Bookstore Glossary Library Links News Publications Timeline Virtual Israel Experience
Anti-Semitism Biography History Holocaust Israel Israel Education Myths & Facts Politics Religion Travel US & Israel Vital Stats Women
donate subscribe Contact About Home

Arab League Boycott: Background & Overview

(December 2, 1945)
by Mitchell Bard

The Arab boycott was formally declared by the newly formed Arab League Council on December 2, 1945:

Jewish products and manufactured goods shall be considered undesirable to the Arab countries.” All Arab “institutions, organizations, merchants, commission agents and individuals” were called upon “to refuse to deal in, distribute, or consume Zionist products or manufactured goods.

As is evident in this declaration, the terms “Jewish” and “Zionist” were used synonymously by the Arabs. Thus, even before the establishment of Israel, the Arab states had declared an economic boycott against the Jews of Palestine.

Following the announcement, the Indian Express wrote the object of the boycott “is to destroy Jewish economic capacity in Palestine so as to make further Jewish immigration economically impracticable.” The Arab countries agreed to a total blockade of all Palestine Jews – man, woman, and children. None would be allowed to travel to any Arab League country.

Palestine Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul Hadi told a reporter the goal is the “total strangulation of Jewish industry by joint action of Governments adhering to the Arab League and of Palestine Arabs.”

America Fights the Boycott
Example of Boycott Requests
The Boycott Begins to Crack
Into the New Millennium
Alleged Violations
Boycott Remains in Force


The boycott, as it evolved after 1948, is divided into three components. The primary boycott prohibits direct trade between Israel and the Arab nations. The secondary boycott is directed at companies that do business with Israel. The tertiary boycott involves the blacklisting of firms that trade with other companies that do business with Israel.

The blacklisting process is capricious; it is unclear whether boycott officials collect any evidence at all before placing an individual or company on the blacklist. No two countries have identical lists, and six countries — Algeria, Mauritania, Morocco, Somalia, the Sudan, and Tunisia — do not enforce the secondary boycott. Egypt's policy changed from strict enforcement to unofficial complicity after the signing of the peace treaty with Israel, despite the provision whereby Egypt agreed to the “termination of economic boycotts and discriminatory barriers to the free movement of people and goods. . . .”

Once on the list, it is sometimes difficult to get off, since the company or some Arab sponsor must initiate the request. A firm might be required to supply proof that it no longer has any business with Israel and/or might be asked to make investments in Arab countries equal to those made earlier in Israel. Bribery is another means of becoming “de-listed.”

The objective of the boycott has been to isolate Israel from its neighbors and the international community, as well as to deny it trade that might be used to augment its military and economic strength. Israel’s capacity to reach its full economic potential was hindered for decades by the actions of Great Britain, Japan, and other countries that cooperated with the boycott. It has undoubtedly enhanced Israel’s isolation and separated the Jewish State from its most natural markets, but the boycott failed to undermine Israel’s economy to the degree intended.

America Fights The Boycott

In 1977, Congress prohibited U.S. companies from cooperating with the Arab boycott. When President Carter signed the law, he said the “issue goes to the very heart of free trade among nations” and that it was designed to “end the divisive effects on American life of foreign boycotts aimed at Jewish members of our society.”

The Arab League threatened to take a decisive stand against the new law, which was regarded as part of “a campaign of hysterical laws and bills . . . which Israel and world Zionism are trying not only to enforce on the U.S.; but also in some countries of Western Europe.”

Contrary to claims that the bill would lead to a drastic reduction in American trade with the Arab world, imports and exports increased substantially. Broader diplomatic and cultural relations also improved. Nevertheless, certain U.S. companies were blacklisted for their relations with Israel. In addition, few other nations adopted anti-boycott laws and, instead, complied with the boycott. For example, the Military Aircraft Division of British Aerospace sent a purchase order to an American supplier in connection with the British agreement to sell Saudi Arabia Tornado aircraft and other weapons in the late 1980s. It guaranteed none of the items “are made in Israel directly or indirectly either in whole or in part and such items are not reshipped from Israel for Israeli account or by proxy for or on behalf of or with any persons or organizations resident in Israel. The supplier moreover warrants not to dispatch any of the items on any Israeli carrier.”

For many years, language has been included in the foreign operations appropriations acts concerning the boycott. For example, Section 535 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-102), states that: (1) it is the sense of Congress that 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 CBO disbanded; (3) all Arab League states should normalize relations with Israel; and (4) the President and the Secretary of State should continue vigorously to oppose the boycott and encourage Arab states to assume normal trading relations with Israel. U.S. embassies and government officials raise the boycott with host country officials, noting the persistence of illegal boycott requests and the impact on both U.S. firms and on the countries’ ability to expand trade and investment.

