99-year lease) by the Greek Orthodox Church of three properties in the Old City of Jerusalem to the Jewish organization Ateret Cohanim. The goal of Ateret Cohanim is to extend Jewish ownership over property in East Jerusalem by purchasing Palestinian-owned property through front companies. Ateret Cohanim paid over $1.8 million for the properties.  The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate claims that the sales were made by its director of finance, Nicholas Papadimas, without proper authorization. It also claimed that Papadimas was bribed to advance the sales. Disclosure of the sales led to the Church's dismissal of Patriarch Irineos I and his replacement by Patriarch Theophilos III. The 3-judge panel of the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision upholding the legality of the sales.

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

In Settlement Airbnb Agrees To Allow Listing of West Bank Properties

In a press release yesterday, an Israeli civil rights group announced a settlement in  Sliber v. Airbnb, one of a number of suits challenging Airbnb's decision to delist rentals in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. (See prior posting). Apparently the policy was neverin fact implemented.  Under the Settlement Agreement (full text) Airbnb will modify it policies to allow listings of all properties in the area, subject to its Terms of Service.  Sidestepping conflicting claims over claims to the West Bank, the Settlement Agreement says in part:
Airbnb takes on position on the Host-Plaintiffs' claims, or others claims, to legal title to the properties on which the accommodations are located and its standard Terms of Service requires that every Host agree and warrant not to offer any accommodation on Airbnb's platform that the Host does not own or have permission to make available for booking.

Thursday, February 21, 2019

D.C.Circuit: Conspiracy Suit Against U.S. Supporters of Israeli Settlers Is Not "Political Question"

In an important decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that a suit against high profile Americans by 18 Palestinians and a Palestinian village council over defendants' support for the Jewish settler movement in the West Bank and Gaza may move forward. In Al-Timimi v. Adelson, (DC Cir., Feb. 19, 2019), the court summarized its holding:
The plaintiffs, both Palestinian nationals and Palestinian Americans, claim the defendants, pro-Israeli American individuals and entities, are conspiring to expel all non-Jews from territory whose sovereignty is in dispute. They sued in federal district court, pressing four claims: (1) civil conspiracy, (2) genocide and other war crimes, (3) aiding and abetting genocide and other war crimes and (4) trespass. Concluding that all four claims raise nonjusticiable political questions, the district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We now reverse....
The suit claims that defendants-- 8 high net-worth individuals (including Sheldon Adelson and John Hagee), 13 tax exempt organizations (including the Jewish Naional Fund), 2 banks, 8 construction and support firms and former U.S. National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams conspired to funnel millions of dollars to Israeli settlements which funded "a militia of Israeli settlers [trained] to kill Palestinians and confiscate their property."

In a 21-page opinion, the court concluded:
[T]he plaintiffs’ claims present only one jurisdiction-stripping political question: who has sovereignty over the disputed territory. But a claim whose resolution also includes resolution of a political question can be dismissed on that basis only if the political question is “inextricable.” ... We believe this political question is extricable."
Reuters reports on the decision.

Friday, January 25, 2019

Arkansas Anti-Israel Boycott Law Upheld

In Arkansas Times  LP v. Waldrip, (ED AR, Jan. 23, 2019), an Arkansas federal district court dismissed a challenge to Arkansas' Act 710 which requires companies doing business with the state to certify that they are not boycotting Israel.  Plaintiff claimed that the law compels speech regarding contractors’ political beliefs, association, and expression, and restricts state contractors from engaging in boycotts and boycott-related speech in violation of the 1st Amendment. The court rejected these arguments, holding:
A boycott of Israel, as defined by Act 710, is neither speech nor inherently expressive conduct.
The court went on to hold that prior U.S. Supreme Court precedents do not "create an unqualified right to engage in political boycotts."  AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Thursday, January 24, 2019

