Throughout 2016 we have seen several state legislatures successfully introduce and pass anti- Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) legislation. Reaching beyond state law, several United States congressmen, in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, have introduced federal anti-BDS legislation. Specifically, on November 14, 2016 U.S. Representatives Peter J. Roskam and Juan Vargas introduced the Protecting Israel Against Economic Discrimination Act.

U.S. Representative Peter J. Roskam (R-IL)

U.S. Representative Peter J. Roskam (R-IL)

 The Protecting Israel Against Economic Discrimination Act seeks to amend the Export Administration Act of 1979 to include the prohibition of boycotts, “fostered by international governmental organizations against Israel[.]” The Export Administration Act prohibits U.S. companies from participating in boycotts against Israel called for by foreign states. Under the proposed legislation, this prohibition would also apply to boycotts called for by international governmental organizations (IGOs). The proposed legislation explains that Congress has found that IGOs, including the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), have “long targeted Israel with systematic, politically motivated, assaults on its legitimacy designed to stigmatize and isolate Israel internationally.”

On March 24, 2016, through an adopted resolution, the UNHRC demanded a commercial boycott and divestment of companies that conduct business with Israeli entities. The resolution also calls for the creation of a database (or blacklist) of such businesses.

U.S. Representative Juan Vargas (D-CA)

U.S. Representative Juan Vargas (D-CA)

Representatives Roskam and Vargus recognized that Congress has been combating anti-Israel boycotts with legislation since 1979. The Protecting Israel Against Economic Discrimination Act would formally acknowledge that, “Congress opposes the United Nations Human Right Council resolution of March 24, 2016, which urges countries to pressure their own companies to divest from, or break contracts with, Israel.”

In addition to opposing the UNHRC’s 2016 resolution, the Act requires, “the Export-Import Bank to consider BDS activity when evaluating potential applicants. U.S. taxpayer-backed financing should not be available to those who choose to conduct economic warfare against Israel.”

The Protecting Israel Against Economic Discrimination Act strengthens the anti-BDS movement by prohibiting IGO’s from creating and implementing boycotts against Israel.

Tuesday, November 15, 2016 ushered in two significant failures of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement.

The first blow came from an overwhelming defeat of a divestment resolution at the University of Michigan, which we blogged about earlier this week. This was the fifth failed divestment resolution in the past eleven years at Michigan.

The second defeat emerged from the Graduate Students’ Union (GSU) at the University of Toronto. The GSU’s General Counsel voted against converting the “BDS Ad Hoc Committee” into a permanent organization committee, with another wide margin of 34 against, 17 in favor, and 11 abstentions. uoft

The “BDS Ad Hoc Committee” was initially created in 2013, specifically to carry out the goals of a divestment resolution, which called on the U of Toronto to “divest from companies benefiting from violations of international law and human rights abuses in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.” This 2012 resolution passed; however, the process by which it passed was deemed to be “unfair and procedurally irregular” by several Jewish students. The procedural irregularities included the fact that graduate students were given no advance notice of the motion and were therefore unable to be adequately represented at the annual meeting.

This week’s successful effort to deny permanent status to this “BDS Ad Hoc Committee” was spearheaded by several students who worked to educate their peers on the problematic existence of the ad hoc committee and what the committee actually stood for.

By defeating this motion, graduate students at the University of Toronto are making strides in changing the attitude of their peers, who are no longer willing to support motions and committees which advocate for discrimination against Jewish and Israeli individuals.