the israeli incorporation regime55 acquire and maintain financial support as foreign governments are disinclined from providing funding, particularly to human rights groups, given such immense restrictions. In fact, this law explicitly exempts the World Zionist Organization, the Jewish Agency, the United Israel Appeal, the Jewish National Fund and their subsidiary institutions from its stipulations. Hence, it disproportionately affects Palestinian civil society groups in Israel and those NGOs advocating for Palestinian rights as they do not usually receive Israeli governmental funding and depend on foreign financial support. Instead, and despite directly contravening principles of international law, Jewish-Israeli settler organizations are privately funded, and state-sponsored, thus remaining unaffected by the new regulations. vi. The Ban on Boycotts Law Passed on July 11, 2011, The Bill to Prohibit Imposing a Boycott Law (2010) prevents any initiatives by Israeli citizens and residents encouraging or enabling any form of boycott against Israeli institutions, organizations, citizens or goods. Taking the wind out of the sails of any possible discussion, the law enables “any injured party” with the power to sue any individual or institution that advocate a boycott against them, without even having to supply evidence for the damage sustained.15 Should the Israeli When officials from Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, and another dozen nations use their ‘soft power’ to fund dozens of Israeli groups, such as Breaking the Silence, Yesh Din, and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, whose officials travel the world declaring that Israel is a nation of war criminals, these groups are also promoting the interests of their sponsors. …. In election after election, the governments chosen by Israeli voters have differed with European positions. However, by massively funding opposition NGOs, many of which claim to promote human rights (although they do this selectively), Europe tries to interfere with and manipulate the legitimate outcome of Israeli elections.” Here Mr. Steinberg seems to imply that by using foreign funding to inform the Israeli public of the human rights and legal violations committed by their government, Israeli NGOs are actually allowing European governments to interfere in internal Israeli politics. The logic adopted by Steinberg, similar to the logic of the law itself, is that any criticism against devastating Israeli government policies is not pursued by the Israeli NGOs out of their own agency, but is the result of manipulation from foreign forces. Ironically, instead of actually challenging the legitimacy of the criticisms and information compiled by Israeli NGOs, Steinberg appears more concerned that informing the Israeli public of the human rights and legal violations committed by their government does have an effect on their willingness to support such policies. See Gerald M. Steinberg, “Transparency for NGOs is not antidemocratic,” Haaretz, February 23, 2011, http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/ transparency-for-ngos-is-not-anti-democratic-1.345164. 15 Adalah: The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, New Discriminatory Laws. For an analysis of the global movement (launched by Palestinian civil-society organizations in 2005) for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel from various perspectives of the campaign, see Wiles (2013).