Florida Governor Acts In Response To Airbnb Israel West Bank Boycott

As previously reported, last November Airbnb under pressure from Palestinian officials, anti-settlement advocates and human rights groups announced that it is removing listings for rentals in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Now, in a Jan. 15, 2019 letter (full text), Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has responded to the Airbnb action by ordering the state Department of Management Services to cease reimbursements to state employees for their stays arranged through Airbnb while on official state business. Also all state contracts must now bar such reimbursements to contractors. A January 15 press release by the Governor, calling the "Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions" movement "nothing more than a cloak for anti-Semitism," announced, several initiatives, including $2 million in funding for security for Jewish day schools, that he said makes Florida the "most Israel-friendly state in the country."

Tuesday, December 18, 2018

Texas BDS Law Challenged

A suit was filed in a Texas federal district court this week by an Arabic-speaking speech pathologist challenging the constitutionality of Texas' statute barring those who contract with the state from participating in any boycott of Israel.  The complaint (full text) in Amawi v. Pflugerville Independent School District, (WD TX, filed 12/16/2018), contends that the anti-BDS law violates the free expression rights of plaintiff who refused on moral grounds to sign an anti-BDS pledge as part of her contract with the school system. Common Dreams reports on the lawsuit.

Friday, November 30, 2018

Suits Proliferating Against Airbnb Over West Bank Delistings

Lawsuits are proliferating against Airbnb for its decision last week to delist rentals in Israeli settlements in the West Bank.  In addition to the arbitration proceeding previously reported, a suit under the federal Fair Housing Act was filed in Delaware federal district court. Delaware is Airbnb's state of incorporation. (Reuters). According to JTA, the 18 plaintiffs in the lawsuit either own property in Israel or have rented property there in the past through Airbnb. Separately a suit was filed against Airbnb in an Israeli court alleging discrimination in violation of Israeli law, and a separate suit in Israeli courts against Human Rights Watch for its involvement in Airbnb's action is in the offing. (JTA).

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Claim Filed Against Airbnb For Its Delisting of West Bank Rentals

As reported by the New York Times, last week Airbnb under pressure from Palestinian officials, anti-settlement advocates and human rights groups announced that it is removing listings for rentals in Israeli settlements in the West Bank.  In response, yesterday an arbitration claim (pursuant to the arbitration clause in Airbnb's terms of service) was filed against Airbnb by an Israeli company owned by a resident of New York.  The Statement of Claim (full text) in Bibliotechnical Blue & White Ltd. v. AIRBNB, Inc., (Amer. Arbitration Assoc., filed 11/26/2018) alleges in part:
Claimant recently registered as a user of Respondent's services. This was done in the City of New York. Claimant would like to purchase or purchase or lease property in Judea & Samaria and list it with Respondent's services using computer services in the City of New York. Thus, Respondent's policy is discriminatorily preventing Claimant from using Respondent's services in the City of New York....
Respondent has violated the New York City and New York State human rights laws by discriminating on the basis of religion, national origin and/or citizenship and also by engaging in a discriminatory boycott.
Legal Insurrection blog reports in more detail on the case.

Sunday, September 30, 2018

Arizona's Anti-BDS Law Enjoined

In Jordahl v. Brnovich, (D AZ, Sept. 27. 2018), an Arizona federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Arizona's statute requiring those contracting with the state to certify that they are not engaged in a boycott of Israel. Plaintiff Mikkel Jordahl's law firm contracts with the county jail district to provide legal advice to inmates.  Jordahl boycotts consumer goods and services from businesses that support "Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories." The court concluded that "Plaintiffs would at least be able to meet their burden of showing that the Certification Requirement is an unconstitutional condition on government contractors." The court said in part:
The Act thus encompasses and contemplates elements of expressive political conduct protected under the Constitution. As such, the Court finds it highly likely that Plaintiffs will be able to establish that “boycott,” as defined in the Arizona legislature, burdens expressive political activity protected under the First Amendment. The question then becomes whether the State has an adequate interest in restricting companies’ rights to engage in boycotts of Israel by conditioning their government contracts on a promise to refrain from such activity....
Here, the State has proffered two interests to justify the Certification Requirement: (1) an interest in regulating the State’s “commercial activity to align commerce in the State with the State’s policy objectives and values” and (2) an interest in preventing discrimination on the basis of national origin....
The legislative history of the Act calls these stated interests into doubt. The Act’s history instead suggests that the goal of the Act is to penalize the efforts of those engaged in political boycotts of Israel and those doing business in Israeli-occupied territories because such boycotts are not aligned with the State’s values.... If so, such an interest is constitutionally impermissible.
Payson Roundup reports on the decision.

