Order Code RL33961
Arab League Boycott of Israel
Updated August 27, 2008
Martin A. Weiss
Specialist in International Trade and Finance
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade DivisionDecember 29, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33961
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Arab League Boycott of Israel
Summary
The Arab League, an umbrella organization comprising 2322 Middle Eastern and
African countries
and entities, has maintained an official boycott of Israeli companies
and Israeli-made goods since
the founding of Israel in 1948. The boycott is
administered by the Damascus-based Central
Boycott Office, a specialized bureau of
the Arab League.
The boycott has three tiers. The primary boycott prohibits citizens of an Arab
League member
from buying from, selling to, or entering into a business contract
with either the Israeli
government or an Israeli citizen. The secondary boycott
extends the primary boycott to any entity
world-wide that does business in Israel. A
blacklist of global firms that engage in business with
Israel is maintained by the
Central Boycott Office, and disseminated to Arab League members.
The tertiary
boycott prohibits an Arab League member and its nationals from doing business with
a company that deals with companies that have been blacklisted by the Arab League.
The U.S. government has often been at the forefront of international efforts to
end the boycott and
its enforcement. Despite U.S. efforts, however, many Arab
League countries continue to support
the boycott’s enforcement. U.S. legislative
action related to the boycott dates from 1959 and
includes multiple statutory
provisions expressing U.S. opposition to the boycott, usually in
foreign assistance
legislation. In 1977, Congress passed laws making it illegal for U.S. companies to
to cooperate with the boycott and authorizing the imposition of civil and criminal
penalties penalties
against U.S. violators. U.S. companies are required to report to the
Department of Commerce any requests to comply with the Arab League Boycott. In
FY2007, U.S. companies submitted 1,633 reports on boycott-related requests.
During the same period, penalties for violating U.S. anti-boycott legislation worth
$194,500 were levied on ten companies. This is an increase from FY2006, when
1,291 reports were filed and penalties of $95,950 were assessed on nine companies.
requests to comply with the Arab League Boycott.
This report provides background information on the boycott and U.S. efforts to
end its
enforcement. It will be updated as events warrant. More information on
Israel is contained in CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and Relations with
the United States, by Carol Migdalovitz.
Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Current Status of the Boycott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Impact of the Boycott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
U.S. Activity to End the Arab League Boycott of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
U.S. Antiboycott Compliance Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Export-Related Antiboycott Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Tax-Related Antiboycott Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
List of Tables
Table 1. FY2007 Boycott Requests Received by U.S. Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Arab League Boycott of Israel
Background
The Arab League is an umbrella organization comprising 23 Middle Eastern and
African countries and entities. Arab League members are Egypt, Iraq, Jordan,
Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, Morocco, Tunisia, Kuwait,
Algeria, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Mauritania, Somalia,
Palestinian Authority, Djibouti, and Comoros. In 2003, Eritrea joined the Arab
League as an observer.
The Arab League was founded in 1944, and in 1945 began a boycott of Zionist
goods and services in the British controlled mandate territory of Palestine. In 1948,
following the war establishing Israel’s independence, the boycott was formalized
against the state of Israel and broadened to include non-Israelis who maintain
economic relations with Israel or who are perceived to support it. The boycott is
administered by the Damascus-based Central Boycott Office, a specialized bureau of
the Arab League.1
The U.S. government has often been at the forefront of international efforts to
end enforcement of the boycott and to seek the Arab League’s revocation of it. The
U.S. government participates in bilateral and multilateral negotiations with Arab
League members regarding the boycott. U.S. legislative action related to the boycott
dates from 1959 and includes multiple statutory provisions expressing U.S.
opposition to the boycott, usually in foreign assistance legislation. In 1965, Congress
adopted mandatory reporting of any requests for U.S. companies to participate in the
boycott. In 1977, Congress passed laws making it illegal for U.S. companies to
cooperate with the boycott and authorizing the imposition of civil and criminal
penalties against U.S. violators. According to the Department of Commerce,
participation in the boycott includes
!
!
!
1
Agreements to refuse or actual refusal to do business with or in
Israel or with blacklisted companies;
Agreements to discriminate or actual discrimination against other
persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin or nationality;
Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about
business relationships with or in Israel or with blacklisted
companies; and/or
Nancy Turck, “The Middle East: The Arab Boycott of Israel,” Foreign Affairs, April 1977.
CRS-2
!
Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about the
race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person.2
Lastly, U.S. taxpayers who cooperate with the boycott are subject to the loss of
tax benefits that the U.S. government provides to exporters. These benefits include,
among others, the foreign tax credit, the benefits for foreign sales corporation (FSC)
since repealed, and the tax deferral available to U.S. shareholders of a controlled
foreign corporation (CFC).
Current Status of the Boycott
The boycott has three tiers. The primary boycott prohibits citizens of an Arab
League member from buying from, selling to, or entering into a business contract
with either the Israeli government or an Israeli citizen. The secondary boycott
extends the primary boycott to any entity world-wide that does business with Israel.
