Publications : Opinion Pieces  
 

BDS movement suffers legal setbacks globally as nations and states impose restrictions, but legislative provisions split the White House and Congress. University protests continue with prominent antisemitic harassment


Alex Joffe, SPME BDS Monitor

February 29, 2016
 

February saw dramatic setbacks for the BDS movement as legislators and politicians imposed restrictions and voiced unprecedented opposition. At the same time, BDS in universities and elsewhere continued to degenerate into overt antisemitism. These developments demonstrate that the BDS movement is still marginal, unacceptable to the mainstream because of its discriminatory and antisemitic nature, and that political leadership can lead to its delegitimization.

Analysis

In February the global BDS movement was dealt a series of dramatic setbacks. One of the most important was a “Policy Procurement Note” by the British government, which clarified to all authorities in the United Kingdom, including local councils, that “boycotts in public procurement are inappropriate, outside where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the UK Government.” Press accounts misleadingly described the document as either a legislative proposal or government decision rather than a restatement of existing policy. The notice was also opposed by the Labour Party, which claimed the policy was “an unethical attack on local democracy.”

The notice was issued in part to enforce existing World Trade Organization (WTO) rules regarding national and local procurement policies. Several local councils in Britain have or are currently boycotting Israel. Analyses from legal scholars opposed to BDS pointing out WTO issues, and Conservative Party-led realization that BDS is fueling rising antisemitismin Britain, appears to have prompted the notice.

The BDS movement suffered losses on other fronts. In Germany accounts belonging to a BDS umbrella group were shut down. Reports were unclear whether this was due to anti-discrimination or anti-terrorism concerns. It was also unclear whether the closure affected BDS accounts held only in Germany or elsewhere.

Reports indicate that the controversy between the European Union (EU) and Israel over new regulations requiring labeling of products from Israeli communities across the Green Line has been resolved. After the regulations were announced Israel responded by stating publicly that the EU would have no role in future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. This resulted in quiet negotiations and an apparent EU concession that permits individual countries to determine whether to apply the labeling regulations.

The Paris Municipality passed non-binding resolutions condemning BDS, as did the Canadian Parliament by an overwhelming margin. The Canadian resolution also calls on the government to “condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad.”

In the United States President Obama signed the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act but noted that it would not enforce provisions that applied equally to “any territory controlled by Israel,” that is, Israeli communities across the Green Line. The inclusion of “Israeli controlled territories” had been opposed by a variety of groups including J Street and Americans for Peace Now.

A bipartisan group of Senators, however, reacted angrily to the president’s move, accusing the Obama Administration of misrepresenting the bill; “These provisions are not about Israeli settlements…. Rather, consistent with U.S. policy, they are about discouraging politically-motivated commercial actions aimed at delegitimizing Israel and pressuring Israel into unilateral concessions outside the bounds of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.”

Also significant are bills in Congress that would authorize state and local governments to divest from companies boycotting Israel and another that would remove labeling guidelinesfor Israeli products originating in communities across the Green Line. The latter has been criticized for making Israeli goods from both sides of the Green Line indistinguishable and thus effectively supporting the BDS narrative that all of Israel should be boycotted. Others pointed out that critics have effectively conflated opposition to settlements with support for boycotts.

Anti-BDS legislation is also expanding in US states. Alabama and Virginia have adopted non-binding resolutions condemning BDS. Bills prohibiting the state from contracting with or investing in corporate entities that boycott Israel were passed in Florida and Iowa, where opposition was led by the American Friends Service Committee. Legislation is also pending in California, New York, Massachusetts, and elsewhere. Pro-BDS supporters have represented these types of legislation as a ‘blacklist.’

Possibly as a result of being pushed back in the political sphere, the BDS movement is increasing public protests and overt antisemitism. In one notable incident, some 500 posters condemning Israeli “apartheid” were illegally placed on London Underground trains. The action was quickly condemned and the posters were removed.

On campus there were a number of important BDS developments. Among the most important was the passage of a divestment resolution by the University of Illinois-Chicago student government. After considerable effort, the original resolution aimed exclusively at Israel was modified to call for divestment from companies allegedly complicit in human rights violations in the US, Britain, China, and elsewhere. This dilution of the original resolution was ignored by pro-BDS forces, who represented the vote as a victory.

Elsewhere, a BDS resolution was adopted by the student government at McGill University but was not ratified by the larger student body. Afterwards the university administration stated “while we respect the freedom of expression of all members of our community, the administration of the University will have no part of the BDS movement.” Pro-peace students reported harassment by BDS activists during the voting process, both in person and on social media. Another resolution was defeated at Warwick University.

