On Friday, an article ran on this site: “For NYC Israel Day Parade, BDS Banned Only in Words.” There was a mistake in it, which we take this opportunity to correct.

The focus of that article was on what at first seemed to be a big change for this year’s Celebrate Israel Parade. In the registration packet for this year’s marchers was a set of guidelines which, on the face of it, clearly prohibited any group from marching that supports economic warfare against Israel.

The new guidelines’ language was quoted in that article: “All Groups must oppose, not fund, nor advocate for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, which seeks to delegitimize the State of Israel by not recognizing it as a Jewish state.”

In the past, the parade organizers had permitted groups to march which explicitly advocate (or fund groups which explicitly advocate) boycotts of companies located beyond the so-called “Green Line.” For this reason, a reporter from The Jewish Press contacted parade officials. That reporter’s conversation with Michael Mittelman, Celebrate Israel director and the associate general counsel of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, was recounted in the Feb. 13 article.

The article stated that Mittelman refused to answer questions about whether or not the parade organizers will permit groups to march which support boycotts of Israeli products over the “Green Line.”

The reporter finally asked Mittelman point blank: would groups that advocate boycotts against SodaStream and Ahava be permitted to march? SodaStream used to be located outside of “Green Line” Israel and some people claim the Dead Sea is part of “Palestinian” territory. Mittelman refused to answer.

Mittelman repeatedly stated that the only further words the parade organizers would say on the topic were contained in a statement, which he promised to send.

The Feb. 13 article stated that Mittelman never sent that statement.

IN FACT, Mittelman did send the promised statement. Unfortunately, that email went to this reporter’s SPAM mailbox and remained there until Monday, Feb. 16, when she was informed that Mittelman had complained about several things in the Feb. 13 article.

The other complaints about the article in Mittelman’s letter concerned how he was portrayed and the functionality of the links on his site, about which disagreement remains, but it is absolutely true that he had, as promised, emailed the statement and one of the two linked-to articles.

However, one point in the article - the main point - was not disputed by Mittelman. He did not assert that the article falsely suggested the NYC Celebrate Israel Parade would permit groups to march that advocate boycotts of Israeli products made by Israeli companies located beyond the Green Line. In a legal arena, one could claim that such an omission constitutes a form of admission.

And Mittelman did not claim that the article was wrong in stating that the New Israel Fund, an entity which has funded and supports groups that boycott “beyond Green Line” Israeli companies, would be marching in this year’s parade because the new guidelines do not bar it, as an NIF official told another reporter.

The statement Mittelman was so exercised about — and which he repeatedly invoked as the JCRC’s final word about which groups could march in this year’s parade — simply repeats the new language in the Guidelines which was quoted in the Feb. 13 article.

There you have it. This reporter was wrong – albeit inadvertently – when she asserted that Michael Mittelman did not send the JCRC statement as promised.

She appears not to have been wrong about something much more important: the new language in this year’s guidelines for the 2015 Celebrate Israel Parade which appears to ban from marching those who advocate economic warfare against Israel is, in fact, no change at all.

If Europe wants to enjoy the benefits of what could be the largest free trade deal in history, the leaders of its member nations will have to pay a price: they must agree to reject the anti-Israel Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) movement, say two U.S. Representatives – one from each side of the political aisle.

The Israel Trade and Commercial Enhancement Act was formally submitted Tuesday afternoon (Feb. 10) on Capitol Hill under bipartisan sponsorship, which is expected to smooth the way for rapid passage.

But there’s a catch. The legislation will “leverage ongoing trade negotiations to discourage prospective U.S. trade partners from engaging in economic discrimination against Israel, said Representatives Juan Vargas (D-CA) and Peter Roskam (R-IL), who co-sponsored the bill.

Additional co-sponsors are to be recruited to the measure after its introduction to the floor. The two lawmakers said they are optimistic the bill will pass through the House of Representatives.

It’s a great deal. It is estimated the measure could add as much as 0.5 percent to the European Union’s annual economic output. The flip side of it, however, involves how the bill impacts the ongoing free trade negotiations between the U.S. and the EU. Foreign companies traded on U.S. stock exchanges will have to disclose links to BDS activities, and whether they have faced any pressure for avoiding participation in any boycotts.

“The bill … establishes a clear U.S. policy of opposing BDS as detrimental to global trade and regional peace and stability,” the two lawmakers wrote in their introduction to the legislation. They also noted that the measure was created in response to a growing trend among countries “primarily in Europe, to isolate and delegitimize Israel through BDS for political purposes.”

