Cool position. Not the one at issue here. Rooney is not saying "I cannot contract with any company that does not publicly distance itself from apartheid". I suspect the vast majority of companies Rooney contracts with have been exactly as (non-)vocal on the subject as Modan.
-
-
Replying to @schraubd
It would be a bit odd to expect a publisher in, say, Peru or Fiji to articulate a stance on Israeli policy. Do you think people who boycotted apartheid South Africa were picking on South African nationality or South African policy?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HeerJeet
Are we recognizing that this *is* a duty defined by nationality (albeit one you think is justifiable)? If the trigger making you presumptively subject to a boycott is your nationality, then yes, that's national-based targeting. Is that ever justifiable? Maybe! But own the move.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
"If the trigger making you presumptively subject to a boycott is your nationality, then yes, that's national-based targeting. Is that ever justifiable? Maybe!"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @schraubd
The trigger is not the nationality but the policy. Change the policy or even just oppose the policy and the trigger doesn't apply. You seem intent on ignoring the policy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
The policy is not the trigger, bc the rule is neither (a) "no contracts with those who have a policy of apartheid", nor is it (b) "no contracts with those who fail to 'distance' from another's policy of apartheid". The rule is (b), but contingent on the company being Israeli.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
A non-Israeli company (say, Penguin) which does not -- in a fashion identical to Modan -- "distance" itself from Israeli apartheid is not subject to the rule. The duty-to-distance rule only applies (is triggered) if the company is Israeli.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This is why your actual position is that this *is* a nationality-based rule and it's ok that it is (hence your view that it'd be odd to demand a Peru--or US?--publisher denounce apartheid as a prereq for business--though given how non-onerous the burden is, why not Peru too?).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The actual position is something like "being Israeli suffices to generate a distinct duty to denounce apartheid as condition for interaction that doesn't extend to non-Israelis either w/r/t denouncing Israeli apartheid or human rights violations in their own countries."
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Boycott is a tool with a goal (ending apartheid in Israel). Parameters are set by achieving that goal. You can't tax it for not solving other problems or having parameters that don't advance that goal -- such a critique applies to literally any boycott (say of China over Tibet)
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
Again, I think you're landing on "of *course* this is nationality-based obligation imposed specifically and distinctively on Israelis, and that's fine" -- which is a cohesive position, but it's weird to keep denying that it is in fact nationality-based.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @schraubd
No because you are conflating nationality with state policy. Change the policy (or, even, in this case, merely criticize it) and everything changes. Your framing is designed to obfuscate the issue is about policy, not nationality.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.