Ho ho ho--kikes intend to OUT-LAW any boycott against Israel

Apollonian

Guest Columnist
Pro-Israel Activists Aim To Block Boycott Movement With Legislation

AIPAC seeks to slow BDS.
posted on Sept. 9, 2014, at 4:17 p.m.

Rosie Gray
BuzzFeed Staff

Link: http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/p...m-to-block-boycott-movement-with-legi#1fw9gw6

Stefanie Loos / Reuters


The most powerful pro-Israel lobbying organization, AIPAC, is working on drafting legislation that would aim to counter the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel, two sources familiar with the situation told BuzzFeed News.

The legislation, which has not yet been introduced and has been in the process of being drafted for months, would aim to prevent U.S. companies from participating in the campaign without infringing on Americans’ First Amendment rights to political speech. It would also try to make the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership being negotiated between the U.S. and E.U. conditional on whether the E.U. takes action to stop BDS.

“The biggest provisions would be authorizing states and local governments to divest from companies deemed to be participating in BDS; denial of federal contracts to such companies; and threatening the conditioning of the US-EU free trade pact on the EU taking action to stop BDS activities within its jurisdictions,” said a Republican foreign policy adviser familiar with the legislation. The bill, the adviser said, originated with a top aide to Illinois Senator Mark Kirk and has now been “expanded” by AIPAC, which is working with House and Senate offices on the draft.

“This legislation could really change the global dynamic with respect to BDS — in effect, it’s a boycott of those who boycott,” the adviser said. “It applies the successes we learned from Iran sanctions and applies them to those who seek Israel’s political destruction.”

The BDS movement, which officially began with a call to action issued by Palestinian civil society leaders in 2004, is modeled on the global economic pressure against South Africa in the 1980s. Its proponents call for a coordinated campaign of boycotts, divestment from Israeli businesses, and sanctions until the occupation of the Palestinian territories ends. The campaign has started to attract the attention of Israeli officials, who have issued dire warnings about it.

Reps. Peter Roskam and Dan Lipinski introduced an anti-BDS bill in February that would bar U.S. universities that receive federal funding from joining boycotts of academic institutions — a measure that would be difficult to square with the First Amendment. The bill never went anywhere.

The legislation drafted by AIPAC could also run into thorny constitutional issues, though the foreign policy adviser familiar with the bill referenced Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.

“We have the precedent already of the Iran sanctions and other extraterritorial sanctions (e.g. Sudan divestment) where Congress authorized states to divest from foreign companies based on defined activities; or where Congress denied federal contracts to foreign companies based on defined activities,” the adviser said. “The Constitutional issue arises when states act on their own without Congressional authorization, thereby interfering with international commerce and foreign policy. On top of that, you have the precedents from the 1970s vis a vis the Arab League Boycott laws — and those targeted US persons, not foreign ones as is the case here.”

A spokesman for AIPAC didn’t immediately return a request for comment.
 
Students at two universities just voted to divest from Israel

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Columbia University have both passed historic resolutions calling for divestment from Israel.

By Michael Arria - September 30, 2020

Link: https://mondoweiss.net/2020/09/students-at-two-universities-just-voted-to-divest-from-israel/

(Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine Facebook page)

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) and Columbia University have both passed historic resolutions calling for divestment from Israel.

Last week, the Illinois Student Government passed a resolution calling for the school to divest from transnational companies that contribute to the American and Israeli military, prisons, police forces, or ICE. The resolution was first brought to the student government in February, but was originally vetoed.

“On Sep 23, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign student gov voted 22-11-7 to pass a BDS resolution titled “Human Rights Violations in University Investments + Police Forces” to divest from companies that fund the American/Israeli military, prisons, police forces + ICE. pic.twitter.com/eLGQZnLTsC
— PYM (@palyouthmvmt) September 29, 2020

“This victory means a lot to me, both as a Palestinian and as a UIUC student. There is rampant anti-Palestinian racism among students and faculty, which is emboldened and protected by the university administration,” UIUC student and resolution co-author Buthaina Hattab told Mondoweiss. “To me, this victory reinforced Palestine as central and critical to any struggle that seeks to maintain and uphold free speech and human rights.”

Hattab also drew a connection between the resolution and the current Black Lives Matter movement gripping the nation. “At the time of the resolution hearing, there was an emergency protest for Breonna Taylor at the Champaign Police Department (CPD),” she said. “Many of our allies were at the protest and actually living with the reality of injustice as we tried to pass this resolution. Passing a resolution calling for the divestment of police and military companies could not come at a more critical time in our struggle. I hope that people will realize the urgency and immediacy of divestment as police and military forces in US cities, at the Mexico-US border, and in Palestine continue to harm us.”

The student body at Columbia University passed a referendum that had been developed by Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), a group that was formed in 2016. The referendum asked, “Should Columbia University divest its stocks, funds, and endowment from companies that profit from or engage in the State of Israel’s acts towards Palestinians, that according to Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), fall under the United Nations International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid?”

Columbia University President Lee Bollinger immediately distanced himself from the vote and made it clear that he does not agree with the move. In a statement, Bollinger said that “altering our endowment in order to advance the interests of one side is not among the paths we will take.”

“These campus BDS victories are indicative of the rapidly changing tide we’re seeing across the United States,” the BDS Movement’s North America coordinator Olivia Katbi Smith told Mondoweiss. “Despite the escalating campaigns of repression on campuses and in the halls of government, it is becoming impossible to be ‘progressive except Palestine’, because it is becoming impossible to silence our movement. The Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality so clearly intersects with all other struggles of oppressed peoples everywhere.”
 
Columbia students voted overwhelmingly to divest from Israel, and president responds dismissively — Rashid Khalidi

By Philip Weiss - October 3, 2020

 Link: https://mondoweiss.net/2020/10/colu...sident-responds-dismissively-rashid-khalidi/

Rashid Khalidi, from the Charlie Rose show, 2006. Screenshot.

Two days ago Columbia College undergraduates voted overwhelmingly to divest from companies that profit from or engage in the State of Israel’s acts towards Palestinians under “apartheid” law. The university’s president Lee Bollinger promptly repudiated the vote saying it was a “complex” issue on which no campus consensus exists.

Speaking to the Arab Center Wednesday, Columbia history professor Rashid Khalidi said the vote, in a city that has the largest Jewish population in the world, was a remarkable sign of change. I called Khalidi, who is the Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies, to elaborate.

Rashid Khalidi: I think we are seeing something really quite remarkable, at least on college campuses. There was a similar vote at Barnard College in 2018 and another recently at University of Illinois [Urbana-Champaign]. Let’s look at the Columbia students’ vote. The final count was:

Yes – 1081 (61.0%)

No – 485 (27.4%)

Abstain – 205 (11.6%)

So that was a resounding majority in a vote that represents– 1771– nearly 40% of the students at Columbia College. This is not some meager turnout. [Enrollment was 4675 in 2019, per Columbia’s own numbers.]

This is the result of extensive mobilization on both sides. Both sides got out everyone they could get out is my sense. There are just not that many undergrads at Columbia who support what Israel is doing to Palestinians, even among people who are Zionist or pro-Israel in some way, especially given the hardline Israeli government.

But universities are not a democracy?

No. But students are an important constituency of the university. Obviously, universities don’t base investment decisions only on what the students want. But Lee Bollinger’s statement reminds me of what Trump said during the first debate, when he refused to say that he would respect the result of a democratic vote on November 3, thereby confirming his contempt for the democratic process. This statement rejecting the overwhelming student vote on divestment at Columbia shows the same contempt for the democratically expressed views of a key component of the university community, undergraduate students.

And I think it shows that there are communities to which he pays more attention. And clearly for a university president whose main job is fundraising, those are donors. Also I recognize that the political environment that he operates in is very largely pro Israel.

Nevertheless, it would be very easy to show some respect for the opinions expressed by over 1000 undergrads after a lengthy campaign in which both sides had ample opportunity to put forward their views, but instead he is just disregarding them. This shows contempt for student opinion in an attempt to pander I think to people for whom the very idea of BDS is an outrage.

What do you mean by political environment?