A blacklist of global firms that engage in business with Israel is maintained by the
Central Boycott Office, and disseminated to Arab League members. The tertiary
boycott prohibits an Arab League member and its nationals from doing business with
a company that in turn deals with companies that have been blacklisted by the Arab
League. The boycott also applies to companies that the Arab League identifies as
having “Zionist sympathizers” in executive positions or on the board of the company.
According to one analyst, the “nature and detail of these rules reflect the boycotting
countries’ tolerance for only the most minimal contacts with Israel.”3
The Arab League does not enforce the boycott and boycott regulations are not
binding on member states. However, the regulations have been the model for various
laws implemented by member countries. The League recommends that member
countries demand certificates of origin on all goods acquired from suppliers to ensure
that such goods meet all aspects of the boycott.
Overall enforcement of the boycott by member countries appears sporadic.
Some Arab League members have limited trading relations with Israel. The Arab
League does not formally or publicly state which countries enforce the boycott and
which do not. Some Arab League member governments have maintained that only
the Arab League, as the formal body enforcing the boycott, can revoke the boycott.
However, adherence to the boycott is an individual matter for each Arab League
member and enforcement varies by state.
There are indications that some Arab League countries publicly support the
boycott while continuing to quietly trade with Israel. According to Doron Peskin,
2
See:
[http://www.bis.doc.gov/complianceandenforcement/antiboycottcompliance.htm].
3
Howard N. Fenton III, “United States Antiboycott Laws: An Assessment of Their Impact
Ten Years after Adoption,” Hastings International & Comparative Law Review, Vol. 10 ,
1987, cited in Eugene Kontorovich, “The Arab League Boycott and WTO Accession: Can
Foreign Policy Excuse Discriminatory Sanctions,” Chicago Journal of International Law,
Vol. 4 No. 2, Fall 2003.
CRS-3
head of research at InfoProd, a consulting firm for foreign and Israeli companies
specializing in trade with Arab states, “the Arab boycott is now just lip service.”4
This sentiment has been echoed by Arab officials, albeit anonymously. One official
commented to the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram that, “boycotting Israel is
something that we talk about and include in our official documents but it is not
something that we actually carry out — at least not in most Arab states.”5
Others assert that enforcement of the boycott waxes and wanes with the level
of intensity of the Israeli-Palestinian issue and that currently interest in boycott
enforcement among Arab countries may be increasing due to the ongoing Iraq
conflict. However, the Arab League has acknowledged that U.S. pressure has
affected its ability to maintain the boycott. At the May 2006 Arab League conference
on the boycott, one conference participant reportedly said, “The majority of Arab
countries are evading the boycott, notably the Gulf states and especially Saudi
Arabia.”6 He added that a major reason for these countries bypassing the boycott is
“growing U.S. pressures in the direction of normalization with the Jewish state.”7
Some states and entities have formally ended the boycott, or at least some
aspects of it. Egypt (1979), the Palestinian Authority (1993), and Jordan (1994)
signed peace treaties or agreements that ended the boycott.8 Mauritania, which never
applied the boycott, established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1999. Algeria,
Morocco, and Tunisia do not enforce the boycott.9 In 1994, the member countries of
the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates — announced that they would only enforce the
primary boycott. In 1996, the GCC states recognized that total elimination of the
boycott is a necessary step for peace and economic development in the region.
However, U.S. companies continue to receive requests to cooperate with the boycott
from GCC member countries. Lebanon enforces the primary, secondary, and tertiary
boycotts.10
Impact of the Boycott
Since the boycott is sporadically applied and ambiguously enforced, its impact,
measured by capital or revenue denied to Israel by companies adhering to the boycott,
4
Orly Halpern, “Arab Boycott Largely Reduced to ‘Lip Service,’” Jerusalem Post, February
28, 2006.
5
Dina Ezzat, “Boycott Israel? Not so simple,” Al-Ahram Weekly Online, April 11-17, 2002.
6
“Arabs evading economic boycott of Israel,” United Press International, May 16, 2006.
7
Ibid.
8
Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, March 26, 1979, Article III, paragraph 3; Treaty of Peace
between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, October 26, 1994, Article
7, Section 2, paragraph A; Declaration of Principles, September 10, 1993.
9
2007 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, United States Trade
Representative, March 30, 2007.
10
Ibid.
CRS-4
is difficult to measure. The effect of the primary boycott appears limited since intraregional trade and investment are small. Nonetheless, there is some limited trade
between Israel and its Arab neighbors. In 2004, according to the Manufacturers
Association of Israel (IMA), Israeli exports to Arab countries and entities (mainly
Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority) totaled $192 million.11
Enforcement of the secondary and tertiary boycotts have decreased over time,
reducing their effect. A 1996 study by researchers at Tel Aviv University looked at
the effect of the Arab boycott on the Israeli economy through the automobile market.
