UK Government's ban on boycotting Israel contradicts its own advice on doing business with Israel

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:43 pm

The Foreign Office continues to warn of the dangers of procuring goods and services from the occupied territories

The Government’s ban on public boycotts of Israeli goods from the occupied territories contradicts its own advice on doing business with the country, official documents show.

A number of public authorities, including local councils, have passed procurement policies stating that they will not buy goods or services from Israel’s occupied Palestinian territories.

The Government however this week notified councils that these boycotts were now against official procurement rules and would be subject to penalties – an announcement coinciding with a ministerial visit to Israel.

Longstanding official government advice on doing business with Israel appears to directly contradict the new rule, however – warning that procurement from the occupied territories is unwise.

The Foreign Office’s Overseas Business Risk assessment for Israel states that the Government does “not encourage or offer support” to business with the occupied territories.

“The UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements … settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict impossible,” the advice says.

“There are therefore clear risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements, and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity.”

The business guidelines also note that: “Financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements as well as other economic activities in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israel’s territory.”

The Foreign Office confirmed to the Independent that the advice still stands and has not been affected by the new Crown Commercial Service rules.

The Government also says citizens and business should “be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements” as well as potential human rights abuses in the area.

Disputed titles to the “land, water, mineral, or other natural resources which might be the subject of purchase or investment” also raise issues about doing business with suppliers based there, the advice reads.

Finally the Government advice says: “We understand the concerns of people who do not wish to purchase goods exported from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.”

The new policy banning boycotts is not limited solely to Israeli goods – and effectively stops public authorities from take ethical considerations into account when procuring goods.

Campaigners have said the ban will affect activity against the arms trade, fossil fuels, tobacco products and Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

The Government however trailed the rule as being especially applicable to Israel and announced it on the day of a ministerial visit to the country.

It says such boycotts damage “community cohesion” and the UK’s “international security”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-governments-ban-on-boycotting-israel-contradicts-its-own-advice-on-doing-business-with-israel-a6881146.html

Oops!

by Raggamuffin Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:44 pm

Don't think this required a new thread tbh.

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:46 pm

I do, or it would have got lost.

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:46 pm

Its called stassi being desperate

Its still racist, no matter how badly the regressive lefties argue

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:47 pm

Here is the press release by the UK government saying that boycotting Israel by public institutions is illegal. They are simply highlighting existing laws and agreements that make all boycotts of countries under the WTO illegal.

Notably, the press release explicitly says that the boycotts pushed by the BDS movement are "fuelling anti-Semitism."

Note also that the same press release also reiterates support for labeling all goods from the territories:

Guidance published today makes clear that procurement boycotts by public authorities are inappropriate, outside where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the government.

Town hall boycotts undermine good community relations, poisoning and polarising debate, weakening integration and fuelling anti-Semitism.

Locally imposed boycotts can roll back integration as well as hinder Britain’s export trade and harm international relationship.

All contracting authorities will be impacted by this new guidance including central government, executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies, the wider public sector, local authorities and NHS bodies. Any public body found to be in breach of the regulations could be subject to severe penalties.

The World Trade Organisation Government Procurement Agreement – an international market access agreement – requires all those countries that have signed up to the Agreement to treat suppliers equally. This includes the EU and Israel. Any discrimination against Israeli suppliers involving procurements would therefore be in breach of the Agreement.

The guidance published today complements existing government guidance about trading or investing overseas (including with Israel), where we advise UK businesses to consider any potential legal and economic risks of doing so. It is also in line with the government’s existing policy of support for clear and transparent labelling of settlement products to ensure that individual consumers are able to make informed choices before they buy.

Cabinet Office Minister, Matthew Hancock said:
We need to challenge and prevent these divisive town hall boycotts. The new guidance on procurement combined with changes we are making to how pension pots can be invested will help prevent damaging and counter-productive local foreign policies undermining our national security.

We support UK local authorities, businesses and individual consumers alike in making informed choices about how they procure services and products from overseas.

Here are the actual guidelines that were issued, which do not mention Israel at all:

Procurement Policy Note: Ensuring compliance with wider international obligations when letting public contracts
Information Note 01/16 17th February 2016

Issue

1. This PPN sets out contracting authorities’ international obligations when letting public contracts. It makes clear that boycotts in public procurement are inappropriate, outside where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the UK Government.

