°®Âþµº

The Israeli Supreme Court has amended the law in support of settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, reflecting the agenda of Binyamin Netanyahu's government.

The changes make it an offence to boycott Israel, and allow the government to seize Palestinian properties in East Jerusalem.

According to the new law a boycott is defined as "refusal to engage in economic, cultural or academic relations with a person or organisation because of their ties with Israel".

The boycott includes areas "under Israeli control" - in reference to the occupied Palestinian territories. This means the 60 Israeli artists who recently refused to perform at the theatre of Ariel - a large settlement in the West Bank - could have been sued for their action.

Aeyal Gross, a legal expert, wrote in Haaretz that this is part of "a wave of anti-democratic bills aimed at killing the messenger rather than responding to the specific content of their criticism".

It is also seen as part of an ongoing attempt to erase any discussion against the official line taken since Netanyahu returned to power in 2009. 

Expropriating property

The court has also allowed the government to apply the "Absentees' Property Law" to East Jerusalem. This was passed in 1950 and allowed the state to seize land and property held by absent owners.

This included Palestinians who were made refugees when Israel was created, and who are still living in exile.

 
Right-wing Israelis have pushed for this law to be applied to East Jerusalem since Israel annexed the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, in an attempt to Judaise the city. It was initially applied before in 1967 being annulled in 1968.

The Likud party brought it back in 1977, and in 1992 former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and member of the Labour Party annulled it again. However, it was reintroduced in 2004 by Ariel Sharon.

Since then, most "recommendations" issued by the government's judicial councils have decreed that West Bank Palestinians holding property in Jerusalem could not be considered "absent". Nevertheless, the law has remained in force.

However, in 2013 the public prosecutor formally justified its use. The Supreme Court validated a law which meant Palestinians living 5km away from East Jerusalem but owning property there could have it seized by the state.

This property could then be legally acquired by a US citizen who does not and has never lived in Israel, but who supports Israeli settlers.

Concerns

Those opposing Israel's occupation argue that these changes mean Israel has further segregated Palestinians and turned its back on democracy.

Gideon Levy, a journalist, argued that the Supreme Court had "always betrayed its role as the guardian of human rights, international law, equality and justice in the occupied territories".

These decisions will also further isolate Israel internationally.

Boycotting Israel

These changes mean Israel has further segregated Palestinians and turned its back on democracy.

In December 2014, Omar Barghouti the Palestinian who founded the international campaign Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, argued: "We must give some credit to Netanyahu. Without him, we wouldn't have succeeded to this extent."

His movement has gathered large scale support in recent years, including from public figures.

The most significant international financial boycott to date was by the Dutch pension fund PGGM. In August 2014 it withdraw its investments from five major Israeli banks due to their "involvement" in the occupied territories. 

However, this was not the only one. Israeli authorities are concerned by the strength of the movement. In February 2014 Yuval Steinitz, the Israeli minister of strategic affairs, was given $26m by the state for an international publicity campaign against the boycott. However, this counter campaign has had little impact.

Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party in the UK, recently said she would support the boycott campaign "as long as Israel failed to comply with international law".

The movement has also gained momentum on US university campuses. Students at universities including Berkeley, Stanford, UCLA, San Diego, Loyola, DePaul, have voted in support of the boycott.

These universities are not bound to comply with this decision, but they have a symbolic importance. 

In addition, a campaign was recently launched in the UK and the US calling for the exact origin to be written on products sold by Israeli companies.

After this Soda Stream announced it would write "made in the West Bank" instead of "made in Israel" on its products, and it would relocate its production site to outside the 1967 Israeli borders. The company is currently based in Mishor Adumim - a settlement in the West Bank.

Two US republicans are trying to counteract the boycott campaign. They have proposed a bill "Boycott Our Enemies" calling for US government contractor to have to certify they are not taking part in any boycott against Israel.

In December 2014, Barghouti argued: "There was a time when 'Made in South Africa' was toxic. We are still far from that, but we are drawing nearer."

In Israel, those opposing the boycott sanctioning denounced the Supreme Court's decision arguing it opposes free speech. Many insisted the decision will strengthen the advocates of the boycott rather than weaken them.

The decision is likely to strengthen the opinion of those who believe Israeli society is now completely unable to confront the challenges to its survival. In addition, it is sinking deeper into international isolation that can only grow further.

This article was originally in French by our partners at Orient XXI.