The New York political environment is still dominated by people like Chuck Schumer. They’re leaving the House but Nita Lowey and Eliot Engel represent the generation of politicians who are still in charge of the Democratic Party here, people like Governor Cuomo. Now you have new politicians coming up who represent the grassroots but is our senatorial contingent changing? No. Is our overall House contingent for New York changing? No. Will the majority of them still vote for anything Israel wants? Yes. So yes Mondaire Jones won, Jamaal Bowman won. But Schumer and Cuomo are still there. As are many others. At the top things haven’t changed. It’s percolating up but it has not yet reached the top.

You said on the Arab Center talk yesterday, New York has the largest Jewish population center in the world, the city where the Biltmore declaration went through in 1942,” when US Jews threw in with hardcore Zionism [the declaration advocated the transformation of Palestine, a country that then had a 65% Arab majority, into a “Jewish commonwealth”]. Are you saying that we may be seeing a counter shift in the Jewish community?

Columbia has a high percentage of Jewish students. [Hillel International lists Columbia at 15th among private universities; and another Jewish website says its numbers approach 30 percent]. The point is that this happening at Barnard and Columbia College signifies something. This is not just a coalition of Arab students or minority students – JVP [Jewish Voice for Peace] is leading this, together with SJP [Students for Justice in Palestine]- which is enormously important I think. And this is not a tiny minority of Jewish students. This is a sizeable group within that population.

The divide between the students on the one hand and the administration, trustees and donors to the University is similar to the difference between the Democratic Party base and the establishment leadership of the Democratic Party, which is completely unchanged in what I would call their fealty to a set of established tenets: Israel is more important than Palestine. Israelis should have more rights than Palestinians. The U.S. is committed to doing what Israel and AIPAC want in terms of American domestic law, in terms of Israel’s military superiority in the Middle East, in terms of normalizing Israel in the Middle East notwithstanding its treatment of the Palestinians. These are bipartisan views. So the Democratic Party establishment is far to the right of the base, if you believe Shibley Telhami’s polling data he went over yesterday [in Arab Center talk], and every other recent poll, whether by the Pew Research Center or Brookings. So the party leadership is in one place and the base is in another, and that’s true of the Columbia administration on the one hand and our students on the other. You have the Barnard vote two years ago, you now have the Columbia College vote.

If you polled graduate students, you’d probably have an even more pro-divestment outcome. If you were to add professional school students, it would perhaps be a slightly different outcome. The law school, the business school—you’d have students who are probably more against divestment. If you add social work and teachers college and journalism and SIPA, you’d probably have more support for divestment. The university community is very varied, but the older more powerful people tend to be more conservative, anti-BDS, while younger people are much less conservative and more open minded. Just as older, richer more established Democrats are more conservative on Israel.

You likened Bollinger’s statement to Trump comments about the election, not accepting the results. Elaborate.

OK. President Bollinger said,

““The Columbia College student body has voted to recommend that the University should divest from companies profiting from or otherwise supporting Israeli policy toward the Palestinian people.

“At Columbia, questions about possible divestment of endowment funds are not decided by referendum…. —

“I made clear earlier this year that I do not support the referendum. To do so would contradict a long-held understanding that the University should not change its investment policies on the basis of particular views about a complex policy issue, especially when there is no consensus across the University community about that issue.”

Now you can look at the university’s divestment from thermal coal companies [2017] and other moves related to climate change and you can see that’s not true, opinion does have an effect on how they invest. But admittedly in that case there is consensus. All good thinking liberals think that climate change is bad and coal companies are bad. Would we have consensus on divestment if they asked all students and all faculty? I do not know. But I bet they would not dare to ask.

Bollinger went on:

““Furthermore, in my view, as I have expressed many times over the years, it is unfair and inaccurate to single out this specific dispute for this purpose when there are so many other, comparably deeply entrenched conflicts around the world.”

Now what conflicts around the world do major corporations have major investments in? None. How many countries around the world, besides Israel, get $4 billion in US aid? None. You could go on and on in blowing that old talking point that he got from his advisors out of the water.

““And, finally, I have also raised concerns about how this debate over BDS has adversely affected the campus climate for many undergraduate students in our community.”

So some pro Israel students have complained that their feelings are hurt to hear Israel criticized. That’s just illegitimate. I’m sure there are other students whose feelings are being hurt by hearing their political positions challenged. We’re not a kindergarten, where the “campus climate” is interpreted to mean, “my feelings are hurt.” If there’s racist, or overtly harmful language, or threats of violence, if people’s ethnicities or religions are being impugned, that’s a legitimate argument about campus climate. Here we’re talking about political debate about a foreign country of which the United States is virtually the only global supporter, and whose practices are supported by major corporations, in which the university is invested.

I don’t think you can say that what Russia is doing in the Ukraine has corporations supporting it that the university can divest from. Or what is happening in Myanmar. I could cite eight or nine conflicts. I would be all for divesting from arms corporations that sell weapons to Saudi Arabia or the UAE, whose American-made planes are destroying Yemen. It ain’t going to happen. But I’d be in favor of it. U.S. corporations are deeply invested there, and the pro divestment people say they are opposed to those autocratic regimes as well.

““Of course, I remain an unflinching proponent of robust debate over contested issues such as the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.”

What is the call for divestment but a demand for a robust debate? Everyone knows that the University is not going to do it, but this referendum has opened up an uncomfortable debate that the other side wants to shut down. Of course we all want to be comfortable, but challenging comfortable, unexamined beliefs is part of what universities are supposed to be about. If people want to stay in their little cocoons, why should they waste all that money on tuition? Let them save their money and stay comfortably at home without anyone around to challenge their fixed ideas.

““Such discussions and debates are part of the essential purpose of the University, and we should all welcome the critical thinking that so often emerges and leads to improvements in our world. But altering our endowment in order to advance the interests of one side is not among the paths we will take.”

Just three paragraphs. Read them and weep! Bollinger is essentially taking sides, reproducing the talking points of the losers of this election. Singling out this dispute – “why are you focusing on poor little Israel?” That’s the oldest talking point in the book. Similarly this stuff about the “campus climate.”

What’s the analogy to Trump saying I will ignore the election results.

The analogy is to say that these things are not decided by referendum, and you have to have consensus across the university community. If those things are true—if the university does take into account opinion, as it should, why are only donors and trustees stakeholders? Why aren’t students stakeholders? Why aren’t the faculty consulted on this? The president doesn’t want to consult the faculty because he might lose. He might not. There are some faculty up at the medical school and over at the business and law schools, who are virulently opposed to BDS. But I don’t think he’s interested in democratic consultation on this issue.

When the students express themselves this decisively you would think that the president of a university largely dependent on student tuition would at least make a gesture of respect for their democratically expressed opinion. Instead, the president has shown contempt for the democratic process. I’m not suggesting that students should decide investment policy. I’m suggesting there should be respect for their opinions and this was disrespectful of the opinions of the overwhelming majority of the students of Columbia College. So yes the trustees are important, yes the donors are important, yes the political environment is important, yes you can’t have investment decisions made by one vote, but why not see what the whole university community thinks? In any case, a little respect wouldn’t be a bad thing.
 
I suspect kikes will just hire assassins to kill the leadership, bribe others, and it will all blow over

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


In a first, British trade unions commit to challenging Israeli ‘apartheid’

A British Trade Union Congress motion urging members "to join the international campaign to stop annexation and end apartheid” could encourage unions worldwide to play a major role in the international Palestine solidarity movement as they did against Apartheid in South Africa.

By Bernard Regan - October 7, 2020

Link: https://mondoweiss.net/2020/10/in-a...ions-commit-to-challenging-israeli-apartheid/

Delegates at the TUC Congress 2018 show their support for a motion condemning Israel’s passing of the nation state law.

On September 15th, the Annual Congress of the Trade Union Congress (TUC) representing nearly 6 million members in the UK adopted a motion which reaffirmed its solidarity with the struggle of the Palestinian people for the right to self-determination, condemning the occupation and expansionist policies of the Israeli government.