Following a relaxation of boycott enforcement in the late 1980s through the early
1990s, Asian countries began exporting cars to Israel. The study found that if the
boycott had continued to be enforced, and these cars did not enter the Israeli market,
the Israeli car market would have been 12% smaller – leading to a $790 price
increase per car. Total welfare loss for the study year, 1994, would have been an
estimated $89 million.12 Thus, it appears that since intra-regional trade is small, and
that the secondary and tertiary boycotts are not aggressively enforced, the boycott
may not currently have an extensive effect on the Israeli economy.
Despite the lack of economic impact on either Israeli or Arab economies, the
boycott remains of strong symbolic importance to all parties. Many Arab countries
want to deny normalization with Israel until there is a final resolution to the conflict
in the Palestinian territories. Israel, on the other hand, asserts that it wants to be
accepted in the neighborhood both in political terms and as a source of, and target
for, foreign investment.13
U.S. Activity to End the Arab League
Boycott of Israel
The U.S. government officially opposes the boycott and works to end its
enforcement on multiple levels. For many years, language has been included in
successive foreign operations appropriations legislation concerning the boycott.
Section 635 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161), states that
it is the sense of Congress that (1) the Arab League boycott is an impediment to
peace in the region and to United States investment and trade in the region; (2) the
boycott should be revoked and the Central Boycott Office disbanded; (3) all Arab
League states should normalize relations with Israel; and (4) the President and the
Secretary of State should continue to oppose the boycott vigorously and encourage
11
“Exports from Israel Up, Up, Up!,” Bridges for Peace, June 27, 2005. U.S. efforts to
increase trade in the region include the Qualified Industrial Zone (QIZ) program, which
allows goods jointly produced by Israel and either Jordan or Egypt to enter the United States
duty free. See CRS Report RS22002, Qualifying Industrial Zones in Jordan and Egypt, by
Mary Jane Bolle, Alfred B. Prados, and Jeremy M. Sharp.
12
Chaim Fershtman and Neil Gandal, “The Effect of the Arab Boycott on Israel: The
Automobile Market,” Tel Aviv University, January 1996.
13
Anju S. Bawa, “Israel Embarks on PR Face-lift,” The Washington Times, December 5,
2006.
CRS-5
Arab states to assume normal trading relations with Israel; and (5) the President
should report to Congress annually on specific steps being taken by the United States
to encourage Arab League states to normalize their relations with Israel to bring
about the termination of the boycott.
The U.S. government also works to end the boycott through bilateral and
multilateral trade agreements. During FTA negotiations with Bahrain, Oman, and
the United Arab Emirates, the status of the boycott was an issue of concern and these
countries reaffirmed their position not to comply with the boycott.14 However, the
credibility of their position has been questioned since all three countries outwardly
continue to support the boycott. In June 2006, an Omani customs official reportedly
told The Jerusalem Post, “Products from Israel are not permitted because of the
boycott ... If someone brings products from Israel, they will be confiscated.”15 In
reported remarks before Bahrain’s Chamber of Commerce, Bahraini Foreign Minister
Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa stated that “relations would be normal with
Israel when the Arab League orders the Arab countries to end the boycott, and until
then the Kingdom was sticking to the boycott.”16
The United States began negotiating an FTA with the United Arab Emirates
(UAE) in 2005 and their enforcement of the boycott has been a contentious issue
during the negotiations. In February 2006, at the height of debate in the United
States over whether to allow Dubai Ports World to have control over six U.S. ports,
Muhammad Rashid a-Din, a staff member of the Dubai Customs Department
reportedly told The Jerusalem Post, “Yes, of course the boycott is still in place and
is still enforced ... if a product contained even some components that were made in
Israel, and you wanted to import it to Dubai, it would be a problem.”17 As of July
2008, the U.S.-UAE FTA talks are on hold, and it is expected that talks will not
resume during the Bush Administration.18
Multilaterally, the United States has used Saudi Arabia’s accession to the World
Trade Organization in return for its agreement in November 2005 that it would cease
participation in the boycott. Despite this concession, it appears that Saudi Arabia’s
enforcement of the boycott is ongoing. The Bush Administration argues in the 2007
National Trade Estimate Report (NTE) that Saudi boycott violations “appear to
14
2007 National Trade Estimate, op. cit. For more information, see CRS Report RS21846,
U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement, by Martin A. Weiss and CRS Report RL32638,
Middle East Free Trade Area: Progress Report, by Mary Jane Bolle.
15
Michael Freund, “Boycott of Israel still in effect, Omani official tells ‘Post’,” The
Jerusalem Post, June 8, 2006.
16
Michael Freund, “Bahrain’s Israel Boycott to Continue,” The Jerusalem Post, May 11,
2006.
17
Michael Freund, “Dubai Ports Firm Enforces Israel Boycott,” The Jerusalem Post,
February 28, 2006.
18
Safura Rahimi, “US puts UAE free trade deal on ice,” Emirates Business 24/7, December
23, 2007.
