Yesterday, a federal court upheld an Arkansas law prohibiting state agencies from doing business with companies that boycott Israel. The law had been challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is also fighting similar laws in other states, and will no doubt do the same if Congress passes the currently proposed federal version. In Arizona, the ACLU won an injunction against such a measure; the case is now being heard by a federal appellate court. Alyza Lewin explains why, contrary to the ACLU’s claims, these laws do not violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech:

Federal, state, and local governments across the United States regularly and appropriately use conditions in government contracts to promote equality under the law, combat discrimination, and ensure that public funds are not used for illegal or invidious purposes. Conditions on contracting are a pillar of anti-discrimination laws at all levels of government. The First Amendment does not require the government to subsidize discriminatory conduct.

However, these regulations only target discriminatory conduct, not speech, by state contractors. Contractors may speak passionately, associate, and advocate openly in any forum and on any subject, even an anti-Israel boycott. They may also forgo state contracts if they choose to engage in an active boycott of Israel.

The ACLU’s position rests on a perverse interpretation: . . . that the government must subsidize discriminatory conduct. Such a rule is not required—or even supported—by the First Amendment. It conflicts with a deeply embedded web of federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws. Government must have the power to discourage discriminatory boycotts by prescribing non-discrimination conditions in government contracts.

Yesterday, the Iranian foreign minister flew to Geneva to meet with European diplomats. President Trump, meanwhile, indicated that cease-fire negotiations might soon begin with Iran, which would presumably involve Tehran agreeing to make concessions regarding its nuclear program, while Washington pressures Israel to halt its military activities. According to Israeli media, Iran already began putting out feelers to the U.S. earlier this week. Aviram Bellaishe considers the purpose of these overtures:

The regime’s request to return to negotiations stems from the principle of deception and delay that has guided it for decades. Iran wants to extricate itself from a situation of total destruction of its nuclear facilities. It understands that to save the nuclear program, it must stop at a point that would allow it to return to it in the shortest possible time. So long as the negotiation process leads to halting strikes on its military capabilities and preventing the destruction of the nuclear program, and enables the transfer of enriched uranium to a safe location, it can simultaneously create the two tracks in which it specializes—a false facade of negotiations alongside a hidden nuclear race.