In August 2007, the federal antiboycott statutes were revised amending the existing penalty guidelines and outlining procedures for firms to voluntarily report violations of the law. Officials hope that by providing companies an incentive to “come clean ” they will do so and save the Commerce Department the need for costly investigations.

Example of Boycott Requests

By law, companies are required to report any boycott requests they receive to the Office of Antiboycott Compliance. This is an example of a boycott request from Bahrain:

Prohibited Boycott Condition in a Purchase Order:

“In the case of overseas suppliers, this order is placed subject to the suppliers being not on the Israel boycott list published by the central Arab League.”

Reportable boycott condition in an importer’s purchase order:

“Goods of Israeli origin not acceptable.”

Reportable boycott condition in a letter of credit:

“A signed statement from the shipping company, or its agent, stating the name, flag and nationality of the carrying vessel and confirming ... that it is permitted to enter Arab ports.”

Prohibited Boycott Condition in a Contract

“Israeli Clause: The Seller shall not supply goods or materials which have been manufactured or processed in Israel nor shall the services of any Israeli organization be used in handling or transporting the goods or materials.”

Prohibited Condition in a Contract

“The Contractor shall comply in all respects with the requirements of the laws of the State of Bahrain relating to the boycott of Israel. Goods manufactured by companies blacklisted by the Arab Boycott of Israel Office may not be imported into the State of Bahrain and must not be supplied against this Contract. For information concerning the Boycott List, the Contractor can approach the nearest Arab Consulate.”

Prohibited Condition in a Letter of Credit

“Buyer shall in no way contravene the regulations issued by Bahrain Government and or Israel Boycott Office. Buyer shall not nominate a vessel blacklisted by the said office.”

The Boycott Begins To Crack

The beginning of the end of the boycott started with Egypt signing a peace treaty with Israel that ended its compliance with the boycott in 1979. 

On September 30, 1994, the six Gulf Cooperation Council states announced they would no longer support the secondary boycott barring trade with companies doing business with Israel. Nevertheless, as of 2019, U.S. companies continued to receive requests to cooperate with the boycott from GCC countries.

At a meeting in Taba, Egypt, February 7-8, 1995, Egyptian, American, Jordanian, and Palestinian trade leaders signed a joint document — the Taba Declaration-supporting “all efforts to end the boycott of Israel.”

Since the signing of peace agreements between Israel and the PLO and Jordan, the boycott has gradually crumbled. The Arab League was forced to cancel several boycott meetings because of opposition from countries like Kuwait, Morocco and Tunisia. The primary boycott — prohibiting direct relations between Arab countries and Israel subsequently cracked as nations like Qatar, Oman and Morocco negotiated deals with Israel and, now, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have cancelled the boycott as part of the normalization of relations with Israel. In addition, few countries outside the Middle East continue to comply with the boycott. Japan, for example, has exponentially increased its trade with Israel since the peace process began. Still, the boycott remains technically in force and several countries continue its enforcement (e.g., Lebanon enforces the primary, secondary and tertiary boycotts).

Into the New Millennium

In April 2004, representatives from 19 Arab countries met for the 72nd conference Bureau for Boycotting Israel to discuss tightening the boycott. The four-day meeting considered blacklisting new companies that do business with the Jewish state. Mauritania, Egypt and Jordan, which have diplomatic ties with Israel, stayed away from the meeting.

In late 2005, Saudi Arabia was required to cease its boycott of Israel as a condition of joining the World Trade Organization. After initially saying that it would do so, the government subsequently announced it would maintain its first-degree boycott of Israeli products. The government said it agreed to lift the second and third-degree boycott in accordance with an earlier Gulf Cooperation Council decision rather than the demands of the WTO. In June 2006, the Saudi ambassador admitted his country still enforced the boycott in violation of promises made earlier to the Bush Administration and the Saudis participated in the 2007 boycott conference.

During free trade agreement negotiations with Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, the status of the boycott was an issue of concern and the countries agreed not to comply with the boycott. However, indications suggest that these countries continue to support the boycott.

Representatives from only 14 Arab countries attended the biannual conference of the Arab League’s Bureau for Boycotting Israel in Syria in April 2007. Mauritania, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain and Oman were among the nations that were absent. Those that did participate included the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

The U.S. government has raised concerns about the enforcement of the boycott by Iraq. In 2006, the number of requests from Iraq for U.S. companies to comply with the boycott increased 287%. Requests in 2006 were also up from Lebanon, Bahrain and Qatar. The largest source of boycott-related requests comes from the United Arab Emirates. In 2006, according to the Department of Commerce, nine companies paid just under $96,000 to settle allegations that they violated the U.S. antiboycott provisions, an increase from five cases in 2005 and $57,000. In January 2007, the New York office of the National Bank of Egypt was fined $22,500 for boycott violations.