CRS-6
reflect out-of-date language in recycled commercial and tender documents.”19
However, in June 2006, The Jerusalem Post said that Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to
the United States told a luncheon audience at the Brookings Institution that Saudi
Arabia intends to continue enforcing the primary boycott. Reportedly, Prince Turki
Al-Faisel stated that he believed “the primary boycott is an issue of national
sovereignty guaranteed within the makeup of the WTO and its rules.”20
Lastly, concerns have emerged that Iraq has increased its own enforcement of
the Boycott in the past several years, due to increasing frustration with the ongoing
violence and U.S. presence.21 In FY2007, the number of requests from Iraq for U.S.
companies to comply with the boycott was 72, an increase from 31 in FY2006 and
8 in 2005. The Commerce Department reports that for all boycott countries, during
FY2007, U.S. companies submitted 1,633 reports on boycott-related requests from
Arab League members and other countries that enforced the boycott on Israel (Table
1). The United Arab Emirates remained the largest source of boycott-related requests
with 682 requests.22
Table 1. FY2007 Boycott Requests Received by U.S. Companies
Country
Number of Requests to
Comply with the Secondary
and Tertiary Boycotts
United Arab Emirates (UAE)
682
Lebanon
114
Qatar
94
Syria
79
Iraq
72
Saudi Arabia
65
Kuwait
56
Libya
50
Bahrain
24
Egypt
1
Jordan
0
19
2007 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, Office of the United
States Trade Representative, p. 17.
20
Michael Freund, “Saudi Ambassador to US admits boycott of Israel still in force,” The
Jerusalem Post, June 22, 2006.
21
“Iraq’s Enforcement of Arab Boycott of Israel Is Concern, ITA Official Tells Iraqis,” The
Export Practitioner, March 2007.
22
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security Annual Report Fiscal
Year 2007, Appendix E-3, p. 72.
CRS-7
Country
Number of Requests to
Comply with the Secondary
and Tertiary Boycotts
Other (Algeria, India, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria,
Oman, Pakistan, Tunisia, and Yemen)
396
1,633
Total
Source: Department of Commerce.
U.S. Antiboycott Compliance Legislation
The United States passed antiboycott legislation in the late 1970s to discourage
U.S. individuals from cooperating with the secondary and tertiary boycotts.
Antiboycott laws apply to “U.S. exports and imports, financing, forwarding and
shipping, and certain other transactions that may take place wholly offshore.”23
Although U.S. legislation and practices were designed to counteract the Arab
League boycott of Israel, in practice, they apply to all non-sanctioned boycotts.
According to the Department of Commerce’s Office of Antiboycott Compliance, the
legislation was enacted to “encourage, and in specified cases, require U.S. firms to
refuse to participate in foreign boycotts that the United States does not sanction. They
[the legislation] have the effect of preventing U.S. firms from being used to
implement foreign policies of other nations which run counter to U.S. policy.”24
U.S. regulations define cooperating with the boycott as: (1) agreeing to refuse
or actually refusing to do business in Israel or with a blacklisted company; (2)
agreeing to disseminate or actually discriminating against other persons based on
race, religion, sex, national origin, or nationality; (3) agreeing to furnish or actually
furnishing information about business relationships in Israel or with blacklisted
companies; and (4) agreeing to furnish or actually furnishing information about the
race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person.
U.S. antiboycott laws are included in the Export Administration Act of 1979
(EAA) and the Ribicoff Amendment to the Tax Reform Act of 1976 (TRA).25 The
23
Website of the Department of Commerce’s Office of Antiboycott Compliance.
[http://www.bis.doc.gov/AntiboycottCompliance/oacrequirements.html#whatscovered].
24
Website of the Office of Antiboycott Compliance.
AntiboycottCompliance/oacrequirements.html]
25
[http://www.bis.doc.gov/
Section 8 of The Export Administration Act of 1979 (P.L. 96-72; 50 U.S.C. app. §2407)
has expired but its provisions are continued under the authorization granted to the President
in the National Emergencies Act (NEA) (P.L. 94-412; 50 U.S.C. §1601-1651) and the
International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) (P.L. 95-223; 50 U.S.C. app.
§2407), most recently under Executive Order 13222 signed August 17, 2001 (66 F.R. 44025,
August 22, 2001). Antiboycott export regulations are at 15 C.F.R. 760.1 et seq. The
Ribicoff Amendment to the Tax Reform Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-455) added section 999 to the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26 U.S.C. §1 et seq). Tax regulations are at
(continued...)
CRS-8
export-related antiboycott provisions are administered by the Department of
Commerce and prohibit U.S. persons from participating in the boycott. The Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) administers tax-related antiboycott regulations that deny tax
benefits to U.S. taxpayers that participate in the boycott.
Export-Related Antiboycott Legislation
Regulations promulgated under section 8 of the EAA prohibit any U.S. person
or company from complying with an unsanctioned foreign boycott and require them
to report requests they have received to comply with a boycott. Such requests must
be reported quarterly to the Department of Commerce’s Office of Antiboycott
Compliance (OAC) in the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). These regulations
are implemented in part 760 of the Department of Commerce’s Export
Administration Regulations (EAR).
