Last week, New Hampshire became the 37th state to prohibit government contractors from boycotting the Jewish state. Opponents of such laws have labeled them an assault on freedom of speech, and in some cases have invidiously described them as requiring individuals and businesses to “sign a pro-Israel oath.” Eugene Volokh, a libertarian legal scholar, investigates the constitutionality of anti-boycott laws—and determines that they do not raise any First Amendment concerns:

Decisions not to buy or sell goods or services are generally not protected by the First Amendment. . . . Thus, for instance:

• A limousine driver has no First Amendment right to refuse to serve a same-sex wedding party, even if he describes this as a boycott of same-sex weddings (or part of a nationwide boycott of such weddings by likeminded citizens).
• A store has no First Amendment right to refuse to sell to Catholics, even if it describes this as a boycott of people who provide support for the Catholic Church.
• An employer in a jurisdiction that bans political-affiliation discrimination has no First Amendment right to refuse to hire Democrats, even if it describes such discrimination as a boycott.

Of course, all these people would have every right to speak out against same-sex weddings, Catholicism, the Democratic party, unions, and Israel. That would be speech, which is indeed protected by the First Amendment.

This lack of constitutional protection [for boycotts] simply reflects a well-established principle: the First Amendment does not generally protect liberty of contract, whether or not one’s choices about whom to deal with are political.

As we mentioned in yesterday’s newsletter, Israeli special forces carried out a daring boots-on-the-ground raid on September 8 targeting the Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC) in northwestern Syria. The site was used for producing and storing missiles which are then transferred to Hizballah in Lebanon. Jonathan Spyer notes that the raid was accompanied by extensive airstrikes in Syira,and followed a few days later by extensive attacks on Hizballah in Lebanon, one of which killed Mohammad Qassem al-Shaer, a senior officer in the terrorist group’s Radwan force, an elite infantry group. And yesterday, the IDF destroyed a weapons depot, an observation post, and other Hizballah positions. Spyer puts these attacks in context:

The direct purpose of the raid, of course, was the destruction of the facilities and materials targeted. But Israel also appeared to be delivering a message to the Syrian regime that it should not imagine itself to be immune should it choose to continue its involvement with the Iran-led axis’s current campaign against Israel.

Similarly, the killing of al-Shaer indicated that Israel is no longer limiting its response to Hizballah attacks to the border area. Rather, Hizballah operatives in Israel’s crosshairs are now considered fair game wherever they may be located in Lebanon.

The SSRC raid and the killing of al-Shaer are unlikely to have been one-off events. Rather, they represent the systematic broadening of the parameters of the conflict in the north. Hizballah commenced the current round of fighting on October 8, in support of Hamas in Gaza. It has vowed to stop firing only when a ceasefire is reached in the south—a prospect which currently seems distant.