The resolution expressed outright opposition to the annexationist ambitions of the Netanyahu government, backed by the United States Administration and called for an end to British government complicity. Demanding a cessation of the blockade of Gaza and support for “the right of Palestinian refugees to return”, it committed the TUC to “communicate its position to all other national trade union centres in the International and European Trade Union Confederations and urge them to join the international campaign to stop annexation and end apartheid”.

What is distinct about the resolution is that, in calling for an end to “apartheid”, it identifies the Israeli state’s practices towards the Palestinian people as institutionally discriminatory, thereby challenging the normalisation of relations currently adopted for example by the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain and promoted by the White House.

Internationalism has a long tradition in the British trade union movement. In the 1860s, mill workers in the Manchester area refused to work with slave labour produced cotton imported from the southern states of the USA, despite the hardships their families suffered as a consequence. Volunteers, many from the trade union movement, fought in the Spanish Civil War against the fascists. In the 1960s, trade unionists were amongst the first to respond to the African National Congress call for a boycott of South Africa. It is this tradition that is echoed in the solidarity being expressed for the Palestinian people.

When acted on, the TUC decision could make a significant contribution to the building of the international solidarity movement and encouraging unions worldwide to play a major role in the campaign as they did in the campaign against Apartheid in South Africa.

The TUC commitment was the product of work by supporters of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and trade unionists over many decades. Trade unions were recognised as important because of their potential to win millions of people to the campaign for justice for the Palestinians. Additionally, the unions are significant because some are affiliated to the Labour Party and they can therefore make a vital contribution to ensuring that the voice of the Palestinians and their supporters is not silenced by pro-Netanyahu apologists within the Party itself.

Over more than three decades, this work has resulted in a change from Palestine being the concern of a small minority into a cause with overwhelming support in the unions. Whilst breakthroughs took place in a small number of unions in the early 1990s, the support of the majority of unions was cemented by the adoption of a motion in 2006 which set the political agenda for subsequent years.

The motion, moved by the Fire Brigades Union expressed support for:
•the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination;
•the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland;
•the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all occupied territories; and
•the removal of the illegally constructed ‘apartheid wall’.

From the outset the TUC encouraged all its trade unions to affiliate to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), and since that date there have been innumerable meetings of union branches which have heard Palestinian speakers and returning British delegations discussing the situation of the Palestinian people. Hundreds, if not thousands, of trade unionists have visited historic Palestine, meeting workers, communities and campaigners to make themselves better informed on the issues resulting from the brutal actions of the Israeli state and its military. These trips have included meeting with a wide range of Palestinian activists and visiting many refugee camps, cultural centres, schools, universities, those facing house demolitions, child prisoners, members of Bedouin communities and Palestinian activists inside Israel.

This weighty cohort bringing their own first-hand knowledge of the situation have become effective advocates of the Palestinian cause and mobilisers for actions initiated by PSC. Whenever possible they have sought to develop this political solidarity into practical actions of human support.

The trade unions have been centrally involved in campaigning against all forms of racism including against Islamophobia and supporting the mobilisations around Black Lives Matter. At the same time those who support the Palestinians understand that there is no contradiction between militant opposition to antisemitism whilst maintaining a position of intransigent support for the rights of the oppressed Palestinians.

The challenge now is to continue to develop this work, to call on the Labour Party to endorse this campaign and to demand that British governments end their complicity with the Israeli government’s oppression of the Palestinian people and reject the intervention by President Trump or any future US administration to thwart the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.
 
Mike Pompeo says groups who support for boycotting Israel will be banned from getting federal cash as he makes history by visiting West Bank Jewish settlement

04:15 - News

Link: http://www.stationgossip.com/2020/11/mike-pompeo-says-groups-who-support-for.html

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday became the first top American diplomat to visit an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank as the State Department announced that products from the settlements can be labeled 'Made in Israel' in a major policy shift.

The two moves reflected the Trump administration's acceptance of Israeli settlements, which the Palestinians and most of the international community view as a violation of international law and a major obstacle to peace.

Pompeo also announced that the U.S. would brand the international Palestinian-led boycott movement against Israel as 'anti-Semitic' and bar any groups that participate in it from receiving government funding. It was not immediately clear which groups would be affected by the move.

In a whirl-wind day, Pompeo was driven to Qasr el-Yahud, an Israeli-controlled area on the banks of the Jordan River that is known as the traditional scene of Jesus's baptism.

He also flew to the long-disputed Golan Heights, along Israel's frontier with Syria. Israel captured the territory from Syria in the 1967 Middle East war. Most of the world sees those Jewish settlements as a violation of international law. But President Trump recognized Israel's authority over the area in March 2017.

[Read the rest at site link, above]
 
Pompeo: State Department to Designate BDS Movement as ‘Anti-Semitic’

Pompeo calls BDS a 'cancer' during visit with Netanyahu in Jerusalem

Dave DeCamp/ Posted on November 19, 2020/

Link: https://news.antiwar.com/2020/11/19...nt-to-designate-bds-movement-as-anti-semitic/

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced on Thursday during his visit to Israel that the State Department will designate the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement as “anti-Semitic.” BDS is an international campaign that calls on people to pressure Israel over its human rights violations through various boycotts.

“Today I want to make one announcement with respect to a decision by the State Department that we will regard the global anti-Israel BDS campaign as anti-Semitic,” Pompeo said while meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem. “Look, we want to stand with all other nations that recognize the BDS movement for the cancer that it is, and we’re committed to combating it.”

It’s not clear what the label from the State Department would mean, but Pompeo said the US will “identify organizations” that engage in BDS and “withdraw US government support for such groups.” The comments suggest organizations that boycott Israel could lose government funding.

Thirty-two US states currently have anti-BDS laws on the books that deny state funds to those who advocate boycotting Israel. The laws require state contractors to sign oaths pledging not to boycott the Jewish state. Such unconstitutional laws were passed due to lavish lobbying campaigns from pro-Israel groups. Israeli officials have also promoted the laws.

“Whoever boycotts us will be boycotted,” Netanyahu said in a tweet in February. “In recent years, we have promoted laws in most US states, which determine that strong action is to be taken against whoever tries to boycott Israel.”

Pompeo also visited a settlement in the West Bank on Thursday, making him the first US secretary of state to visit the occupied territory. Pompeo announced that any products made in West Bank settlements can now be labeled “Made in Israel.”
 
Israel lobby urges Biden to ramp up attacks on college activists

Link: https://electronicintifada.net/blog...by-urges-biden-ramp-attacks-college-activists

Nora Barrows-Friedman Lobby Watch 15 January 2021

Demonstrators hold a banner that says Students for Justice in Palestine
Israel lobby groups are counting on the Biden administration to continue advancing their agenda to shield Israel from criticism. (Joe Catron)

Leaders of major Israel advocacy groups in the US are calling on the incoming Biden administration to further suppress Palestinian rights activism on college campuses.

In a letter, sent on 12 January, they make no mention of the events six days prior when anti-Semitic extremists, white nationalists and other Trump supporters attacked the US Capitol Building.

Rather, the heads of the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Federations of North America, the American Jewish Committee and others representing dozens of members of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, praise the current and two former administrations and claim that “some anti-Israel activity is simply a modern form of anti-Semitism” – pointing squarely to Palestine solidarity activism on college campuses.

For their part, some of these same organizational leaders had separately expressed their dismay and horror at the blatant anti-Semites and their ilk who took part in the 6 January attack.

Attempting to shield Israel from criticism, lobby organizations have for years shifted the blame for violent acts of anti-Semitism by white supremacists toward defenders of Palestinian rights instead.

The habitual claim that the Palestine solidarity movement, particularly at universities, is a hotbed of anti-Semitism paved the way for the executive order issued by President Donald Trump in December 2019.

Trump’s order officially adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) so-called definition of anti-Semitism, which conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish bigotry.

The Conference of Presidents urge the Biden White House to “maintain and build upon” the recognition by the last three Presidents that “anti-Semitism on college campuses is a serious problem.”

But the claim that rampant anti-Jewish bigotry is related to college Palestine solidarity activism bears no proof, according to the Anti-Defamation League itself.

Still, Israel lobby groups continue to use these assertions in order to advance their agenda.

The Conference of Presidents offer their help to the incoming administration to implement the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.