The EAA prescribes penalties that may be imposed for violation of the
antiboycott regulations. Civil penalties for violating the antiboycott provisions are
a maximum fine of $50,000 per violation and a potential loss of export privileges for
a period of time. Particularly egregious cases may be referred to the Department of
Justice for criminal prosecution. Criminal penalties imposed for each violation can
include a fine of up to $50,000 or five times the value of the exports involved,
whichever is greater, or imprisonment for up to five years, or both. Willful
violations, where the violator has knowledge that the items are also intended for any
country to which exports are restricted for national security or foreign policy
purposes, are punishable by fines up to $250,000 or imprisonment for up to ten years.
In FY2007, according to the Department of Commerce, ten companies paid
$194,500 to settle allegations that they violated U.S. antiboycott provisions, an
increase from nine cases and $95,950 in FY2006. In July 2007, BIS amended
existing penalty guidelines to introduce a voluntary disclosure program that could
reduce a potential fine levied on an exporter if it voluntarily discloses its violation of
U.S. antiboycott laws. For the disclosure to have a mitigating effect, notification
must take place prior to BIS learning about the violation from other sources and
commencing an investigation. The new guidelines also created a new supplement
no. 2 to the antiboycott provisions that more clearly describes how BIS investigates
violations of U.S. antiboycott laws and determines penalty rates.
Tax-Related Antiboycott Legislation
The Ribicoff Amendment to the TRA added section 999 to the Internal Revenue
Code. This section denies various tax benefits normally available to exporters if they
participate in the boycott. In addition, the IRS requires U.S. taxpayers to report
operations in, with, or related to countries that the Treasury Department includes on
its annual list of countries that may require participation in an international boycott,
25
(...continued)
26 C.F.R. §7.999-1.
CRS-9
and with any other country from which they receive a request to participate in a
boycott.26
Denying tax benefits to U.S. firms that participate in the boycott appears to be
an effective antiboycott strategy. According to one study, U.S. legislation reduces
overall participation in the boycott by U.S. taxpayers by between 15 and 30%.27
However, the effectiveness of U.S. antiboycott tax legislation may diminish since the
U.S. government is reducing export tax benefits that are available to U.S.-based
companies to comply with World Trade Organization (WTO) rulings.28
26
The current list is Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab
Emirates, and Yemen. Iraq is not included in this list, but its status with respect to future
lists remains under review by the Department of the Treasury. “List of the Countries
Requiring Cooperation with an International Boycott, Department of the Treasury,”
Department of the Treasury, 73 F.R. 50, March 13, 2008.
27
James R. Hines, Jr., “Taxed Avoidance: American Participation in Unsanctioned
International Boycotts,” NBER Working Paper 6116, July 1997.
28
See CRS Report RS20746, Export Tax Benefits and the WTO: The Extraterritorial Income
Exclusion and Foreign Sales Corporations, by David L. Brumbaugh.
CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti.
Congressional Research Service
Arab League Boycott of Israel
Contents
Background...................................................................................................................................... 1
Current Status of the Boycott........................................................................................................... 2
Impact of the Boycott ...................................................................................................................... 3
U.S. Activity to End the Arab League Boycott of Israel................................................................. 4
U.S. Antiboycott Compliance Legislation ....................................................................................... 4
Export-Related Antiboycott Legislation.................................................................................... 5
Tax-Related Antiboycott Legislation......................................................................................... 6
Contacts
Author Contact Information............................................................................................................. 6
Congressional Research Service
Arab League Boycott of Israel
Background
The Arab League is an umbrella organization comprising 22 Middle Eastern and African
countries and entities. Arab League members are Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt,
Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, the Palestinian Authority,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. In
November 2011, Arab League members suspended Syria from participating in Arab League
meetings due to the Syrian government’s violent crackdown on political demonstrations.1
The Arab League was founded in 1944, and in 1945 began a boycott of Zionist goods and
services in the British controlled mandate territory of Palestine. In 1948, following the war
establishing Israel’s independence, the boycott was formalized against the state of Israel and
broadened to include non-Israelis who maintain economic relations with Israel or who are
perceived to support it. The boycott is administered by the Damascus-based Central Boycott
Office, a specialized bureau of the Arab League.2
The U.S. government has often been at the forefront of international efforts to end enforcement of
the boycott and to seek the Arab League’s revocation of it. The U.S. government participates in
bilateral and multilateral negotiations with Arab League members regarding the boycott. U.S.
legislative action related to the boycott dates from 1959 and includes multiple statutory
provisions expressing U.S. opposition to the boycott, usually in foreign assistance legislation. In
1965, Congress adopted mandatory reporting of any requests for U.S. companies to participate in
the boycott. In 1977, Congress passed laws making it illegal for U.S. companies to cooperate with
the boycott and authorizing the imposition of civil and criminal penalties against U.S. violators.