Friday, September 21, 2018

Israeli Court Fines Orthodox Jewish Station For Excluding Women On Broadcasts

Times of Israel reported yesterday:
In a precedent-setting ruling, the Jerusalem District Court fined the ultra-Orthodox Kol Berama radio station NIS 1 million ($280,000) on Thursday for excluding women from the airwaves.
The judge ordered the money be held in a designated fund that will later be distributed to various organizations helping ultra-Orthodox women.
The ruling comes six years after the Reform Movement’s Israel Religious Action Center and the religious women’s rights group Kolech filed a class action lawsuit against the radio station for its refusal to broadcast women on any of its programming.

Thursday, September 13, 2018

Israeli Court Orders Recognition of Conversion Performed Outside of Official Rabbinate

Haaretz and Times of Israel report today that in a first of its kind decision in Israel, a Jerusalem district court has ordered Israel's Interior Ministry to register as Jewish in the Population Registry a woman converted by a rabbinical court operating outside of the official Rabbinate.  The conversion was performed by Orthodox rabbis through Giyur K’Halakha, a private initiative of prominent religious Zionist rabbis that is less stringent in its conversion requirements.

Friday, July 20, 2018

Israel's First Enforcement of Law Barring Jewish Weddings Outside Official Rabbinate

Haaretz reports that for the first time Israeli police have attempted to enforce a 2013 law that prohibits rabbis from performing Jewish weddings other than through the official Rabbinate.  Offenses carry a sentence of up to 6 months for conducting the ceremony and up to two years in prison for failing to register it.  Israeli police on Thursday booked Rabbi Dov Haiyun of Moriah Congregation in Haifa who was ordained by the Conservative movement, on charges of conducting a marriage ceremony of a person who is not eligible to be married under Jewish law. The complaint against him was filed by the Haifa Rabbinical Court.

UPDATE: Times of Israel (July 22) reports that the attorney general’s office, responding to widespread criticism of the detention, has now instructed police to cancel the summons against Rabbi Haiyun.

Thursday, July 19, 2018

Israel Passes Watered-Down Version of Controversial Jewish Nation-State Bill

As reported by Haaretz, Israel's Knesset yesterday passed a watered-down version of the controversial Jewish Nation-State Bill (full text).  The Bill, passed as a Basic Law, will have quasi-constitutional status. The new law defines Israel as "the national home of the Jewish people."  A provision that originally was aimed at allowing the creation of Jewish-only communities in Israel was modified to read:
The state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation.
In a provision which apparently attempts to prevent government encouragement of Reform and Conservative branches of Judaism within Israel, the law provides:
The state shall act within the Diaspora to strengthen the affinity between the state and members of the Jewish people.
Among various other provisions, the bill establishes the Sabbath and Jewish festivals as days of rest in the country.

Thursday, June 28, 2018

In Israel, New Legal Hurdles To Egalitarian Prayer Space At Western Wall

Haaretz reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's plans to expand the area at the Western Wall that is available for egalitarian prayer has run into new legal and political hurdles.  Culture Minister Miri Regev announced yesterday that she is resigning as head of the ministerial committee charged with approving this expansion in the Robinson's Arch area of the Wall. (See prior related posting.)  Israel's Antiquities Law requires approval of the committee for construction at any archeological site.  Regev says that her conscience does not permit her to convene a committee to approve mixed-gender prayer.