Additionally, they claim that the plan to implement the IHRA definition through the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, enjoys “widespread bipartisan support” in Congress.

Though that legislation has been stalled since 2018 amid free speech concerns, the former head of the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, Israel lobbyist Kenneth Marcus, unilaterally and extra-legally adopted the IHRA as policy in order to charge Palestine rights activists with ethnic discrimination against Jewish students.

Marcus’ move was a gift to Israel lobby groups that had been pushing the US government to use the definition to shield Israel from criticism on college campuses.

Protecting Israel

On Thursday, the Democratic Majority for Israel, the US Congress’ in-house lobby, echoed the calls for the Biden administration to adopt the IHRA definition.

The 1st Amendment must, & will, remain sacrosanct. But the critics of the @TheIHRA definition are wrong
https://t.co/yYzb70h7PL pic.twitter.com/njyhJPZws9
— Democratic Majority for Israel (@DemMaj4Israel) January 14, 2021

The lawmakers’ group claimed that critics of the IHRA definition “are simply wrong on the facts,” adding that European countries that have already adopted the definition have not become “hotbeds of anti-speech activity.”

Here, DMFI overlooks the recent policies passed in Germany and France – two countries it cites – that have openly infringed on the rights of their citizens to criticize Israel and participate in the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign for Palestinian rights.

Meanwhile, human rights defenders are rejecting this latest attempt by Israel lobby groups to police students’ speech and smear Palestine solidarity activists as anti-Semites.

Jewish Voice for Peace called the Conference of Presidents’ letter “shameful.” The group has also set up an online petition to counter-pressure Biden, urging him to reject the IHRA definition.

One week after white supremacists stormed the US Capitol wearing Camp Auschwitz shirts and waving Nazi paraphernalia, the @Conf_of_Pres is demanding @JoeBiden attack Palestinian activism on campuses. This is shameful. pic.twitter.com/BFGiC8Vrl6
— Jewish Voice for Peace Action (@JvpAction) January 14, 2021

Infuriating. The US Jewish establishment’s first note to @JoeBiden about antisemitism after neo-Nazis & white nationalists attacked the US Capitol focuses on “antisemitism on college campuses,” saying “anti-Israel activity is simply a modern form of antisemitism.”

H/t @J_Insider pic.twitter.com/f0HUkBKipk
— Yonah Lieberman (@YonahLieberman) January 14, 2021

The letter — which praises Trump’s actions to combat antisemitism — was signed by @ADL CEO @JGreenblattADL, @jfederations CEO @eric_fingerhut, and @AJCGlobal CEO @DavidHarrisAJC.

Generations of Jews will look back at the failure of these men to meaningfully fight antisemitism.
— Yonah Lieberman (@YonahLieberman) January 14, 2021

Admonishing the letter, Yonah Lieberman of the progressive Jewish group IfNotNow said: “Generations of Jews will look back at the failure of these men to meaningfully fight anti-Semitism.”
 
The Antichrist can have Pissrael for all I care! Sieg Heil!
 
Georgia Anti-BDS Law Challenged

A lawsuit is challenging Georgia's anti--BDS law after filmmaker Abby Martin was barred from speaking at Georgia Southern's Savannah campus.

Link: https://atlantajewishtimes.timesofisrael.com/georgia-anti-bds-law-challenged/

By Dave Schechter 
February 13, 2020, 5:22 pm 

An invitation for filmmaker Abby Martin to speak at Georgia Southern was withdrawn when she wouldn’t sign a state-mandated pledge to refrain from boycotts of Israel.

Georgia’s law intended to thwart the anti-Israel BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement is being challenged in federal court by a documentary filmmaker whose invitation to speak at Georgia Southern University was withdrawn when she would not pledge to refrain from boycotts against Israel.

When Abby Martin refused to sign the state-mandated pledge, her invitation to be the keynote speaker at the 2020 International Critical Media Literacy Conference at Georgia Southern’s Savannah campus was withdrawn, and the Feb. 28-29 conference subsequently was canceled.

Georgia law requires that anyone signing a contract valued at $1,000 or more with a state agency sign the pledge. Martin was to have been paid a $1,000 honorarium, plus expenses.

The BDS movement seeks to apply economic and political pressure to force Israel to change its policies toward the Palestinians, including construction in the West Bank, often referred to by religious and nationalist Jews as Judea and Samaria.

John Lester said the University System of Georgia is reviewing the matter with the Georgia Attorney General’s office.

The Georgia chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the CAIR Legal Defense Fund, and the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund filed suit Jan. 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta, naming as defendants Steve Wrigley, chancellor of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, and Kyle Marrero, president of Georgia Southern.

“Ms. Martin’s concerns appear to be related to requirements of a state law enacted in 2016. The University System of Georgia is reviewing the matter with the Georgia Attorney General’s office,” according to identical statements sent to the AJT from John Lester, Georgia Southern’s vice president for communications and marketing, and Aaron Diamant, vice chancellor of communications for the University System of Georgia..

Neither Wrigley nor Marrero has issued a response to the suit at this writing.

The suit states that Martin’s invitation to speak “conditioned an invitation to speak at an academic conference on the Plaintiff agreeing in writing to abandon her First Amendment-protected journalism about and political advocacy for the rights of Palestinians,” and alleges violations of the First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Gov. Nathan Deal signed the anti-BDS bill into law in 2016.

The plaintiffs asked the federal court to issue an injunction against enforcement of the Georgia law and for the statute to be declared “unconstitutional and unenforceable statewide,” and they are seeking $1,000 in compensatory damages for Martin.

The media conference, according to its website, “is designed to aid current educational leaders, future teachers, youth, and other concerned citizens in their understanding of mass media and its impact on the events that shape our daily lives. Promoting critical media literacy is essential in excavating social inequalities and fostering participatory democracy during the 21st century.”

A “Memorandum of Agreement” sent to Martin in September 2019 included a requirement that “You certify that you are not currently engaged in, and agree for the duration of this agreement not to engage in, a boycott of Israel.”

According to the suit, “Martin emailed in response: “As I’m sure you know, a lot of my work advocates the boycott of Israel … [and] I cannot sign any form promising to not boycott Israel.”

Martin told a Feb. 11 news conference, “I will not forfeit my constitutional rights by signing this pledge.” She said that much of her work supports the BDS movement and that involves pro-Palestinian organizations.

Martin created the Media Roots website, which describes itself as “a citizen journalism project that reports the news from outside of party lines while providing a collaborative forum for conscious citizens, artists and activists to unite.” She is producer of a documentary film, “Gaza Fights for Freedom.” Martin has worked for RT, a Russian state-owned television network, and for TeleSUR, a Venezuela-based television network.

Edward Ahmed Mitchel is executive director of CAIR Georgia, which is one of the plaintiffs in the federal suit.

At the news conference, Edward Ahmed Mitchell, executive director of CAIR Georgia, said, “That oath applies whether you are a substitute teacher who wants to work for our public school system, whether you are a construction worker who wants to build something for our state, or whether you are a journalist who wants to speak at a state university.

“Imagine if during the civil rights movement, the state of Alabama passed a law saying if you want to work for our state, you cannot participate in the Montgomery bus boycott,” Mitchell said.

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed SB 327 into law on April 26, 2016.

The law amended the Georgia code “to prohibit the state from entering into certain contracts with an individual or company unless such contracts contain a certification that such individual or company does not presently conduct a boycott of Israel and will not conduct such a boycott for the duration of such contract; …”

Similar anti-BDS laws exist in 28 states, either passed by legislatures or enacted by executive order. Challenges to the laws in several states are making their way through the federal courts.
 