According to the Department of Commerce, participation in the boycott includes
•
Agreements to refuse or actual refusal to do business with or in Israel or with
blacklisted companies;
•
Agreements to discriminate or actual discrimination against other persons based
on race, religion, sex, national origin or nationality;
•
Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about business
relationships with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies; and/or
•
Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about the race,
religion, sex, or national origin of another person.3
Lastly, U.S. taxpayers who cooperate with the boycott are subject to the loss of tax benefits that
the U.S. government provides to exporters. These benefits include, among others, the foreign tax
credit, the benefits for foreign sales corporation (FSC) since repealed, and the tax deferral
available to U.S. shareholders of a controlled foreign corporation (CFC).
1
CRS Report RL33487, Unrest in Syria and U.S. Sanctions Against the Asad Regime, by Jeremy M. Sharp and
Christopher M. Blanchard
2
Nancy Turck, “The Middle East: The Arab Boycott of Israel,” Foreign Affairs, April 1977.
3
See http://www.bis.doc.gov/complianceandenforcement/antiboycottcompliance.htm.
Congressional Research Service
1
Arab League Boycott of Israel
Current Status of the Boycott
The boycott has three tiers. The primary boycott prohibits citizens of an Arab League member
from buying from, selling to, or entering into a business contract with either the Israeli
government or an Israeli citizen. The secondary boycott extends the primary boycott to any entity
world-wide that does business with Israel. A blacklist of global firms that engage in business with
Israel is maintained by the Central Boycott Office, and disseminated to Arab League members.
The tertiary boycott prohibits an Arab League member and its nationals from doing business with
a company that in turn deals with companies that have been blacklisted by the Arab League. The
boycott also applies to companies that the Arab League identifies as having “Zionist
sympathizers” in executive positions or on the board of the company. According to one analyst,
the “nature and detail of these rules reflect the boycotting countries’ tolerance for only the most
minimal contacts with Israel.”4
The Arab League does not enforce the boycott and boycott regulations are not binding on member
states. However, the regulations have been the model for various laws implemented by member
countries. The League recommends that member countries demand certificates of origin on all
goods acquired from suppliers to ensure that such goods meet all aspects of the boycott.
Overall enforcement of the boycott by member countries appears sporadic. Some Arab League
members have limited trading relations with Israel. The Arab League does not formally or
publicly state which countries enforce the boycott and which do not. Some Arab League member
governments have maintained that only the Arab League, as the formal body enforcing the
boycott, can revoke the boycott. However, adherence to the boycott is an individual matter for
each Arab League member and enforcement varies by state.
There are indications that some Arab League countries publicly support the boycott while
continuing to quietly trade with Israel. According to Doron Peskin, head of research at InfoProd, a
consulting firm for foreign and Israeli companies specializing in trade with Arab states, “the Arab
boycott is now just lip service.”5 This sentiment has been echoed by Arab officials, albeit
anonymously. One official commented to the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram that, “boycotting
Israel is something that we talk about and include in our official documents but it is not
something that we actually carry out—at least not in most Arab states.”6
Others assert that enforcement of the boycott waxes and wanes with the level of intensity of the
Israeli-Palestinian issue. However, the Arab League has acknowledged that U.S. pressure has
affected its ability to maintain the boycott. At the May 2006 Arab League conference on the
boycott, one conference participant reportedly said, “The majority of Arab countries are evading
the boycott, notably the Gulf states and especially Saudi Arabia.”7 He added that a major reason
4
Howard N. Fenton III, “United States Antiboycott Laws: An Assessment of Their Impact Ten Years after Adoption,”
Hastings International & Comparative Law Review, Vol. 10 , 1987, cited in Eugene Kontorovich, “The Arab League
Boycott and WTO Accession: Can Foreign Policy Excuse Discriminatory Sanctions,” Chicago Journal of International
Law, Vol. 4 No. 2, Fall 2003.
5
Orly Halpern, “Arab Boycott Largely Reduced to ‘Lip Service,’” Jerusalem Post, February 28, 2006.
6
Dina Ezzat, “Boycott Israel? Not so simple,” Al-Ahram Weekly Online, April 11-17, 2002.
7
“Arabs evading economic boycott of Israel,” United Press International, May 16, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
2
Arab League Boycott of Israel
for these countries bypassing the boycott is “growing U.S. pressures in the direction of
normalization with the Jewish state.”8
Some states and entities have formally ended the boycott, or at least some aspects of it. Egypt
(1979), the Palestinian Authority (1993), and Jordan (1994) signed peace treaties or agreements
that ended the boycott.9 Mauritania, which never applied the boycott, established diplomatic
relations with Israel in 1999. Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia do not enforce the boycott.10 In 1994,
the member countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)—Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar,
Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—announced that they would only enforce the
primary boycott. In 1996, the GCC states recognized that total elimination of the boycott is a
necessary step for peace and economic development in the region. However, U.S. companies
continue to receive requests to cooperate with the boycott from GCC member countries. Lebanon
enforces the primary, secondary, and tertiary boycotts.11
Impact of the Boycott
Since the boycott is sporadically applied and ambiguously enforced, its impact, measured by
capital or revenue denied to Israel by companies adhering to the boycott, is difficult to measure.