Dissemination and Scope

2. This PPN is directly applicable to all contracting authorities, including Central Government, Executive Agencies, Non Departmental Public Bodies, wider public sector, local authorities and NHS bodies. Please circulate this document (for information) within your organisation, including where relevant to Executive Agencies and Non Departmental Public Bodies and other contracting authorities for which you are responsible, drawing it to the attention of those with a purchasing role.

Advice

3. The UK has a longstanding and widely accepted policy that applies to all public contracts, of ensuring value for money in public procurement, as set out in HMT's Managing Public Money. Value for money is defined as securing the best mix of quality and effectiveness for the least outlay over the period of use of the goods or services bought. That definition has recently been updated to make clearer that the key factor is whole life cost, not necessarily the lowest purchase price.

4. Further, wider policy objectives (such as economic or employment-related considerations) can be pursued through the procurement process where they are linked to the subject-matter of the contract. The new Public Contract Regulations (PCR) 2015 also provide flexibility for authorities to take account of wider matters in the procurement process, such as social and environmental factors. Contracting authorities may apply these flexibilities where relevant, ensuring always that all suppliers are treated equally and without discrimination.

5. The UK's regime of procurement rules (the PCR 2015), derives largely from the EU procurement directives and the WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) - an international market access agreement. These rules impose a legal obligation on public authorities when awarding contracts above certain thresholds to treat EU and GPA 2 suppliers equally, and not discriminate by, amongst other things, favouring national suppliers. There are remedies available through the courts for breaches of these rules, such as damages, fines and ineffectiveness (contract cancellation). The European Commission can also bring legal proceedings against the UK Government for alleged breaches of EU law by a UK contracting authority. This can lead to formal action being required to rectify the breach, and substantial fines against the Government. The Government will always involve the relevant contracting authority in these proceedings.

6. Suppliers from "third countries" (which are neither part of the EU, nor the GPA or other international free-trade agreements with the EU) do not enjoy access to our remedies system if they are discriminated against. However, third country suppliers could, potentially, offer the best value for money outcome, so the UK Government expects that its authorities will deal with bids from such third countries in the same way as EU or GPA countries.

7. Public procurement should never be used as a tool to boycott tenders from suppliers based in other countries, except where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the UK Government. There are wider national and international consequences from imposing such local level boycotts. They can damage integration and community cohesion within the United Kingdom, hinder Britain’s export trade, and harm foreign relations to the detriment of Britain’s economic and international security. As highlighted earlier, it can also be unlawful and lead to severe penalties against the contracting authority and the Government.

Contact
8. Enquiries about this PPN should be directed to the Crown Commercial Service Helpdesk (telephone 0345 410 2222, email info@crowncommercial.gov.uk)

The PLO is furious, and is using the "peace process" that they oppose as a reason to boycott Israel:

“This policy puts the UK in the position of defending Israel’s occupation, expansion, racism and colonialism,” said Husam Zomlot, ambassador-at-large for the Palestinian leadership.

"It is a bullet at the heart of peacemaking because peace will only come when Israel is under pressure and feels consequences for its illegal actions."

That is the entire PLO foreign policy message in a single sentence. They have no responsibilities, only rights, including many that no one else has.

Peace-seeker Zomlot likes analogies to bullets, because he also told Financial Times "This is a bullet at the very heart of a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Middle East and the very heart of democracy in Britain."

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:53 pm

Also how is boycotting Israel okay based on the settlements being illegal under international law?

Talk about a daft point to make.

The point is where groups are boycotting Israel full stop, not the settlements

Also:

The US Administration, The EU, the UN, almost everyone who counts keep claiming that Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria (aka "West Bank") are illegal. Unfortunately they confuse illegality with unhelpfulness. Considering international law, these settlements are not illegal. Some of them may be problematic, but nonetheless, they are not—by any means—illegal.
Let me explain.
It was the twilight of the 19th century.
European Jews started in on their journey back to Judea, their ancient homeland, renamed Palestine by the Roman Empire some 2000 years earlier following the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE. The territory was mostly a vacant wasteland with several villages and towns inhabited by Arabs plus a few Jewish enclaves. It was ruled by the Ottoman Empire, which occupied it following the fall of the Byzantine Empire, which had inherited the land from the Roman Empire.
The Jews who embarked on their journey back home settled the land. They were a small minority among the Arab majority, which amounted to several hundred thousand residents. There was nothing illegal about these settlements. Jews purchased land from its former owners; they built their kibbutzim, their Jewish towns, and also settled in towns that exhibited Arab majorities.
Following WWI Palestine became occupied by the British. European Jews continued arriving in spite of British restrictions. They continued settling the land in spite of Arab violent disapproval. There was nothing illegal about these settlements. As before, Jews purchased land from its former owners; they built their kibbutzim, their Jewish towns, and also settled among the Arabs in towns with Arab majorities and in towns where Arabs were no longer a significant bulk.
The violence and counter violence between Arabs and Jews intensified. It grew to a point that required international intervention. The UN came upon a partition plan, a two-state solution that parted Palestine into a Jewish state and a Palestinian Arab state. The Arabs rejected it.
The British left Palestine in 1948. Seven Arab countries launched a war on the Jewish enclave in Palestine. Their stated goal: “We will drive these subhuman Jews into the sea”. The Jews fought for their lives and for their state. It was their war of independence—a defensive war.  And they won.
The victorious Jews were able to expand their territory beyond their existing kibbutzim and Jewish towns, and beyond what the UN partition plan had called for. In the process, many Arabs fled the area; they became refugees. Some were driven out by the menacing, destructive hellhole of war, as the terrain was ethnically cleansed, then resettled by Jews.
The 1949 armistice agreement established the new borders of the state of Israel. It included territory that happened to be occupied in the aftermath of the 1947-8 war. Most countries in the world, with the exception of the Arab and some Muslim nations recognized the state of Israel. They accepted the 1949 armistice (green) line as the firm boundaries of the state. They did not deem Jewish settlements, within the Green line, in the state of Israel as illegal even though the land had been occupied by the Jews in consequence of a defensive war.
And then came 1967.
Once again, four Arab countries declared war on the Jewish State. Abd el Nasser, Egypt’s president and leader of the Arab world, was quick to remove any doubt or misunderstanding about the Arabs’ true intentions. “The liquidation of Israel will be liquidation through violence. We shall enter a Palestine not covered with sand, but soaked in blood,” He announced.
The Jews fought for their lives and for their state. It was a war for survival.  And, once again, they won.
The victorious Jews were able to expand their territory beyond their existing state. In the process, Arabs in the Golan Heights fled the area as the terrain was ethnically cleansed, then resettled by Jews. The Sinai desert was—still is—a desert. It was sparsely populated to begin with. Fortunately, the war was exceptionally short. Residents of the Gaza strip and the "West Bank" had no time to flee. They stayed in place, and were left under Israeli governance.
Still, there was plenty of uninhabited, public land; land that had been retained, then abandoned by the previous occupier of the area—the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
Israel conquered the "West Bank" in a defensive war. International law, spelled out by the charter of the League of Nations, states that the status of territories occupied in consequence of a defensive war shall remain in dispute as long as there is no peace agreement between the warring parties. Accordingly, the conquered territory is disputed rather than occupied. And although Israel’s control over the area makes peace with the Palestinians more challenging, it is, nonetheless, legal.

What’s more, international law states that a territory conquered in a defensive war may be used to maintain security in the absence of a peace treaty. The conquering party may resettle it if it had been driven out of the area (like East Jerusalem, Hevron, Gush Etzion) in an earlier war (1947- Cool

and the rest of Judea and Samaria during the Roman revolt in 135 CE. Besides, UN Resolution 242 states clearly that in the absence of peace between Israel and the Arabs, Israel may develop and settle any public unoccupied land.

This public unoccupied land was never owned by a Muslim Palestinian state, since no Muslim Palestinian state ever existed. Four hundred years prior to the end of World War I in 1917 this land was occupied and owned by the Ottoman empire; then between 1917-1948 it was controlled by the British, and following the 1948 war between Israel and the Arab states, the kingdom of Jordan occupied — and, I must say, illegally absorbed — the same territory.

An Arab Palestinian authority has never owned public land in Judea and Samaria, (a.k.a. the West Bank) or the Gaza strip. The Jews were the only legitimate local resident owners before the Roman Empire’s conquest of the land. After the Romans drove the Jews out of Israel and renamed the territory, the only owners were foreign imperialists who took control of Palestine after defeating a former imperialist occupier.