Federal Court Rules Georgia's Anti-BDS Law Forcing Americans to Pledge Allegiance to Israel is Unconstitutional

Chris Menahan
InformationLiberation
May. 24, 2021

Link: https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=62256

Federal Court Rules Georgia's Anti-BDS Law Forcing Americans to Pledge Allegiance to Israel is Unconstitutional

OSHA Pulls Guidance Stating Employers May Be Held Liable For 'Adverse Reactions' If They Mandate Vaxx

VICE Interviews American-Israeli Settler Jacob Fauci Of "If I Don't Steal It Someone Else Is Going To" Fame

Canada: Pop-Up Clinic Offers Kids Free Ice Cream To Get Covid Vaccine, No Parental Permission Required

First Man to Get COVID Vaccine Dies of a Stroke

Filmmaker Abby Martin secured a major victory for free speech on Monday after a federal court ruled that her First Amendment rights were violated when she was blocked from speaking at Georgia Southern University in 2016 for refusing to "sign a contractual pledge to not boycott Israel" in compliance with Georgia's anti-Boycott, Divest and Sanctions law.

Proud to announce that we have officially won our lawsuit against the state of Georgia’s anti-BDS law, which has been struck down as a result of our case! https://t.co/EwYqM1i9OY pic.twitter.com/vPDs5QAsiN
— Abby Martin (@AbbyMartin) May 24, 2021

The law is now reportedly unenforceable but has yet to be struck down.

I look forward to the law being formally struck, but very excited that Georgia’s anti-BDS law is now unenforceable due to the judge ruling it unconstitutional.
— Abby Martin (@AbbyMartin) May 24, 2021

"I am thrilled at the judge's decision finding this law unconstitutional as it so clearly violates the free speech rights of myself and so many others in Georgia," Abby Martin said in a statement on Twitter. "My First Amendment rights were restricted on behalf of a foreign government, which flies in the face of the principles of freedom and democracy."

Martin continued: "The government of Israel has pushed state legislatures to enact these laws only because they know that sympathy and support for the population they brutalize, occupy, ethnically cleanse and subject to apartheid, is finally growing in popular consciousness -- they want to hold back the tide of justice by preemptively restricting the right of American citizens to peacefully take a stand against their crimes."

"As the world watches Israeli aggression continue in Jerusalem, the West Bank and against the population it besieges in Gaza, it has never been more urgent to advance the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against the Israeli regime. The striking of this law is a necessary and timely opening to build this urgent task."

From CAIR, "CAIR & PCJF Win ‘Major Victory’ in Federal Lawsuit Against Georgia’s Anti-Israel Boycott Law; Court Rules Anti-BDS Law Violates the First Amendment":

The Georgia chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Georgia), CAIR Legal Defense Fund and the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) today welcomed a "major victory" in their lawsuit against Georgia's Israel boycott law after a federal district court ruled that the State of Georgia's 2016 law punishing boycotts of Israel is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.

In an order released today, Judge Mark Cohen ruled that the University System of Georgia violated journalist and filmmaker Abby Martin's constitutional rights when it cancelled her speaking engagement on a college campus because she refused to sign a state-mandated oath pledging not to engage in boycotts of Israel. Martin is a well-known advocate of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, which the court ruled is protected by the First Amendment.

[NOTE: In 2016, Governor Nathan Deal signed into law SB 327, which requires any person or company that enters into a contract with the State of Georgia worth $1,000 or more to sign a loyalty oath pledging not engage in political boycotts of the Israeli government based on its treatment of Palestinians.]

In his 29-page decision, Judge Cohen identified extensive constitutional problems with Georgia's anti-BDS law. He held that the anti-BDS law "prohibits inherently expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment," which "burdens Martin's right to free speech." Judge Cohen also ruled that the anti-BDS law's requirement that Martin sign an oath to refrain from boycotting Israel is "no different than requiring a person to espouse certain political beliefs or to engage in certain political associations."

The court relied heavily on NAACP v. Claiborne, the Supreme Court's landmark decision protecting the right to boycott.

"This outrageous effort by Georgia politicians to censor free speech rights for a cause they oppose was ruled unconstitutional today," said Partnership for Civil Justice Fund counsel Mara Verheyden-Hilliard. "This ruling comes at a crucial moment, when millions of Americans are questioning the use of U.S.-provided weapons in the onslaught against the Palestinian people and makes clear that the Constitution protects participation in the BDS movement, just as it protected the seminal civil rights and labor organizing boycotts that moved our society forward."

You can read the full ruling here.

The Israeli government has been lobbying for anti-BDS laws in every state in America with huge success over the past several years.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last year bragged about how his government "promoted [anti-BDS] laws in most US states" to punish Americans who refuse to pledge allegiance to Israel.

In 2019, Israel's ambassador to the US, Gilad Erdan, bragged about how "our efforts" to shut down Americans' free speech rights were "producing results."

"When I was charged with leading this fight, BDS leaders operated freely and were largely successful in disguising themselves as human rights organizations... We tore off their masks. We exposed their ties to terror, we exposed their deeprooted antisemitism, we exposed their opposition to peace, and we exposed of course their hypocrisy. They couldn't care less about the real human rights violations, for example in Syria and Iran. All they care about is demonizing and delegitimizing the world's only Jewish and democratic state... Our efforts are producing results. 27 US states now have counter-BDS legislation. Let's give a hand to all the governors and state legislators who supported this law. They deserve it."

[...] "We need to take the fight against BDS to the next level. We must encourage investigations of terror-linked BDS groups and promote legislation that counters all forms of anti-Semitism including of course the anti-Semitic delegitimization of Israel."
Imagine the outrage if the government of Russia was getting laws passed throughout our country to ban Americans from boycotting and criticizing Russia!

These laws should be struck down in every state and everyone who voted for them should be kicked out of office!
 
Manchin, Rubio reintroduce bill allowing states to crack down on BDS movement

Progressive adversary Joe Manchin teams up with Marco Rubio in another attempt to attack the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement.

By Michael Arria - June 21, 2021

 Link: https://mondoweiss.net/2021/06/manc...llowing-states-to-crack-down-on-bds-movement/

Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) have reintroduced legislation that would provide states with more tools to attack the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

The Combating BDS Act of 2021 would effectively allow state and local governments to implement laws targeting firms that boycott Israel. Similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate and House and lawmakers attempted to push this bill after congress returned from the government shutdown in 2019.

“The bipartisan Combating BDS Act is a step towards ensuring individual states have the right to pass laws that prevent business transactions with the anti-Israeli BDS movement,” said Manchin in a statement. “I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join this bipartisan legislation to support individual states and our valued ally, Israel.”

“The boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement is the single most destructive campaign of economic warfare facing the Jewish state of Israel today,” said Rubio. “Amid a rising tide of anti-Semitism, it’s critical that we stand shoulder to shoulder with our closest democratic ally in the Middle East. This bipartisan bill, which previously passed the Senate, would mark an important step toward bringing an end to the BDS movement’s discriminatory efforts.”

Thirty-three state governments have passed laws targeting BDS in recent years. According to Palestine Legal, there were twenty-one legislative measures attacking Palestinian rights advocacy just last year alone. A 2018 article from Foundation for Middle East Peace president Lara Friedman explains how such legislation could easily be expanded beyond Israel and used as a cudgel to crack down on free speech more widely.

“In states that have adopted conservative definitions regarding when life begins or rights of a fetus, minimal tweaks could transform an Israel gag law into one requiring that, as a condition for state contracts, individuals and companies certify they do not support Planned Parenthood,” wrote Friedman. “Other tweaks could produce legislation prohibiting contracts with supporters of movements engaging in civil disobedience — as a possible means of targeting Black Lives Matter or Dakota Pipeline protesters, for example.”

The bill is currently backed by just Manchin and Rubio, but during the 115th Congress (2017-2018) it netted 48 cosponsors. 33 Republicans and 15 Democrats.
 
Ben & Jerry’s Parent Company Remains ‘Fully Committed’ to Israel Despite Drama Over Sales Halt

Link: https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/...tted-to-israel-despite-drama-over-sales-halt/

00:32 GMT 23.07.2021Get short URL
by Gaby Arancibia

Tensions between Ben & Jerry’s and Israel have remained at an all-time high as several Israeli officials have called on American counterparts to punish the Vermont-based firm over the decision to halt sales in the “occupied Palestinian territory.” Although blame has been tossed to parent company Unilever, its CEO has rebuked the claim.

Unilever CEO Alan Jope has proclaimed that the multinational company remains “fully committed” to maintaining its business dealings in Israel, regardless of the decision made by its subsidiary Ben & Jerry’s to halt sales within "occupied Palestinian territory."