The effect of the primary boycott appears limited since intra-regional trade and investment are
small. Nonetheless, there is some limited trade between Israel and its Arab neighbors. In 2004,
according to the Manufacturers Association of Israel (IMA), Israeli exports to Arab countries and
entities (mainly Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority) totaled $192 million.12
Enforcement of the secondary and tertiary boycotts have decreased over time, reducing their
effect. A 1996 study by researchers at Tel Aviv University looked at the effect of the Arab boycott
on the Israeli economy through the automobile market. Following a relaxation of boycott
enforcement in the late 1980s through the early 1990s, Asian countries began exporting cars to
Israel. The study found that if the boycott had continued to be enforced, and these cars did not
enter the Israeli market, the Israeli car market would have been 12% smaller—leading to a $790
price increase per car. Total welfare loss for the study year, 1994, would have been an estimated
$89 million.13 Thus, it appears that since intra-regional trade is small, and that the secondary and
tertiary boycotts are not aggressively enforced, the boycott may not currently have an extensive
effect on the Israeli economy.
8
Ibid.
Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, March 26, 1979, Article III, paragraph 3; Treaty of Peace between the State of Israel
and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, October 26, 1994, Article 7, Section 2, paragraph A; Declaration of Principles,
September 10, 1993.
10
2007 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, United States Trade Representative, March 30,
2007.
11
Ibid.
12
“Exports from Israel Up, Up, Up!,” Bridges for Peace, June 27, 2005. U.S. efforts to increase trade in the region
include the Qualified Industrial Zone (QIZ) program, which allows goods jointly produced by Israel and either Jordan
or Egypt to enter the United States duty free. See CRS Report RS22002, Qualifying Industrial Zones in
Jordan and Egypt, by Mary Jane Bolle, Jeremy M. Sharp, and Alfred B. Prados.
13
Chaim Fershtman and Neil Gandal, “The Effect of the Arab Boycott on Israel: The Automobile Market,” Tel Aviv
University, January 1996.
9
Congressional Research Service
3
Arab League Boycott of Israel
Despite the lack of economic impact on either Israeli or Arab economies, the boycott remains of
strong symbolic importance to all parties. Many Arab countries want to deny normalization with
Israel until there is a final resolution to the conflict in the Palestinian territories. Israel, on the
other hand, asserts that it wants to be accepted in the neighborhood both in political terms and as
a source of, and target for, foreign investment.14 It is expected that Israeli military activities in the
Gaza Strip in early 2009 may lead to an intensification of boycott enforcement.
U.S. Activity to End the Arab League
Boycott of Israel
The U.S. government officially opposes the boycott and works to end its enforcement on multiple
levels. For many years, language has been included in successive foreign operations
appropriations legislation concerning the boycott. Section 7035 of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, FY2012 (P.L. 112-74) states that it is the sense of Congress that
1. the Arab League boycott of Israel, and the secondary boycott of American firms
that have commercial ties with Israel, is an impediment to peace in the region and
to United States investment and trade in the Middle East and North Africa;
2. the Arab League boycott, which was regrettably reinstated in 1997, should be
immediately and publicly terminated, and the Central Office for the Boycott of
Israel immediately disbanded;
3. all Arab League states should normalize relations with their neighbor Israel;
4. the President and the Secretary of State should continue to vigorously oppose the
Arab League boycott of Israel and find concrete steps to demonstrate that
opposition by, for example, taking into consideration the participation of any
recipient country in the boycott when determining to sell weapons to said
country; and
5. the President should report to Congress annually on specific steps being taken by
the United States to encourage Arab League states to normalize their relations
with Israel to bring about the termination of the Arab League boycott of Israel,
including those to encourage allies and trading partners of the United States to
enact laws prohibiting businesses from complying with the boycott and
penalizing businesses that do comply.
U.S. Antiboycott Compliance Legislation
The United States passed antiboycott legislation in the late 1970s to discourage U.S. individuals
from cooperating with the secondary and tertiary boycotts. Antiboycott laws apply to “U.S.
exports and imports, financing, forwarding and shipping, and certain other transactions that may
take place wholly offshore.”15
14
Anju S. Bawa, “Israel Embarks on PR Face-lift,” The Washington Times, December 5, 2006.
Website of the Department of Commerce’s Office of Antiboycott Compliance. http://www.bis.doc.gov/
AntiboycottCompliance/oacrequirements.html#whatscovered.
15
Congressional Research Service
4
Arab League Boycott of Israel
Although U.S. legislation and practices were designed to counteract the Arab League boycott of
Israel, in practice, they apply to all non-sanctioned boycotts. According to the Department of
Commerce’s Office of Antiboycott Compliance, the legislation was enacted to “encourage, and in
specified cases, require U.S. firms to refuse to participate in foreign boycotts that the United
States does not sanction. They [the legislation] have the effect of preventing U.S. firms from
being used to implement foreign policies of other nations which run counter to U.S. policy.”16
U.S. regulations define cooperating with the boycott as (1) agreeing to refuse or actually refusing
to do business in Israel or with a blacklisted company; (2) agreeing to discriminate or actually
discriminating against other persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin, or nationality;
(3) agreeing to furnish or actually furnishing information about business relationships in Israel or
with blacklisted companies; and (4) agreeing to furnish or actually furnishing information about
the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person.