Meanwhile, in April the right wing organization B'Tzedek sued the Antiquities Authority in the High Court of Justice contending that the Robinson's Arch expansion is illegal. Netenyahu is concerned that if expansion does not begin soon, the High Court will side with B'Tzedek, and that this will lead to the Court ruling instead that there should be an egalitarian prayer area as part of the main plaza of the Western Wall.  That would likely lead to a political crisis in Netanyahu's coalition government.

UPDATE: On July 3, Jerusalem Post reported:
A major step toward renovating the egalitarian prayer section of the Western Wall was taken Monday night, with the Knesset approving the transfer of authority over infrastructure changes to holy sites to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from Culture and Sport Minister Miri Regev.

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Israel Expands Rabbinical Court Divorce Jurisdiction To Cover Recalcitrant Non-Israeli Husbands

On Monday, Israel's Knesset passed a new law giving Israeli Rabbinical Courts jurisdiction over divorces outside of Israel between non-Israelis where a Jewish husband has refused to give his estranged wife a Jewish bill of divorce (a get). The court however can act only when the husband subsequently is physically present in Israel. Jerusalem Post reports:
The legislation, which is a temporary three-year law, allows the Rabbinical Courts to hear a case involving a couple in which neither spouse is Israeli, on one of three conditions: if there is no rabbinical court where the couple lives to deal which can hear the case; the couple has not been in front of a rabbinical court for four months; or if a husband refuses to give a divorce after a rabbinical court in the Diaspora ruled that he must do so and made “reasonable efforts” to enforce its decision....
The rabbinical courts in Israel can impose sanctions on recalcitrant spouses to persuade them to divorce, such as revoking driving licenses, revoking passports, placing restrictions on their bank accounts, and even imprisoning them for extended periods of time.
But such sanctions are not at the disposal of rabbinical courts in the Diaspora since they are not state institutions....

Sunday, June 24, 2018

Israeli Trial Court Permits Sex-Segregated Event In City Square

In Israel today, a Tel Aviv trial court overruled the city's ban on a sex-segregated event scheduled for tomorrow in Tel Aviv's Rabin Square. The city had prohibited the event on the ground that sex segregation in the public sphere violates anti-discrimination requirements. Apparently the substantive legal issue turns on whether the event is religious (and thus has an exemption from anti-discrimination requirements) or is cultural. The court criticized the city for waiting too long to cancel the event.  Sponsored by the Messianist branch of the Chabad movement, the rally called "Messiah in the Square" is to "greet the Lubavitcher Rebbe, King Messiah." (Background.)  According to Haaretz:
The Chabad representative who presented the petition told the court that the planned barrier between men and women in the square would be 50 meters long, but separation would be voluntary and men had the option of sitting with women, as well. The judge said the barrier was for people who identified with the association and that passersby could move freely through the square.
“I don’t understand why the event should not be held the way they [Chabad] want,” [Judge] Vardi said.
Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai responded Sunday to the decision by saying, “We will make sure that in the future there will be no [gender-] separated events in the city.”