Jope acknowledged the ongoing public feud between Ben & Jerry’s and Israel during a Thursday conference call with investors, recalling that when Unilever acquired the ice creamery in 2000, it did so knowing that the company would create an independent board to manage its social mission.

“Obviously it’s a complex and sensitive matter that elicits very strong feelings,” Jope told investors. “If there is one message I want to underscore in this call, it’s that Unilever remains fully committed to our business in Israel.”

Said business dealings include a $41 million razor factory, as well as corporate offices and facilities that employ hundreds of individuals.

“It’s been a longstanding issue for Ben & Jerry’s,” the CEO continued, touching on the company's controversial Monday announcement to halt sales in areas considered to be under Israeli occupation. “We were aware of this decision by the brand and its independent board, but it’s certainly not our intention that every quarter will have one quite as fiery as this one.”

Ben & Jerry’s announced it would be taking steps to end sales in areas it considers contested in the region, as it conflicted with the company’s “values.” The Vermont-based company has been operating across Israel since the late 1980s; however, it recently came under heavy criticism after it remained silent amid the heavy exchanges of fire between Israeli and Palestinian forces in May.

Incidentally, while Jope placed some distance between Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s announcement, reports indicated on Monday that it was in fact Unilever that made the executive decision to push out the statement.

At the time, the independent board that oversees the company’s social mission and Anuradha Mittal, who chairs the board, relayed to the public that the statement was not at all approved by the independent board. “[Unilever] are trying to destroy the soul of the company,” Mittal told NBC News in a statement.

US States Weigh Divesting From Ben & Jerry’s

Amid the overwhelming desire to punish Ben & Jerry’s over the sales halt, multiple Israeli officials have voiced their discontent over the matter and called on American officials to act out against the company.

With tensions high, even Gilead Erdan, who serves as the permanent Israeli ambassador to the UN, took things up a notch and sent out multiple letters to US governors to urge them to tap their state’s legislation against the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement to strike back at Ben & Jerry’s.

Among those states are Florida and Texas, where state officials have either begun talks on how to pull away from Ben & Jerry’s or launch full-out investigations into the sales decision.

Texas State Comptroller Glenn Hegar, who controls billions in assets for the Lone Star State’s public pension funds, announced on Thursday that he ordered a review to determine whether the sales halt violated the state’s anti-BDS law, which passed in 2017. If found guilty, the Lone Star State would be required to implement sanctions against the creamery giant.

Meanwhile in Florida, state CFO Jimmy Patronis, who also oversees the Sunshine State’s public pension funds, told CNBC that his office is in the midst of weighing its options. In fact, officials have already informed Ben & Jerry’s that the company would be barred from renewing or starting any new contracts in the state if it’s determined that it violated anti-BDS legislation.

Sidestepping a direct remark on the Ben & Jerry’s drama, the US State Department spokesperson Ned Price reiterated to reporters on Tuesday that the Land of the Free “firmly” opposes the BDS movement as it “unfairly singles out Israel.”
 
The ‘tsunami’ and Israeli fragility — the takeaway on Ben & Jerry’s decision

By Philip Weiss - July 23, 2021

 Link: https://mondoweiss.net/2021/07/the-...ragility-the-takeaway-on-ben-jerrys-decision/

Orna Barbivai, Israel's minister of the economy, trashes a pint of Ben & Jerry's to denounce its decision to stop selling in occupied territories. Barbivai is in the centrist Yesh Atid Party embraced by liberal Zionists. Screenshot.
Orna Barbivay, Israel’s minister of the economy, trashes a pint of Ben & Jerry’s to denounce its decision to stop selling in occupied territories. Barbivai is in the centrist Yesh Atid Party embraced by liberal Zionists. Screenshot.

There are two important takeaways from the Ben & Jerry’s decision this week to stop selling ice cream in the occupied territories, and the enraged response to it from Israeli leaders and their American Jewish enablers:

1.The long-anticipated “tsunami” of international delegitimization of Israel has begun.

2. The dream of an Israeli F.W. De Klerk– the politician who leads the country away from apartheid — is (so far) a fantasy.

Ten years ago former Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned his country that its failure to grant sovereignty to occupied Palestinians was going to bring a “tsunami” of diplomatic rebukes.

““We face a diplomatic tsunami that the majority of the public is unaware of… Israel’s delegitimization is in sight.”

Israel has of course done nothing to end the occupation since that warning; and the tsunami is finally happening. It began in January with the B’Tselem finding of an apartheid “regime of Jewish supremacy from the river to the sea.” Followed swiftly by the International Criminal Court decision to investigate Israel for possible war crimes, including the war crime of settlements. Followed by the Carnegie Endowment declaring, This is officially a struggle for equal rights in one state.

Then in April, Human Rights Watch issued its “apartheid” determination, and cited just what Barak cited 10 years before: Israel has only taken more territory in the West Bank, and there is no peace process on the horizon, so it has crossed a “threshold.”

All these actors embolden one another, and are helping to mainstream a formerly-radical critique of Israel, and to “delegitimize” the idea of a Jewish state. On Monday a mainline church body labeled Israel an “apartheid” state— the United Church of Christ, with 800,000 members (Steve France reports).

This process is not going to end any time soon. And Israel propelled its delegitimization with yet another attack on occupied Gaza in May, killing scores of children and achieving nothing.

Now what about the hope that these moves would cause pragmatic Israeli leaders to reflect on their society and say, There is no way forward as an occupying Jewish state. We must change.

Quite the opposite has happened. What we’ve seen are brittle, angry, childish, injured tantrums on the part of Israeli leaders that make no distinction between occupied territories and Israel– Ben & Jerry’s is dehumanizing the Jewish people.

This is clearly the consequence of being pampered by the American Jewish community for decades now, insulated from any consequences for war crimes. No, the Israeli leaders are calling on American politicians to punish Unilever, the Ben & Jerry’s parent, for its behavior. And look! The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has started sending out threatening letters to American governors, telling them to divest from Unilever because Ben & Jerry’s is finally taking a stand against illegal settlements.

I find the Israeli reactions highly amusing. They show just how fragile Israeli leaders are and how out of touch with the real world– where actions have consequences, where military occupations bring condemnations, where human rights abuses get called out, however feebly.

It’s amusing in a grotesque way that Israeli leaders feel they can occupy the West Bank forever, and call it Israel, defying world opinion, and believe they should get away with it. And in the process strip the concept of “antisemitism” of any meaning.

Some of that fragility:

Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett called the Ben & Jerry’s action a “clearly anti-Israel step,” and warned Unilever of “serious repercussions, legal and otherwise.” His statement on the matter was sophomoric.

““Ben & Jerry’s has decided to brand itself as the anti-Israel ice cream.”

Israel’s foreign ministry attacked the decision as a surrender to “economic terrorism.” So did Isaac Herzog the new president of Israel:

““The boycott against Israel is a new type of terrorism — economic terrorism. Terrorism that seeks to harm Israeli citizens and the Israeli economy. We must oppose this boycott and terrorism of any kind,” Herzog said…

Then there is Orna Barbivay, minister of the Economy and a member of Yair Lapid’s centrist list, esteemed by liberal Zionists, tossing out a pint of Ben & Jerry’s from her freezer in petulant protest.

The Interior Minister, Ayelet Shaked went to the Ben & Jerry’s factory– whose owner opposes the parent company decision– to protest the “despicable… terrorist antisemitic” act. The Times of Israel:

““Ben & Jerry’s International chose to suck up to terrorist and antisemitic organizations instead of being faithful to its Israeli licensee,” [Shaked] said at the factory…

Shaked said Israel will do everything it can in the “legal, consumer and diplomatic arenas” against the US producer in order to get it to backtrack on its decision.

As Shaked says, Israel is leaning on pro-Israel groups in the US to pressure Unilever to reverse the decision. More brittle hysteria:

“On Tuesday, Gilad Erdan, Israel’s ambassador to the United States and the United Nations, sent letters to the governors of the 35 US states that have enacted legislation against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, requesting that they sanction Ben & Jerry’s over its decision.