In 2011, four companies, ChemGuard Inc., Bank of New York Mellon (Shanghai Branch), World Kitchen LLC, and Tollgrade Communications agreed to pay  a total of $72,000 in civil penalties to settle allegations that each violated the antiboycott law. 

Kuwait Airways refused on 14 occasions to accept passengers with Israeli passports on flights from New York to London. In 2020, the airline agreed to pay a $700,000 fine, $100,000 of which was suspended for three years and would be waived if it committed no further violations.

Alleged Violations

Below is a list of companies alleged to have violated the antiboycott law from January 12, 2007, to September 30, 2021:

Case ID

Case Name

Order Date

A767 Medtronic Mediterrean SAL (Labanon) 09/30/21
A766 Meditteranean Shipping Company (USA) Inc. (Chicago) 01/13/21
A765 Independent Freight International, LLC 07/23/20
A764 Mirasco Inc. 05/11/20
A763 Kuwait Airways Corporation (New Jersey) 01/14/20
A762 Honeywell Middle East FZE (Dubai) 11/13/19
A761 Mitsubishi International PolymerTrade Corporation 06/13/19
A760 Mitsubishi International Corporation 06/13/19
A759 Zurn Industries, LLC 05/20/19

Citibank, NA


Mitsui Plastics, Inc.


Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company LLC


Bank of America


Whirlpool Europe Srl (Italy)


Whirlpool Corporation

A752 Oxyde Chemicals, Inc. 09/28/17

C H Robinson Freight Services, Ltd.


Carrier Saudi Services Complany Ltd. (Saudi Arabia)


Pelco Inc.



Coty Middle East FZCO (UAE)



Westlake Vinyls Company LP



RHDC International, LLC (Houston)



Gaylord Industries Inc.



Vinmar Overseas, Ltd.



Vinmar International, Ltd.



Morex, Inc.



Infinova Corporation



McWane International Sales Company



Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.



BWI Corporation



TMX Shipping Company, Inc



AIX Global LLC



Digi-Key Corporation



Leprino Foods Company 



Laptop Plaza Inc (aka IWEBMASTER.NET INC) 



Baker Eastern, SA (Libya)



BAC Florida Bank (Coral Gables)



International Veneer Company, Inc.



Climax Molybdenum Marketing Company



W W Grainger Inc.



Dover Energy Inc.



Polk Audio Inc.



SteelSummit International, Inc.



Samuel Shapiro & Company, Inc.



Banco Sabadell SA (Miami Branch)



Parfums De Coeur, Ltd.



Rexnord Industries LLC



JAS Forwarding (USA) Inc. (Los Angeles)



Weiss-Rohlig USA



Tollgrade Communications Inc.



World Kitchen, L.L.C.



Bank of New York Mellon (Shanghai Branch)



Chemguard, Inc.



Smith International Inc.



Lynden Air Freight (Lynden International)



Applied Technology Inc.



UPS Supply Chain Solutions (Houston)



Thermon (UK) Limited (United Kingdom)



Thermon Europe, BV (Netherlands)



Thermon Far East, Ltd (Japan)



MultiCam, Inc.



Mashreqbank PSC



OAC Shipping Company Inc.



Plane Cargo Inc (Houston)



Messina, Inc.



United Source One, Inc.



GM Daewoo Auto & Technology Company (Korea)



JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA



Nectron International



Fortessa Inc.



York International Corporation



M-I Production Chemicals (ME) FZE



Gulf International Bank (New York)



American Rice, Inc. (Houston)



Rohde & Liesenfeld, Inc (Houston)



Aviall Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)



AR-AM Medical Services LLC



DMA Med-Chem Corporation



Colorcon Limited (United Kingdom)



Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.



HornerXpress Worldwide, Inc.



QSA Gloabal Inc.



Dresser, Incorporated



Cooper Tools Industrial Ltda.



Nissin International Transport U.S.A., Inc.



National Bank of Egypt (New York)



Violations have continued to the present. In 2019, 178 prohibited boycott requests from Arab League members were reported. By far the most (81) came from the UAE, followed by Iraq (45), Qatar (17) and Saudi Arabia (17).

