Reply #53: In response

[Coastie for Truth]

You have asked

Coastie claiming he can't gain employment with them because they've got policies which prohibit employing Jews, and you agreeing with what he says isn't exactly convincing. What I would like to see to convince me that US oil companies have anti-Semitic hiring policies is something in writing where they state that is their policy. And the obvious question that has to be answered is if the US oil companies haven't employed Coastie coz of their supposed policy of not hiring Jews, then why is it that the US oil companies do have Jewish employees?

An interesting discussion is in a Daily Californian op ed. The Daily Californian is the student newspaper of the University of California at Berkeley, hardly a neocon or PNAC university, in a most un-Neoco, un-PNAC community. Examining the Error of the Divestment Campaign by University of California alumnus and University of California at Davis faculty member Joe Lockard--

<<<SNIP>>>
The original boycott was xenophobic in that it represented a political and economic strategy to contain, isolate, monitor and eventually destroy what it perceived as an alien presence. Inviolable borders had to be maintained against subversive infiltration. It sought to preserve a hegemonic definition of territory as Arab, rejecting peaceful relations with an entity deemed fundamentally illegitimate. A boycott was a weapon to eliminate an "artificial" presence that had no right to exist.

Boycott officials in Damascus pored over corporate reports from around the world to identify both intercorporate links (e.g. did your company deal with another company that had dealings with Israel?) and Jewish agents of power. Routine administrative forms circulated to collect information on the religion and national origin of corporate employees. The Central Boycott Office issued "non-Jew" certificates to foreign organizations.

A Jewish name was enough to ensure that you would not be hired at large firms with major projects in Arab countries; a new class of closeted Jews appeared in response and there was a run on false baptismal certificates. (emphasis not in original)

The boycott's intellectual terms were changing, however. In 1975 came UN Resolution 3379 (repealed in 1991) equating Zionism with racism and apartheid, which served as the political analogy that would justify maintaining an isolation containment around that alien presence. The Arab League affirmed its solidarity with the then-rising anti-apartheid boycott and began conceptually re-positioning its own boycott. What changed was less the original purposes and methods of the anti-Israel boycott, more its rhetorical references that relied on stigmatizing one nationalism among all others.
<<<SNIP>>>
Read More

you might also consider this enforcement action (note: the oil companies do not voluntarily request this kind of guidance)---->

Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation Settles Antiboycott Case

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement Michael J. Garcia announced today that Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation in Baltimore, Maryland has agreed to pay the maximum $10,000 civil penalty to settle charges that it violated U.S. antiboycott laws by discriminating against an individual in support of the Arab League boycott of Israel. Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation voluntarily disclosed the incident and cooperated fully with the subsequent investigation.

"As Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security Kenneth I. Juster recently made clear, the Commerce Department will vigorously enforce our antiboycott laws," Assistant Secretary Garcia noted. "This case demonstrates that resolve."

The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) had charged that in 1995, Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation discriminated against a U.S. person because she was Jewish. The person had been seeking a position in the company's International Services Department, which markets medical services around the world, including in the Middle East. BIS believes that the discriminatory conduct was motivated by the company's concern about having a Jewish person in that position because of the Arab League boycott of Israel.

The antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations prohibit U.S. persons from complying with certain aspects of unsanctioned foreign boycotts imposed or fostered by foreign governments, including taking discriminatory actions on the basis of religion or national origin. In addition, the antiboycott regulations require U.S. persons to report their receipt of certain boycott requests to the BIS's Office of Antiboycott Compliance (OAC), which investigates alleged violations, provides support in administrative or criminal litigation of cases, and prepares cases for settlement.

Assistant Secretary Garcia commended Senior Compliance Officer Cathleen A. Ryan who conducted the investigation of this case for OAC.

See also Washington Tariff and Trade Letter

Note to Mod - This is a United States Government Press Release and therefore is not subject to copyright

You might also want to look at "The economic war against the Jews" by Walter Henry Nelson.

I have stuck with articles that have a good narrative. In order to avoid antagonism, I have avoided reference to Jewish community newspapers, and to PNAC-Neocon periodical (such as Commentary).

The Daily California link, while recent, describes the situation when I was in college, the military, and grad school (1960's and early 1970's). Based on 1990's era Equal Employment Opportunity Commission cases, the boycott still seems to exist. The Johns Hopkins Health Services link is typical.