“Today, an alarming number of countries within the European Union and beyond have embraced BDS as a form of economic warfare aimed to cripple Israel’s economy and demonize its very existence. These attacks not only threaten Israel, but commercial relations across the globe,” Roskam told reporters.

“The US-Israel Trade and Commercial Enhancement Act will ensure that American free trade partners never engage in this harmful and illegitimate political protest against Israel, while also protecting US companies from foreign lawsuits targeting their associations with Israel.”

Vargas likewise noted, “BDS is a harmful political tactic which seeks to undermine and diminish Israel’s economic strength. We need to reassure our commitment to our ally in the region by clearly defining US policy to oppose this practice and dissuade other nations from adopting BDS policies toward Israel.”

The measure also unequivocally underlines the “strategic importance of trade and commercial relations to the pursuit of sustainable peace and regional stability,” making it clear that boycotts break down the potential for peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the lawmakers said.

Perhaps that bit of wisdom should be directed towards the PA headquarters at its capital in Ramallah: Its latest anti-Israel economic boycott has just been launched, punishing local merchants far more than Israeli manufacturers. Worse, the boycott reinforces for Israelis the utter futility of attempting to secure any lasting agreement with anyone who claims to lead the Palestinian Authority.

Arab governments in the Middle East come and go, and so do those who lead the Arab residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The PA commitments in particular – on paper or otherwise – can be likened to a ritual courtesy one carries out in ceremonial garb. They mean everything for the moment, but are instantly put aside when “reality” steps back into the scene. In that moment, all is forgotten and anything goes, as happened with the obligations of the internationally recognized Oslo Accords.

A bill such as the Roskam-Vargas measure is invaluable, coming at a time when a European groundswell of anti-Semitism appears to be growing into a tsunami and the U.S.-Israel relationship appears to be floundering in ways never seen before. The entire Middle East is in disarray, and Israel may be facing an existential threat from Iran as it gallops towards a nuclear military threshold. It is precisely now, as Iran strengthens its terrorist guerrilla proxies to the north and south of Israel’s borders, that the Jewish State most needs the support of its friends in the international community.

How fortunate that the lawmakers in Congress have chosen this moment to reaffirm — and concretely demonstrate — America’s commitment to Israel, and to underscore the strong relationship both nations share.

L’chaim.

Israel wine exports rose 10 percent last year and reached $40 million and total sales were $220 million.

The Israel Export and International Cooperation Institute announced the figures on Monday at the start of the two-day Tel Aviv Sommelier Wine festival.

There is a growing demand from North America, Europe and Asia for Israeli wines, some of which have won dozens of prizes and are rated with top wines from California and France.

“In recent years Israeli won has won international recognition and the rise in wine exports to Asia where the kosher market is insignificant demonstrates the strength of Israel’s wine brand around the world,” the Export Institute Wine Department’s head Ya’ara Shimoni told Globes business newspaper.

Israel has 250 wineries, half of which are commercial operations.

Several wineries produce products from grapes grown n the Golan Heights and Judea and Samaria, where dry summers, cold winters and high altitudes contribute to the grapes’ high quality.

God has not cooperated with the Boycott Israel movement.

This winter has been usually cold and wet, just what the grape vines before waking up in the Spring.

The American Historical Association today, Jan. 5, defeated an attempt by a splinter group “Historians Against the War” to introduce two anti-Israel resolutions to its full membership, according to a report in the cutting-edge academic website Legal Insurrection.

Apparently the AHA is not as thoroughly infiltrated by the intolerants demanding tolerance, and a Boycott of, Divestment from and Sanctions Against Israel (BDS) resolution was not presented.

Instead, one of the resolutions HAW wanted the full AHA to vote on called for “Academic Freedom of U.S. Citizens Visiting Israel and Palestine,” and the other was for “Protecting the Right to Education in Palestine-Israel.”

The resolution demanding academic freedom deplores the efforts by the Israelis to place limits on the numbers of foreign nationals to lecture, teach and attend conferences at Palestinian Arab universities.

According to the proposed resolution, such a position denies those at Palestinian Arab universities, “both faculty and students the rich experience enjoyed by their peers at Israeli universities and other universities around the world.” Imagine. Israel refuses to treat the students and faculty at Palestinian Arab universities the same way they treat students at Israeli universities.

The HAW Protecting Right to Education resolution claims that Israel violates its obligations by “refusing to allow students from Gaza to travel in order to pursue higher education abroad, and even at West Bank universities.” Imagine that. Israel demands the right to protect its own borders against a culture and government dedicated to destroying the Jewish State. The nerve.

