In response to the recent ratification of a U.S. trade law, the State Department expressed reservations about provisions of the law intended to discourage economic warfare against Israel. These reservations include concern over the law’s alleged “conflation” of the West Bank with the remainder of Israel. Eugene Kontorovich points out that not only does the law make no such conflation, but the State Department’s reservations bespeak a poor understanding of U.S. policy:
The United States has not consistently opposed [Israeli] settlements, [as the State Department claims]. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both expressed varying degrees of support for them. Moreover, the question of whether one opposes or supports settlements is distinct from what the rules dealing with economic activity there should be.
On this, U.S. policy is longstanding and clear. U.S. laws have long applied the same economic treatment to all areas under Israeli jurisdiction (including Jerusalem). . . . The administration’s statement refers broadly to its opposition to “settlements.” . . . But the law has nothing to do with settlements. It is about business activity. One can have settlements without business activity and business activity without settlements. For example, most people living in the West Bank make their living inside the Green Line. . . . And one can have business activity without settlements—many Israeli factories employ local Palestinians, or even Israelis residing inside the Green Line. Only a redefinition of settlements as meaning “Jews having any kind of physical or constructive activity” would cover this.
The State Department did not say that it will decline to enforce the law, but such a decision, according to Kontorovich, would constitute “an extraordinary constitutional usurpation” by the executive branch.
Read more on Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/10/the-state-departments-response-to-israel-boycott-law-a-line-item-veto-for-trade-legislation/