The other important BDS development were revelations regarding antisemitism at the Oxford University Labour Club. The club’s co-chair resigned after their decision to endorse “Israel Apartheid Week.” He complained of

members of the Executive throwing around the term ‘Zio’ (a term for Jews usually confined to websites run by the Ku Klux Klan) with casual abandon, senior members of the club expressing their ‘solidarity’ with Hamas and explitictly defending their tactics of indiscriminately murdering civilians, or a former Co-Chair claiming that ‘most accusations of antisemitism are just the Zionists crying wolf’, a large proportion of both OULC and the student left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews. The decision of the club to endorse a movement with a history of targetting and harassing Jewish students and inviting antisemitic speakers to campuses, despite the concerns of Jewish students, illustrates how uneven and insincere much of the active membership is when it comes to liberation.

These revelations prompted widespread press attention and condemnations,  an official inquiry by the Labour Party, and admissions from party members that an antisemitism problem exists. The party’s reluctance to release its report on the situation also prompted accusations of a cover-up. A perceived Labour Party antisemitism problem was furthered by reports that party leader Jeremy Corbyn’s son manages the York University Palestinian Solidarity Society, which recently performed Caryl Churchill’s antisemitic play “Seven Jewish Children - A Play for Palestine.”

Antisemitism at British universities and its connection with BDS has been brought into sharper focus by recent incidents, such as the attack on former Israeli admiral and Labor Party Knesset member Ami Ayalon at King’s College London. A report by the college on the incident concluded that BDS protestors who “chose to behave inappropriately crossed a line and should be held accountable for doing so.” Whether condemnation of the antisemitic campus environment by British parliamentarians will result in changes is unknown.

Campus antisemitism and protests against calls for peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis also increased in the US. Pro-Palestinian protestors at the University of Chicago disrupted and shut down a talk by Palestinian dissident Bassam Eid. The local Students for Justice in Palestine chapter also protested a talk at Brown University on “Jewish journeys” by actor Michael Douglas and human rights advocate and former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky. BDS protestors also disrupted a pro-Israel talk at the University of South Florida and were removed by police, as well as at Florida International University.

In a novel development at Brooklyn College, BDS protestors invaded a faculty meetingyelling “Zionists off campus” and called one faculty member a “Zionist pig.” The Brooklyn College incident was condemned by the school’s president, who called for an investigation, and by local politicians. Other, including media outlets, have pointed out that the incident was one of series orchestrated against Jewish students by Students for Justice in Palestine chapters.

Reports from Vassar and Oberlin indicate that BDS has intensified antisemitism in the same manner as British universities. At Vassar, an upcoming BDS resolution vote was framed by the appearance of a speaker who accused Israel of stealing organs from murdered Palestinians, as well as a spate of antisemitic harassment on social media. BDS supportersdisputed that the widely criticized talk was antisemitic.

At Oberlin, the growing controversy over a pervasive atmosphere of antisemitism, which culminated in an open letter by over 200 alumni, was recently highlighted by revelations regarding a faculty member who accused Israel of being behind ISIS and 9/11.

One result of the growing antisemitic environment of North American campuses is that donors are reconsidering relationships with universities. Canadian film executive Paul Bronfman, for example, withdrew his support for York University after the school refused to remove a mural in the student center depicting Palestinian violence against Israelis.

In cultural news, reports that Jennifer Lopez will perform in Israel sparked a wave of protests from BDS supporters, as did unconfirmed reports that Bruce Springsteen might perform there. International soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo was also condemned for appearing in an Israeli TV ad. Finally, the inclusion of an all-expense paid trip to Israel as part of the prizes given to Academy Award nominees prompted widespread protests from BDS supporters.

Original Article



 
 
 
 
Students
Faculty
Administrators
If you are concerned about anti-Semitism on your campus, or if you seek advice about best practices, contact us.

Our attorneys and experts are here to help!
 
 
 
Research Articles
and Reports
Over 50% of Jewish American college students report that they experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism on their campuses during the 2013-2014 academic year. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has announced that campus anti-Semitism “is a serious problem which warrants further attention.” Campus anti-Semitism can include subjecting Jewish students to different treatment, harassment, violence or a hostile environment. In some cases, campus anti-Semitism is related to anti-Israel sentiment. In other cases, it is not. For most purposes, we define anti-Semitism according to the U.S. Department of State definition of anti-Semitism. .
 
 
 
Sign Up for The Brandeis Brief
 
 
Advisory Board Spotlight
 

Joel H. Siegal, Esq
Joel H. Siegal is founder of the Law Offices of Joel H. Siegal, where he practices litigation.
read more