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

State Department Says Controversial Pastor Was Invited By Ambassador

As previously reported, one of the pastors who delivered an invocation at yesterday's opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem was Robert Jeffress, who had made controversial statements in the past about Catholics, Jews, Mormons and various other religious groups. At a news conference yesterday (full text), State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert was asked about the decision to invite Jeffress.  Here is part of her exchange with a reporter:
QUESTION: Do you have any further explanation for why it was that Pastor Jeffress was chosen to participate in the ceremony given his past controversial comments?
MS NAUERT: I can just tell you that Ambassador Friedman, I know, was looking at a variety of people to be a part of the service or the ceremony, and that’s who was invited. I don’t have anything more for you on that.
QUESTION: Was the State Department aware of some of his past comments regarding specifically Mormonism, Islam, Muslim, and --
MS NAUERT: We certainly would not agree with --
QUESTION: -- Jewish --
MS NAUERT: -- his assertions. We would certainly not agree with the pastor’s remarks, some of his controversial remarks that he has made about various religious groups, but he was chosen by Ambassador Friedman, who was certainly welcome to do so, and made that decision.
QUESTION: Well, wait, so that means that if not – even though you don’t agree with those comments, you might say that they’re wrong or what – I don’t know what term you would use --
MS NAUERT: I think I was just pretty clear. I said we do not agree with his opinion.
QUESTION: But – so that’s not disqualifying to be – I mean, does this – is this the embassy of the United States of America or is it basically Ambassador Friedman’s embassy?
MS NAUERT: As we have seen before – I seem to recall not too long ago that there was another embassy that made some decisions – embassies certainly have their free will sometimes to make decisions about who they want to bring in as guest lecturers or people to lead a ceremony or some sort of a celebration. To my knowledge, we did not have any role in making that decision, but --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS NAUERT: Not that we asked to. I just – I’m not aware if we had any decision-making --
QUESTION: Okay. So I just want to make sure I understand. So this is the equivalent – you’re saying it’s kind of like the equivalent of the Berlin situation?
MS NAUERT: I’m not saying that. I’m just saying that embassies and people around the world bring in lots and lots of people who have various opinions. Okay?

Monday, May 14, 2018

Controversial Baptist Pastor To Open Ceremony Dedicating U.S. Embassy In Jerusalem

The Trump Administration has chosen controversial Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress to deliver the opening prayer in today's ceremony marking the move of the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. (WFAA News). As reported by Mother Jones, Jeffress, who is a supporter and informal faith adviser to President Trump, has made incendiary statements about non-Christian religions:
Jeffress, who runs the First Baptist Dallas megachurch in Texas, has referred to both Islam and Mormonism as “a heresy from the pit of hell.” He believes Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, and Buddhism are all cults, and that Catholicism represents the “genius of Satan.” Jews, he believes, are going to hell. “You can’t be saved by being a Jew,” he’s said. Islam, he said, “is a religion that promotes pedophelia, sex with children.”
UPDATE: Here is a video of the full ceremony in Jerusalem.  Pastor Jeffress' invocation is at 17:25 on the video, followed by an invocation by Chabad Rabbi Zalman Wolowik.  The benediction at 1:12:03 on the video was offered by controversial Pastor John Hagee, evangelical founder of Christians United for Israel.

Wednesday, May 02, 2018

Israel's Knesset Passes Bill Urging Judges To Use Jewish Law In Absence of Other Precedent

Haaretz [subscription required] reports that Israel's Knesset yesterday, by a vote of 39-32, gave final approval to a controversial bill that recommends, but does not require, judges to decide cases according to principles of Jewish law when there is no other relevant legislation or judicial precedent.  It also continues the provision that is in current law urging judges to also look at "the principles of Jewish heritage."  Bill sponsor MK Nissan Slomiansky (Habayit Hayehudi) explained:
The goal is that if there’s a lacuna in the law, instead of the judge running to look all over the world for compatible legal systems, he should look at Jewish law.  If the judge wants to, he’ll use it, and if not, he’ll use his judgment and do as he sees fit. This isn’t a big revolution and there’s nothing here that ought to scare people.
However, opposition Knesset member Merav Michaeli (Zionist Union) argued:
This is one small step ... on the way to an undemocratic state governed by Jewish law.... In a democratic country, the law is whatever is decided by the people’s representatives, not what a mere minority believes that God has decided.
And Knesset member Dov Khenin (Joint List , a coalition of Arab parties) said:
This bill is part of a creeping, dangerous move. This government has proposed a series of bills whose goal is to change the foundations of the system, to distance the system as much as possible from progressive views of democracy and make it more nationalist, conservative and religious.