LEGISLATION
Businesses don’t like to be told what to do.
This is what I told the House Executive Departments and Administrative Committee on April 10, my first legislative testimony since I retired last year, though I reported on so many others during my 30-year tenure at NH Business Review.
I was testifying against Senate Bill 349, a bill that would pull state contacts from businesses that support the boycott of Israel because of its treatment of the Palestinians.
This was an issue that was important to me, beyond limiting the free speech of businesses, and their right to do business, and not to do business, with whomever they want.
I had just spent the morning dropping off an open letter to the local offices in Manchester and Concord of the state representatives signed by 67 fellow Jews, who — horrified about what was going on in Gaza — called for an immediate sustained ceasefire to release the surviving hostages, allowing the UN agency to distribute humanitarian aid, and to cut off conditional aid to Israel.
The letter was not about the bill or boycotts, but I waived the letter while I testified because the text of the bill implied such criticism of Israel is antisemitic. I asked, are all 67 of these Jews antisemitic or self-hating?
We had gathered these signatures by word of mouth and email in a week, indicating increasing number of Jews are getting fed up with Israel’s policies. Yes, many — and probably most Jews — support Israel no matter what and favor giving them a blank check to kill at will in the name of security and revenge.
This is because many of the hearts of Jews were hardened after Oct. 7, where Hamas terrorists savagely killed 1,200 Israelis and kidnapped more than 200 others. But for the next six months, Israel overshadowed that war crime by killing 33,000 people, so many of them innocent children. That works out to 1,269 a week.
Imagine the horror of Oct. 7 every single week for six months. But we don’t have to imagine. It’s happened, and is happening, even as I write this.
The latest attack by Iran, in retaliation for an early Israeli attack, underscores this disproportionality. The world rightly condemns the attack that left one girl injured, for anyone hurt in war is a tragedy. However, Israel killed on average 181 Palestinians every day. (On an off day, only 38 Palestinians died.)
Most Jews have emotional ties to Israel, but how could we remain silent just because the victims aren’t Jewish, and especially because the perpetrators are mostly Jewish.
I don’t know about the tactic of boycotting Israel. Boycotts can cause damage to people who have nothing to do with its target.
This was a dilemma during the boycott of South Africa for instance: The oppressed Blacks of that country bared the brunt of the economic hardship it caused. Yet in hindsight, most people feel that the result — ending Apartheid — was worth it.
Few believe that a boycott against a government is caused by a prejudice against its people. Boycotts are a tactic that dates back to this country to the Boston Tea Party.
Those who advocate it are not doing it to hurt the Israeli and Palestinian people who might be affected, much less Jews in general.
No one testified for the bill, except for sponsor Sen. Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, who argued that all it was doing was to codify Gov. Chris Sununu’s executive order.
Of course, several people of Palestinian descent testified against it. It was bad enough that the state would consider punishing Palestinian-American–owned businesses who have lost family members back home and therefore refuse to do business with Israel, but it added insult to injury to schedule the hearing on Eid al-Fitr, a Muslim holiday that marks the end of Ramadan.
But they were joined by other Jews besides me, such as UNH Professor Joshua Meyrowitz, one of the signers of the letter, and Rep. Joe Shapiro, D-Keene, a strong supporter of Israel.
The hope is that the House will kill the bill. A similar bill suffered the same fate last year. It’s one thing for a business to decide not to do business with a particular country or firm. Or even for one person to boycott a business that does business with a particular county or firm. That’s free speech.
It’s another thing for the state to cut off contracts for companies that exercise that right. That’s suppression of free speech.
If the state starts down this road, who knows when it will end? Will a pro-gun Legislature no longer contract with businesses that oppose investing in the arms industry? Would Republican lawmakers pass laws boycotting businesses that donate to the Democrats, and vice versa?
The government tells business what to do all the time, of course, to protect our environment, consumers and public safety.
Businesses don’t like that necessarily, but at least they can understand. It’s another thing to cut off a business because they don’t like what they believe. That is governmental overreach.
Bob Sanders is a former staff writer for NH Business Review.