U.S. antiboycott laws are included in the Export Administration Act of 1979 (EAA) and the
Ribicoff Amendment to the Tax Reform Act of 1976 (TRA).17 The export-related antiboycott
provisions are administered by the Department of Commerce and prohibit U.S. persons from
participating in the boycott. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) administers tax-related
antiboycott regulations that deny tax benefits to U.S. taxpayers that participate in the boycott.
Export-Related Antiboycott Legislation
Regulations promulgated under Section 8 of the EAA prohibit any U.S. person or company from
complying with an unsanctioned foreign boycott and require them to report requests they have
received to comply with a boycott. Such requests must be reported quarterly to the Department of
Commerce’s Office of Antiboycott Compliance (OAC) in the Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS). These regulations are implemented in part 760 of the Department of Commerce’s Export
Administration Regulations (EAR).
The EAA prescribes penalties that may be imposed for violation of the antiboycott regulations.
Civil penalties for violating the antiboycott provisions are a maximum fine of $50,000 per
violation and a potential loss of export privileges for a period of time. Particularly egregious cases
may be referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. Criminal penalties imposed
for each violation can include a fine of up to $50,000 or five times the value of the exports
involved, whichever is greater, or imprisonment for up to five years, or both. Willful violations,
where the violator has knowledge that the items are also intended for any country to which
exports are restricted for national security or foreign policy purposes, are punishable by fines up
to $250,000 or imprisonment for up to 10 years. During FY2010, Commerce reports that 14
companies agreed to pay civil penalties totaling $380,975 to settle allegations that they violated
the antiboycott provisions of the EAR.
16
Website of the Office of Antiboycott Compliance. http://www.bis.doc.gov/AntiboycottCompliance/
oacrequirements.html
17
Section 8 of The Export Administration Act of 1979 (P.L. 96-72; 50 U.S.C. app. §2407) has expired but its
provisions are continued under the authorization granted to the President in the National Emergencies Act (NEA) (P.L.
94-412; 50 U.S.C. §1601-1651) and the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) (P.L. 95-223; 50
U.S.C. app. §2407), most recently under Executive Order 13222 signed August 17, 2001 (66 F.R. 44025, August 22,
2001). Antiboycott export regulations are at 15 C.F.R. 760.1 et seq. The Ribicoff Amendment to the Tax Reform Act of
1976 (P.L. 94-455) added Section 999 to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26 U.S.C. §1 et seq). Tax
regulations are at 26 C.F.R. §7.999-1.
Congressional Research Service
5
Arab League Boycott of Israel
In July 2007, BIS amended existing penalty guidelines to introduce a voluntary disclosure
program that could reduce a potential fine levied on an exporter if it voluntarily discloses its
violation of U.S. antiboycott laws. For the disclosure to have a mitigating effect, notification must
take place prior to BIS learning about the violation from other sources and commencing an
investigation. The new guidelines also created a new supplement no. 2 to the antiboycott
provisions that more clearly describes how BIS investigates violations of U.S. antiboycott laws
and determines penalty rates.
Tax-Related Antiboycott Legislation
The Ribicoff Amendment to the TRA added Section 999 to the Internal Revenue Code. This
section denies various tax benefits normally available to exporters if they participate in the
boycott. In addition, the IRS requires U.S. taxpayers to report operations in, with, or related to
countries that the Treasury Department includes on its annual list of countries that may require
participation in an international boycott, and with any other country from which they receive a
request to participate in a boycott.18
Denying tax benefits to U.S. firms that participate in the boycott appears to be an effective
antiboycott strategy. According to one study, U.S. legislation reduces overall participation in the
boycott by U.S. taxpayers by between 15% and 30%.19 However, the effectiveness of U.S.
antiboycott tax legislation may diminish since the U.S. government is reducing export tax
benefits that are available to U.S.-based companies to comply with World Trade Organization
(WTO) rulings.20
Author Contact Information
Martin A. Weiss
Specialist in International Trade and Finance
mweiss@crs.loc.gov, 7-5407
18
The current list is Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Iraq is not
included in this list, but its status with respect to future lists remains under review by the Department of the Treasury.
“List of the Countries Requiring Cooperation with an International Boycott, Department of the Treasury,” Department
of the Treasury, 73 F.R. 50, March 13, 2008.
19
James R. Hines, Jr., “Taxed Avoidance: American Participation in Unsanctioned International Boycotts,” NBER
Working Paper 6116, July 1997.
20
See CRS Report RS20746, Export Tax Benefits and the WTO: The Extraterritorial Income Exclusion and Foreign
Sales Corporations, by David L. Brumbaugh.
Congressional Research Service
6