The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement is being defeated and in perhaps the most surprising of nations – Spain. A country that topped the Anti-Defamation League’s 2015 anti-Semitism index in Western Europe, and the very place where a Catalan lawmaker demanded the head of Barcelona’s Jewish community be removed from the local government’s parliament for being “a foreign agent,” Spain has long been considered a BDS foothold. That is, until about 15 months ago when Ignacio Wenley Palacios Iglesias came onto the scene. A Jesuit lawyer specializing in nautical law, Mr. Iglesias first became involved by happenstance. Iglesias’s daughter was attending the Rototom Sun-Splash Music Festival, infamous for its initial banning of Jewish American singer/ songwriter Matisyahu in 2015. Matisyahu was asked to denounce Israel before being allowed to take part in the Festival, a demand not extended to any of the other artists performing. Matisyahu adamantly refused. After massive international outcry, Matisyahu did perform, amongst a hostile crowd. This event was given great attention at the time, and raised questions globally about the motives of BDS operatives and their deep entrenchment in the Spanish political system. For Iglesias, it was the catalyst which involved him in the fight against BDS. Speaking to the Brandeis Center, Mr. Iglesias adamantly declared that he believes all boycotts of this nature to be unconstitutional. An expert in the Spanish constitution, Iglesias argues that such boycotts as have been imposed by state houses, city councils and universities around the country contradict the need for public offices to stay neutral and breach the civil liberties of various citizens, Jewish or not. Supported by the The Lawfare Project’s legal fund as well as by ACOM in Spain, Iglesias has been fighting back through the very structures which first allowed this to take place, emphasizing and correcting the contradictions of the BDS through the court. At the time of our interview, Iglesias had spearheaded more than 40 legal rulings, injunctions and opinions against the Boycott Israel movements in Spain. By fast tracking proceedings for the protection of civil liberties, Iglesias and his colleagues have won more than eight cases in which BDS has been declared illegal, three reversed judgements against previous BDS victories, and 11 injunctions against BDS whilst proceedings continue, something Iglesias categorizes as unprecedented. This strategy, using the courts to uphold the law and constitution, has been widely successful across Spain, leading to the reimbursement of $107,000 to the Israeli University of Ariel, which had been boycotted by certain Spanish tertiary level institutions. Iglesias’s strategy has also led to a statement made by Spain’s Ministerio Fiscal (the Attorney General), who declared that the anti-Israel boycott of Gijon violates “the constitution as well as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.” Certainly, the past week saw another of these victories,: the city of Santa Eulalia nullified the pro-BDS position it had taken up only moths before. Iglesias is confident that this common sense approach, which underscores the illegality of BDS, and will and must work across Europe and the globe.
Download PDF Washington, D.C.- The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB) commends the Modern Language Association’s (MLA) Delegate Assembly for voting down a resolution to boycott Israeli academic institutions. LDB had cautioned the MLA against this controversial anti-Israel BDS resolution in December, pointing out that it could subject the association to liability under Maryland law. LDB President Kenneth L. Marcus commented, “We are glad that MLA members listened to our advice that the BDS resolution, apart from its anti-Semitism, would violate the association’s charter. Since we filed our federal anti-BDS lawsuit against the American Studies Association, the word is getting out that tax-exempt corporations need to advance their missions rather than engaging in extraneous anti-Israel political advocacy. We are also grateful for the MLA scholars who have indicated that our work was helpful to them in resisting this anti-Semitic measure.” The MLA’s delegate assembly discussed the legality of the resolution prior to the vote, and this appears to have helped swing opinion against the measure. A leading BDS advocate highlighted the Brandeis Center’s role when he bemoaned that, “Part of the reason the vote was so lopsided might be that the anti-boycott group was aided by the Brandeis Center’s threat of a lawsuit against the MLA if it let the vote go forward . . . .” LDB’s letter informed MLA leaders that the “boycott resolution is clearly unrelated to promotion of the study, criticism, and research of modern languages and literature. Indeed, it does not even purport to be intended to further the field of modern languages.” LDB’s letter further explained the potential illegality of such a resolution, stating: A corporation, including an incorporated non-profit academic association, is only empowered to act in furtherance of its corporate mission. Where a corporation acts outside of its power or capacity, as set forth in the corporate mission, the act is ultra vires and subject to injunction, liability, or both under Maryland Code, Corporations & Associations § 1-403. Marcus added, “If this was intended as a criticism, we are willing to take it. Obviously, it would be better for scholars to reject such anti-Semitic measures without our having to intervene. Nevertheless, it is better for them to do the right thing under threat of litigation than for them to break the law and face the consequences later.” The resolution was ultimately rejected with 79 in favor, and 113 against. Significantly, a counter resolution for the MLA to refrain from endorsing an academic boycott of Israel passed the Delegate Assembly with 101 votes in favor to 93 against. This measure reflects the Brandeis Center’s admonitions about the need to avoid ultra vires activities. This resolution emphasizes that that “endorsing the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel contradicts the MLA’s purpose to promote teaching and research on language and literature.” The resolution will be reviewed by the MLA’s executive council before it is presented to the entire MLA membership for a vote. The MLA’s failed BDS resolution was similar to a 2013 American Studies Association (ASA) resolution to boycott Israeli academic institutions. This past April, LDB, along with prominent litigators at Marcus & Auerbach and Barnes & Thornburg, filed a lawsuit against the ASA on behalf of four distinguished American Studies professors, challenging this unlawful boycott of Israel. The ASA lawsuit has been influential. Since its filing, the American Anthropological Association and the Modern Language Association have both backed down from passing similar resolutions. LDB’s advocacy has been credited in both cases. This vote represents yet another blow to the anti-Semitic Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Marcus commented, “We salute the courageous scholars at MLA and elsewhere who have stood up and fought against these discriminatory and unlawful measures, and we have been pleased to play our part as well.”