Public unoccupied land in Judea and Samaria had never been in possession of a Palestinian Arab authority or government. Israel captured the land from its illegal possessor, the Jordanian Hashemite kingdom, in a defensive war.

In the absence of peace between Israel and any Palestinian authority, it has been Israel’s legally justified right to maintain its sovereignty over these territories, develop and settle them, as long as the Israeli government has not deported or displaced the original residents. Accordingly, Palestinian Arabs were able to challenge the Israeli government concerning land use and ownership and that several of these challenges were successful. Consequently, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the Israeli government to reverse position and hand the land over to its rightful owners whenever it found such land grab illegal or unjust.
It is important to note that Palestinians and many other Arabs consider all of Israel to be an occupied territory. A UN resolution that partitioned the land in 1947 into a two-state solution was rejected by the Arabs, and the resulting war ended similarly to the 1967 Six-Day-War. Israel captured more territory in consequence of a defensive war. That war of independence did not end up in a peace treaty. It was concluded in a ceasefire and a demarcated ceasefire (green) line, serving as a temporary border between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Israel went ahead and annexed the conquered territory, which became an integral part of the Jewish State. Israel’s captured territory was recognized by the rest of the world, with the exception of the Arab states, as an integral part of Israel.
If Jewish settlements established over territory captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day-War are considered illegal, then one could extrapolate the same reasoning to proclaim illegality for the entire State of Israel. History tells us that Israel was established in 1948 in the aftermath of a defensive war over territories that were conquered, occupied and settled by the triumphant Jews. (Emphasis added)
And similarly, territories captured in the aftermath of wars like—
Northern Ireland—captured, occupied and annexed by the British
Territories belonging to Poland and Romania—captured, occupied and annexed by the Russians
Kurdistan—Occupied and annexed by Turkey and Iraq
Catalonia—Occupied and annexed by Spain
German territories before WWII—occupied and annexed by France and Poland
Hungarian territories (Transylvania)—occupied and annexed by Romania
Tibet—occupied and annexed by China
Texas—Captured from Mexico
The entire US—captured by force from the native Americans and settled by the White Americans—ought to be classified as illegal, if consistency, rather than anti-Semitism, governs the civilized world.
At the same time, if Jewish settlements established west of the Green line (1949 Armistice lines) are considered legal, then one could extrapolate the same reasoning to proclaim legality of Jewish settlements east of the Green Line (i.e., in the "West Bank"). Both territories were conquered, occupied and settled by Jews in consequence of a defensive war.
There is another problem. Most Israeli citizens want to live in a Jewish State with a significant Jewish majority where Hatikva is the national hymn and the prime minister, the defense minister, the military and the security agencies’ chiefs are Zionist Jews. Annexing the "West Bank" with all of its Arab residents might cause a problem with that, but that is a different issue.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/16530

by Victorismyhero Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:13 pm

can we still sell them SPAM ? UK Government's ban on boycotting Israel contradicts its own advice on doing business with Israel 3489511464

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:50 pm

Lol, think they might object as they don't eat pork lol

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:54 pm

sassy wrote:Lol, think they might object as they don't eat pork lol

Dear me two Jew and Muslim haters shinning through it seems playing off now what Jews and Muslims do not eat in Israelis

I always knew the real national socialism in Victor would shine through, or should we just call him Reinhard Heydrich

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:55 pm

Also it seems he jumped on to spoil the thread the immature wanker lol

by Victorismyhero Thu Feb 18, 2016 6:06 pm

did somebody say something...or was that the rattling of a chain I heard??

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Lord Foul wrote:did somebody say something...or was that the rattling of a chain I heard??

So easy to get the pussy to post lol

by nicko Thu Feb 18, 2016 6:14 pm

Any one tried Spam Fritters? I tried one a few months back, I do not recommend them,[ sickly]

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 7:19 pm

Boycotting Israeli goods is about to become a criminal offence - so much for 'power to the people'
There was a time when David Cameron wanted everyone to get involved in hyper-local politics. But now he's decided he'd rather you didn't

News has emerged this week that “shunning Israeli goods” is about to become a criminal offence for public bodies and student unions in the UK. Put simply, the law will prevent publicly funded institutions - including local authorities – choosing to refuse to buy goods from companies involved in the arms trade, fossil fuels, tobacco products or illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

From here-on out, these institutions will face severe penalties for attempting to implement morally driven boycotts. What people are rightfully concerned about is the way in which this will prevent everyday voters from voicing their opposition to a decades-long humanitarian crisis in the Middle East.