Israel has had informal relations with Gulf states for many years and they have grown stronger as the predominantly Sunni states became more concerned with threats from Iran. Interactions between Israelis and the Gulf Arabs have become increasingly public and a breakthrough was achieved in August 2020, when the UAE normalized relations with Israel. A few days later, the UAE cancelled the boycott law, which had been enacted in 1972. The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security subsequently determined that certain requests for information, action or agreement from the UAE will no longer be presumed to be boycott related. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina M. Raimondo released the following statement:

The Department of Commerce took action today to recognize the positive outcomes of the normalization of diplomatic and commercial relations between the United Arab Emirates and Israel, and we commend the UAE for terminating its formal participation in the Arab League Boycott of Israel. The UAE’s action is a strong step forward in ending unsanctioned boycotts against U.S. allies, and the Department will continue to strongly enforce its antiboycott regulations.

Boycott Remains in Force

Even though the boycott has crumbled, it remains technically in force. On August 12, 2020, the 94th session of the Conference of Liaison Officers of the Regional Offices of the Arab Boycott of Israel was held by videoconference due to the coronavirus. According to a summary published by the Arab League:

The conference stressed the importance of following up and strengthening the work of the Arab boycott agencies, their efforts and activities in implementing the provisions of the Arab boycott, based on the decision of the Tunis summit held on March 31, 2019, which stated that “boycotting the Israeli occupation and its colonial regime is one of the effective and legitimate means of resisting it and ending it and saving the two-state solution and the peace process. Appreciating the coordination between liaison officers in the regional offices, noting the need to strengthen communication and follow-up with the main office of the province, regarding the implementation of decisions and recommendations, and within the framework of the liaison officers’ efforts in following up developments related to the provisions of the Arab boycott.

The final communiqué of the 95th meeting of the Liaison Officers of the Arab Boycott Offices (ABOs) in Cairo reaffirmed the commitment to the boycott in August 2022.

Kuwait remains one of the most vigorous enforcers of the boycott. At the meeting, a customs official said Kuwait would continue to ban any product with even the remotest links to Israel. Any retailer found to be carrying goods with a connection to Israel will face “stiff penalties,” he said.


Beyond the Arab League boycott, an additional boycott campagn was launched in 2001 aimed at isolating Israel and, ultimately, making it disappear with the help of international sanctions. This boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement has spread around the world. Various countries, including Spain, France, and the United Kingdom, have taken measures to outlaw aspects of the campaign. Legislation at the Federal level is still being developed to combat BDS. Congress, for example, has called on negotiators in trade talks with the European Union to discourage politically motivated economic actions intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with Israel or person doing business in Israel or in Israeli controlled territories.

The BDS movement has been adopted by anti-Israel organizations on a number of college campuses, some of which have attempted to convince their universities to divest from U.S. companies doing business in Israel. Even on the few campuses where student government passed divestment resolutions, the university administrations have made clear they have no intention of boycotting Israel.

Another campus-led phenomenon involved faculty who have lobbied professional associations to boycott Israel. Curiously, these faculty insist on their academic freedom to call for a boycott against Israel, but deny their critics the right to speak out against them. They also see no hypocrisy in denying Israelis their academic freedom. The Modern Language Association and American Studies Association were two of the groups that voted to boycott Israel. The decisions had no practical effect since the associations themselves do not have relations with Israel and the only members who adhere to the boycott are those who had no interest in visiting Israel or working with Israeli colleagues. Those decisions to boycott Israel also provoked a backlash against faculty and associations supporting BDS. The American Studies Association decision, for example, was condemned by more than 200 university presidents/chancellors. More esteemed associations, such as the American Historical Association, have rejected efforts to put a boycott on their agenda.

The backlash has extended off campus as well where state legislatures have adopted legislation aimed at preventing any boycott of Israel.

Sources: “Economic Sanctions Against Jews,” Indian Express, (December 16, 1945).
Martin A. Weiss, “Arab League Boycott of Israel,” Congressional Research Service, (June 10, 2015, August 25, 2017).
Office of Antiboycott Compliance.
“Annual Report to the Congress for Fiscal Year 2019,” U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security, (February 6, 2020).
League of Arab States, (August 26, 2020).
United States of America Department of Congress in the Matter of Kuwait Airways Corporation (New Jersey), Department of Commerce, (January 24, 2020).
Marcy Oster, “UAE cancels Israel boycott law as El Al prepares first direct flight and Kushner promises more deals,” JTA, (August 30, 2020).
Gina M. Raimondo, “Department of Commerce Recognizes the United Arab Emirates’ Termination of Participation in the Arab League Boycott of Israel,” U.S. Department of Commerce, (June 7, 2021).
“Kuwait maintains “clear stance” on Israel boycott,” Arab Times, (July 31, 2022).
“Arab League pledge boycott of Israel to end occupation, salvage two-state solution,” WAFA, (August 1, 2022).