A motion was introduced at the meeting on Monday to try and get the anti-Israel resolutions considered at the AHA’s business meeting. This unusual procedural move was necessary because the HAW failed to submit a request to have their resolutions considered before the November 1 deadline.  These are professors, mind you, neglecting to submit the necessary request on time – somewhat ironic, no?

But the motion to get the anti-Israel resolutions through the business meeting and then before the full membership for a vote failed. The vote was 144 against, 54 in favor and three voting present.

The Zionist Organization of America has filed a formal objection with the World Zionist Organization against a coalition of what ZOA calls anti-Zionist organizations running a slate to have an increased presence in the World Zionist Congress.

ZOA points out that the World Zionist Organization’s Constitution does not permit members to be organizations that discriminate against Jewish and Israeli businesses, or against other Jews. In addition to violating the WZO’s own constitution, boycotts of Jewish or Israeli businesses also violate New York State Human Rights Law.

If that is the case, then the organizations which named their slate “Hatikvah,” Partners for a Progressive Israel, Ameinu, Hashomer Hatzair and Habonim Dror, should be booted.

But there’s a catch, one that the anti-Zionists hope is a permanent life raft. The same organizations ZOA is calling to have tossed from the WZC’s fall 2015 election have all belonged to the WZO for years.

The organizations seeking to join the World Zionist Congress reads like a Who’s Who of the Jewish organizations who love to hate Zionism, and who claim to criticize Israel first, last and only, “out of love” for the Jewish State. Love like that kills.

The groups joining together in a united front include: Partners for a Progressive Israel (formerly MeretzUSA), Ameinu, Habonim Dror North America, and Hashomer Hatzair. The groups share various essentials, according to ZOA, including New York office space, various directors and ideology.

The PPI brazenly supports consumer boycotts against such Israeli companies as Ahava, SodaStream and a list of others.

While Ameinu calls itself an “American Zionist organization” and insists it opposes boycotts of Israeli products, the ZOA points out that Ameinu began a special unit in its organization which lobbies the American and European governments to impose severe financial and travel restrictions on Israel’s Finance Minister and other Israeli leaders.

Yet another objection ZOA raises to the HaTikvah slate is what ZOA describes as close involvement between PPI, Ameinu and the J Street organization. J Street has long hosted and supported many of the leading Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel groups and individuals. Despite claims of not being BDS advocates, their history and associations make clear the opposite is true.

The ZOA wants both the American Zionist Movement and the World Zionist Organization to expel PPI and Ameinu from membership, and to prevent HaTikvah from running for the World Zionist Congress. ZOA is currently a member of the AZM and the WZC, and so believes it has standing to bring this claim.

Should ZOA fail in its bid to bar the ani-Zionist slate from running, ZOA wants, at a minimum, for that group of organizations to be prevented from using the name HaTikvah. The basis for that move is that such a name, which of course evokes the Israeli national anthem, is confusing and will mislead uninformed voters who think the slate actually stands for what the words to the Israeli anthem mean, the essence of which is for Jews to be able to live freely in their ancient land.

As pointed out in ZOA’s  formal complaint filed first with the American Zionist Movement, and then with the Central Election Board, Ameinu’s  longtime director Leonard Fein called the words of the anthem HaTikvah “an insult” in a 2000 speech.

Judge Abraham Gafni of the American Zionist Movement rejected ZOA’s complaint. Gafni said that PPI, Ameinu and the HaTikvah slate were all entitled to participate in the 2015 World Zionist Congress election because they ran before and won at least one seat in the 2006 and 2010 World Zionist Congress elections.

The ZOA, however, said that fact should be irrelevant for several reasons. First of all, the BDS movement had barely gotten off the ground in 2010, and certainly in 2006. Furthermore, Ameinu’s new council seeking severe sanctions on Israeli leaders only began very recently.

The official SANA Syrian news agency has announced its exports have reached $143 million this year, but the accompanying photo shows Israeli ZIM containers.

Does this mean Syria is renewing relations with Israel?

Or perhaps it means that the Boycott Israel movement missed the boat, so to speak, and should be picketing Syrian and not California ports.

In any case, according to SANA, “Textile exports have witnessed a considerable growth…and they were mainly exported to Lebanon, Iraq, Algeria, Tunisia and Italy.”

Lebanon? Beirut also is renewing ties with Israel?

H/T IMRA