<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Case of the Day: Steinbach v. Sachs	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/10/12/case-of-the-day-steinbach-v-sachs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/10/12/case-of-the-day-steinbach-v-sachs/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2024 03:09:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Ted Folkman		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/10/12/case-of-the-day-steinbach-v-sachs/#comment-3183</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ted Folkman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2018 17:32:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=27522#comment-3183</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/10/12/case-of-the-day-steinbach-v-sachs/#comment-3182&quot;&gt;Asa Markel&lt;/a&gt;.

Asa, thanks for the comment! Yes, I did see Maria&#039;s very informative post. 

I have mixed feelings about the wisdom of the anti-boycott law. On the one hand, the US itself has anti-boycott laws, and it would be very strange to say that we can legislate against the Arab boycott of Israel but Israel should not legislate against BDS. On the other hand, the distinction between expressions of thought and opinion and actual boycotts must be preserved, particularly in liberal societies like ours and like Israel&#039;s. I agree with you that the Supreme Court&#039;s decision is a good development.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/10/12/case-of-the-day-steinbach-v-sachs/#comment-3182">Asa Markel</a>.</p>
<p>Asa, thanks for the comment! Yes, I did see Maria&#8217;s very informative post. </p>
<p>I have mixed feelings about the wisdom of the anti-boycott law. On the one hand, the US itself has anti-boycott laws, and it would be very strange to say that we can legislate against the Arab boycott of Israel but Israel should not legislate against BDS. On the other hand, the distinction between expressions of thought and opinion and actual boycotts must be preserved, particularly in liberal societies like ours and like Israel&#8217;s. I agree with you that the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision is a good development.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Asa Markel		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/10/12/case-of-the-day-steinbach-v-sachs/#comment-3182</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Asa Markel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:31:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=27522#comment-3182</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Dear Mr. Folkman,

I do not know if you have had the chance to read Maria Hook&#039;s October 14 post on Conflict of Laws.net concerning the prospects for the recognition in New Zealand of the Israeli judgment under the anti-boycott law.  Personally, I think Israel&#039;s anti-boycott legislation is unfortunate.  It is not really in the same vein as the positions taken in the past by Mazuz (former AG) and Aaron Barak (former president of the Supreme Court).  Israel, for all of its faults, has a Supreme Court which has historically been inspiring in its ability to stand up to the executive and uphold the law in a fashion necessary for a democratic society.  The Barak Court&#039;s opinion on torture in a democratic society, particularly one that has dealt with terrorism for so long, should be read by every law student in the free world.  But, I digress.  I did expect you to post this morning (10/19) regarding the recent decision of the Israeli Supreme Court to allow Lara Alqasem, a student of Palestinian extraction who was involved in boycotting actions in her past and who was detained and subject to deportation, to remain in Israel to study at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.  It strikes me that this opinion comes full circle and demonstrates that there continues to be a free, liberal bench and bar in Israel committed to higher principles than the platform of the current government or local bigotry (of those both inside and outside Israel), and people (and lawyers) elsewhere should be encouraging them to continue their work to foster real democracy in that part of the world.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Mr. Folkman,</p>
<p>I do not know if you have had the chance to read Maria Hook&#8217;s October 14 post on Conflict of Laws.net concerning the prospects for the recognition in New Zealand of the Israeli judgment under the anti-boycott law.  Personally, I think Israel&#8217;s anti-boycott legislation is unfortunate.  It is not really in the same vein as the positions taken in the past by Mazuz (former AG) and Aaron Barak (former president of the Supreme Court).  Israel, for all of its faults, has a Supreme Court which has historically been inspiring in its ability to stand up to the executive and uphold the law in a fashion necessary for a democratic society.  The Barak Court&#8217;s opinion on torture in a democratic society, particularly one that has dealt with terrorism for so long, should be read by every law student in the free world.  But, I digress.  I did expect you to post this morning (10/19) regarding the recent decision of the Israeli Supreme Court to allow Lara Alqasem, a student of Palestinian extraction who was involved in boycotting actions in her past and who was detained and subject to deportation, to remain in Israel to study at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.  It strikes me that this opinion comes full circle and demonstrates that there continues to be a free, liberal bench and bar in Israel committed to higher principles than the platform of the current government or local bigotry (of those both inside and outside Israel), and people (and lawyers) elsewhere should be encouraging them to continue their work to foster real democracy in that part of the world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