“I ask that you consider speaking out against the company’s decision, and taking any other relevant steps, including in relations to your state laws and the commercial dealings between Ben and Jerry’s and your state,” read the letter from Erdan, who said he coordinated the move with Foreign Minister Yair Lapid.

You can only imagine what Israeli leaders would do under a serious attack. P.S. They have nukes.

And as noted, American Jews are going along with this farce. The Conference of Presidents warned Ben & Jerry’s parent about the consequences, including pension funds in 33 states possibly divesting themselves of Unilever in response! Hadassah, B’nai B’rith, the American Jewish Committee and Christians United for Israel are all in on the act.

While the ADL describes the move as antisemitic bigotry, because Palestinian human rights are anathema to that Zionist organization. “You can disagree with policies without feeding into dangerous campaigns that seek to undermine Israel.”

But how are people to disagree with a 54-year-old illegal policy of transferring 700,000 civilians into occupied territory without the use of boycotts?

Liberal Zionists groups are supporting Ben & Jerry’s– even though they are a distinct minority in the Jewish establishment, and even though some of their names are on Conference of Presidents’ letter. Hadar Susskind of Americans for Peace Now called the decision “smart” and “nuanced.” J Street calls the decision “legitimate” and peaceful and says the claim that it is antisemitic “undermines and trivializes the critical fight against the very real increase in antisemitism in the United States.”

The liberal Zionists are also deluded: They like Ben & Jerry’s decision because it makes a distinction between “sovereign and non-sovereign Israel.” That’s a fiction to preserve their faith that Israel is something different from a military occupier. No Israeli leader shares that view. As IfNotNow says: “The Israeli government’s response to the Ben and Jerry’s settlement boycott doesn’t make a distinction between the West Bank and Israel because for decades the Israeli government’s policy hasn’t made a distinction between the West Bank and Israel. It’s de-facto annexed.”

That’s the growing awareness that fueled the Ben & Jerry’s decision. They surely felt they had a lot of cover when human rights groups are talking about apartheid.

And Ben & Jerry’s will get that cover. Israel’s leading newspaper says more are coming. From the Guardian:

“A political source told Haaretz news organisation there were fears that other international companies might follow Ben & Jerry’s lead under pressure from the BDS movement – a Palestinian-led initiative advocating boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israeli institutions and businesses, which many Israelis denounce as antisemitic.

BDS has traction because of the reality, persecution. Though Israelis won’t wake up to this till the American Jewish firewall cracks.
 
How Ben & Jerry's has exposed Israel's anti-BDS strategy

Link: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20210728-how-ben-jerrys-has-exposed-israels-anti-bds-strategy/

July 28, 2021 at 9:24 am | Published in: Article, Asia & Americas, BDS, Europe & Russia, International Organisations, Israel, Italy, Middle East, Opinion, Palestine, UK, US

Dr Ramzy Baroud
July 28, 2021 at 9:24 am

Ben & Jerry's decision to suspend its operations in the occupied Palestinian West Bank is an event that is proving critical to Palestinian efforts, which ultimately aim at holding Israel accountable for its military occupation, apartheid and war crimes.

By responding to the Palestinian call for boycotting apartheid Israel, the ice cream giant has delivered a blow to Israel's attempts at criminalising and, ultimately, ending the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign.

What differentiates Ben & Jerry's decision to abandon the ever-growing market of illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank from previous decisions by other international corporations is the fact that the ice cream company has made it clear that its move was morally motivated. Indeed, Ben & Jerry's did not attempt to mask or delude their decision in any way. "We believe it is inconsistent with our values for Ben & Jerry's ice cream to be sold in the Occupied Palestinian Territory," a statement by the Vermont, US-based company read on 19 July.

Expectedly, the Israeli government was infuriated by the decision, especially as it comes after years of a well-funded, state-sponsored, global campaign to discredit, demonise and altogether outlaw the BDS movement and any similar initiatives that aimed at boycotting Israel.

For years, the Israeli government has viewed the boycott movement as a real, tangible threat. Some Israeli officials went as far as perceiving the 'delegitimisation' resulting from the boycott campaign as the primary threat faced by Israel at the present time. Well attended conferences were held in Las Vegas, Brussels, Jerusalem and elsewhere, hundreds of millions of dollars raised, fiery speeches delivered, while politicians and 'philanthropists' lined up at many occasions, vowing their undying allegiance to Israel and accusing anyone who dare criticise the 'Jewish State' of 'anti-Semitism'.

READ: Why does Israel fear a boycott by an ice cream company?

However, Israel's biggest challenge was, and remains, its near complete reliance on the support of self-serving politicians. True, those 'friends of Israel' can be quite helpful in formulating laws that, for example, falsely equate between criticising Israel and anti-Semitism, or render the act of boycott illegal, and so on. In fact, many US states and European parliaments have bowed down to Israeli pressure to criminalise the BDS movement and its supporters, whether in the realm of business or even at the level of civil society and individuals. All of this is amounting to very little.

Additionally, Israel doubled down on its attempts to control the narrative in mainstream media, in academia and wherever the anti-Israeli occupation debate proved to be consequential. Through a Kafkaesque, and often bizarre logic, Israel and its supporters deliberately misinterpreted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, applying it at every platform where criticism of Israel or its Zionist ideology is found. The reckless Israeli dialectics was, sadly – albeit predictably – embraced by many of Israel's Western benefactors, including the US, Canada and Italy, among others.

Yet, none of this has ended or even slowed down the momentum of the Palestinian boycott movement. This fact should hardly come as a surprise, for boycott movements are fundamentally designed to circumvent governmental control and to place pressure on politicians, state and corporate apparatuses, so that they may heed the calls of civil society. Thus, the more Israel attempts to use its allies to illegalise, delegitimise and suppress dissent, the more it actually fuels it.

The above is the secret of the BDS success and Israel's very Achilles' heel. By ignoring the boycott campaign, the movement grows exponentially; and by fighting it, using traditional means and predictable language, it grows even faster.

In order to appreciate Tel Aviv's unsolvable quandary, just marvel at this odd response, which was offered by top Israeli officials in response to Ben & Jerry's decision. Israeli Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, warned the British company that acquired Ben & Jerry's in 2000, of "severe consequences", threatening that Israel will take "strong action", most likely referring to legal action.

But what was truly strange was the language used by Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, who accused Ben & Jerry's of participating in "a new form of terrorism", namely, "economic terrorism". On 21 July, Herzog vowed to fight "this boycott and terrorism in any form."

Note how the Israeli response to the continued success of the Palestinian boycott movement remains confined in terms of options and language. Yet on the legal front, most attempts at indicting BDS activists have repeatedly failed, as the recent court rulings in Washington demonstrate. On the other hand, the act of accusing an ice cream company of 'terrorism' deserves some serious examination.

READ: Israel's icy reception for Ben and Jerry's

Historically, Israel has situated its anti-Palestinian propaganda war within a handful of redundant terminology, predicated on the claim that Israel is a Jewish and democratic state, the security and very existence of which is constantly being threatened by terrorists and undermined by anti-Semites.

The above mantra may have succeeded in shielding Israel from criticism and tarnishing Israel's victims, the Palestinians. However, it is no longer a guarantor of international sympathy and solidarity. Not only is the Palestinian struggle for freedom gaining global traction, but the pro-Israeli discourse is finally discovering its limitations.

By calling an ice cream company 'terrorist' for simply adhering to international law, Herzog has revealed the growing lack of credibility and absurdity of the official Israeli language.

But this is not the end of Israel's problems. Regardless of whether they are branded successful or unsuccessful, all BDS campaigns are equally beneficial in the sense that each campaign kickstarts a conversation that often goes global, as we have seen repeatedly in the past. Airbnb, G4S, and SodaStream, are but a few of many such examples. Any global debate on Israel's military occupation and apartheid is a BDS success story.

That said, there is one strategy that will surely end the BDS campaign, and that is ending the Israeli occupation, dismantling the racial system of apartheid and giving Palestinians their freedom as enshrined and protected by international law. Alas, this is the only strategy that Israeli officials are yet to consider.
 