Why? It's complicated.

There are scholars who’ve spent their entire adult lives trying to figure out what’s going on with Israel, Palestine and the Gaza Strip. But the long and short of it is: there are a lot people arguing over one scrap of land, all of them have strong cultural and religious ties to the area and it’s nigh impossible to decide who’s right and who’s wrong.

Yet as fate would have it, only one of these groups is extremely well-funded and super-connected. That’s why Israel can do pretty much whatever the hell it wants to Gaza and the native Palestinians who live there. World superpowers ordinarily wouldn’t stand for it. Yet because Israel is a key Western ally in the region, governments like the UK tend to turn a blind eye to any and all alleged crimes against humanity that might be taking place in the region.

The citizens of the UK aren’t quite as happy to ignore it all as the government, however. That’s why local councils and public bodies across the country have recently – and historically - taken it upon themselves to bypass their national government and send Israel a message that not everyone in the UK agrees with its policies, particularly its practice of allowing settlements in Palestinian territories which are considered illegal under international law.

Leicester City, Stirling, Clackmannanshire, Midlothian and West Dunbartonshire Councils have all implemented local bans on goods that come out of Israel and its illegal settlements. More than a few student unions have followed suit.

You’d think ministers would be proud of that. Young people and everyday voters connecting with international issues, debating ethical dilemmas and implementing legislative policy on a local level in order to mirror the views of ordinary people – isn’t that what Big Society is all about? Apparently not.

If David Cameron wants local authorities and everyday people to get involved in politics, that’s great. But he needs to walk the walk. The government can’t take that voice away from people simply because it doesn’t like what’s being said.

You see, politicians love to hear what’s happening at the local level, but only if it’s about filling potholes or building houses. When activists and students start talking about their views on dynamic global issues, the government starts to get nervous.
When David Cameron rose to power in 2010, he did so based upon a platform of devolution and pluralism. Under the highly marketable banner of creating that ‘Big Society’, Westminster unleashed a wide array of initiatives designed to empower local authorities and grassroots activists, and give them a stronger voice on the global stage.

At least, that was the dream. But fast-forward six years, and the UK Government is clumsily attempting to mop up every single trace of the hyper-local activism it once encouraged. The latest casualty of this U-turn? This new ban on boycotting goods which a group might be morally against – a ban on bans, if you will.

After all, allowing open disagreements about these sort of things might inadvertently prove to the whole wide world that not everyone in Britain thinks alike. People might start to think we live in an open democracy.
And why on earth would we want them thinking that?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boycotting-israeli-goods-is-about-to-become-a-criminal-offence-and-democracy-is-rolling-in-its-grave-a6875201.html

Ain't that the truth.

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 7:20 pm

Bit old now and of course its still racism

by Sponsored content

UK Government's ban on boycotting Israel contradicts its own advice on doing business with Israel

UK Government's ban on boycotting Israel contradicts its own advice on doing business with Israel

Re: UK Government's ban on boycotting Israel contradicts its own advice on doing business with Israel

Re: UK Government's ban on boycotting Israel contradicts its own advice on doing business with Israel

Re: UK Government's ban on boycotting Israel contradicts its own advice on doing business with Israel

Re: UK Government's ban on boycotting Israel contradicts its own advice on doing business with Israel

Re: UK Government's ban on boycotting Israel contradicts its own advice on doing business with Israel

Re: UK Government's ban on boycotting Israel contradicts its own advice on doing business with Israel

Re: UK Government's ban on boycotting Israel contradicts its own advice on doing business with Israel

Re: UK Government's ban on boycotting Israel contradicts its own advice on doing business with Israel

Re: UK Government's ban on boycotting Israel contradicts its own advice on doing business with Israel

Re: UK Government's ban on boycotting Israel contradicts its own advice on doing business with Israel

Re: UK Government's ban on boycotting Israel contradicts its own advice on doing business with Israel

Re: UK Government's ban on boycotting Israel contradicts its own advice on doing business with Israel

Re: UK Government's ban on boycotting Israel contradicts its own advice on doing business with Israel

Re: UK Government's ban on boycotting Israel contradicts its own advice on doing business with Israel

Re: UK Government's ban on boycotting Israel contradicts its own advice on doing business with Israel