Dems In This State Show Their Support For Boycotting Israel

Written By BlabberBuzz | Friday, 20 August 2021 01:15

Link: https://www.blabber.buzz/blab/pop/1...wGP5nbgA3G3p-FOg0pw79UX9zy8Va95xA6k4CtNudco.A

Attacks against Israel have changed from the fringes of the Democratic party to the mainstream with a new move to target the Jewish state.

In 2017, North Carolina Democrat Governor Roy Cooper signed into law legislation that would prevent the state from doing business with companies that boycott the Jewish state of Israel. Now, that law is under threat by a new strain of North Carolina Democrats.

A resolution offered throughout the North Carolina Democrats' Virtual Summer 2021 SEC meeting called for the Democratic caucus at the North Carolina General Assembly to examine ways to abolish the legislation curtailing the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, declaring it "an unconstitutional law infringing on the First Amendment right to free speech."

According to those with knowledge of the events, the decision was passed by a majority vote.

The anti-BDS bill initially passed the state House of Representatives by a vote of 96-19 and the state Senate by 45-3.

Arutz Sheva stressed that as of 2017, "North Carolina businesses conduct nearly $140 million per year in exports and commerce with Israel."

The North Carolina Democrats called the state law "unconstitutional," and its repeal "essential to advocate freely for the restoration of full human rights for the Palestinian people and to end Israel’s practice of apartheid and persecution as the law is inherently anti-Palestinian."

Thirty-three states have passed laws or issued executive orders against the antisemitic BDS movement, which targets the Jewish state. The move by the North Carolina Democrats was highlighted by a recent high-profile boycott attempt by an American company.

Last month, Ben & Jerry’s stated that the US-based ice-cream maker will not recover its license agreement with its current Israeli partner and to boycott the Biblical areas of Judea and Samaria in Israel. Unilever, Ben and Jerry’s parent company and announced in a statement, "We believe it is inconsistent with our values for Ben & Jerry’s ice cream to be sold in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT)."

Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett warned Ben and Jerry’s Unilever CEO Alan Jope that the ice cream maker’s choice to stop sales would have "severe consequences, legal and otherwise."

Israel Foreign Minister Yair Lapid announced, "Over 30 states in the United States have passed anti-BDS legislation in recent years. I plan on asking each of them to enforce these laws against Ben & Jerry’s. They will not treat the State of Israel like this without a response."

According to The Daily Wire, following massive backlash to Unilever’s choice, "Ben & Jerry’s franchisees located in major American cities that operate 30 stores with a total of $23.3 million in revenue annually wrote a letter asking Unilever to rescind the boycott, not for any moral reason, but because they were losing money."
 

‘Harvard Crimson’ editors back BDS as ‘living breathing movement of great promise’ –and Israel lobbyist shrieks​

Link: https://mondoweiss.net/2022/04/harv...of-great-promise-and-israel-lobbyist-shrieks/

Harvard Crimson editors endorse BDS saying it is the best tool to liberate Palestinians from their "violent reality," and the Israel lobby is concerned.
BY PHILIP WEISS APRIL 30, 2022 14

Harvard_Crimson_14_Plympton_Street_Cambridge_Massachusetts-1024x694.jpg
THE HARVARD CRIMSON OFFICES IN CAMBRIDGE, MA.
This is big and beautiful, imho — the Harvard Crimson yesterday came out for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions targeting Israel, calling BDS a “living, breathing movement of such great promise” for “Palestinian liberation.”
The editors said they did so despite the risk of being “shunned” by newsrooms.
Their eloquent editorial is a landmark in the growth of the Palestinian solidarity movement in our country, and the angry response from a leading American Israel lobbyist shows the importance of the moment.
Advertisement
Women walk between the Israeli apartheid wall and Palestinian owned buildings in this advertisement for a documentary video.
It’s a moment because the Harvard college paper is a training ground for ambitious Establishment journalists (I was a top editor there when a future in mainstream media seemed the world to me). If you lose Harvard, some day you will lose the New York Times.
The editors lambaste themselves for getting here late, but the editorial’s language is unapologetic:
Palestinians, in our board’s view, deserve dignity and freedom. We support the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement as a means to achieving that goal… As a board, we are proud to finally to finally lend our support to both Palestinian liberation and BDS — and we call on everyone to do the same.
The editors say the stance is rooted in “foundational principles we must uphold,” even when it’s difficult to do so. Of course they cite the recent apartheid reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and say, “Israel’s current policy pushes Palestinians towards indefinite statelessness, combining ethnonationalist legislation and a continued assault on the sovereignty of the West Bank through illegal settlements.”
I’ve said that those apartheid reports are a fad, and a good fad. We all knew it was apartheid 15 and 20 years ago– only now you’re allowed to say so, because all the experts say so. And the Crimson editorial means that it’s going to be OK to support BDS. That’ll be a fad too– mark my words. And Israel will experience the tsunami of delegitimization its leaders have been warning us about for the last few years.
The Crimson says it rejects its earlier stance of 20 years ago that BDS doesn’t get at the “nuances” of the conflict. Because you can’t “nuance away Palestine’s violent reality.”
We regret and reject that view. It is our categorical imperative to side with and empower the vulnerable and oppressed. We can’t nuance away Palestinian’s violent reality, nor can we let our desire for a perfect, imaginary tool undermine a living, breathing movement of such great promise.
The Crimson is celebratory about BDS’s achievements:
the tactics embodied by BDS have a historical track record; they helped win the liberation of Black South Africans from Apartheid, and have the potential to do the same for Palestinians today.
Crimson editors study the playboard of ambition if they do anything (I can tell you) and they are honest about the career cost of taking the stance:
Even for journalists, openly condemning the state’s policies poses an objective professional risk. Only last year, the Associated Press prompted outcry after firing a news editor over college-age tweets critical of Israel. The controversial decision followed a long-established pattern: Dare question Israel’s policies or endorse Palestinian freedom and you will be shunned from the newsroom, past accomplishments or legitimate arguments be damned. For college students like ourselves, speaking bluntly about events in the region can prompt online harassment or even land you on a blacklist.
They even say that they have the “privilege” of an anonymous byline so their careers won’t suffer. They cite the killings of nearly 50 Palestinians, including 8 children, this year by Israel.
What this immense opposition to student activists and journalists makes clear is the overwhelming power imbalance that defines and constricts the ongoing debate.
The Israel lobby is freaking out, or one of its pillars if flipping out. Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League clearly sees his role as a spokesperson for Israel. I thought his job was antisemitism-watch? Greenblatt says the editorial is antisemitic in effect (as a Harvard president once said).
This @thecrimson editorial endorsing #BDS is beyond disturbing. Contrary to its claims, endorsing BDS does nothing to help Palestinians & only serves to delegitimize Israel’s existence, and isolate & intimidate the Jewish community, especially on campus.
Greenblatt has a thread on the editorial, because it represents a real threat to the establishment/prestige discourse. He and I know that supporting BDS may now become a fad.
The Crimson says it’s not antisemitic!
we feel the need to assert that support for Palestinian liberation is not antisemitic. We unambiguously oppose and condemn antisemitism in every and all forms, including those times when it shows up on the fringes of otherwise worthwhile movements.
But the simple answer is that Jonathan Greenblatt doesn’t care about the eight Palestinian children killed this year. The Crimson does. And so do more and more Americans.
 

The ADL declares war on Palestine solidarity groups​

Link: https://mondoweiss.net/2022/05/the-adl-declares-war-on-palestine-solidarity-groups/

ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt told the group's National Leadership Summit that anti-Zionism is antisemitism, Palestine advocacy groups are "extremists", and equated left critics of Israel with white supremacists.

BY MICHAEL ARRIA MAY 2, 2022 4

ADL CEO & National Director Jonathan Greenblatt addressing the ADL's Virtual National Leadership Summit on May 1 2022
ADL CEO & NATIONAL DIRECTOR JONATHAN GREENBLATT ADDRESSING THE ADL’S VIRTUAL NATIONAL LEADERSHIP SUMMIT ON MAY 1 2022
In a prerecorded speech, shown at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) annual National Leadership Summit on May 1, ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said that anti-Zionism is antisemitism, tagged Palestine advocacy groups as “extremists”, and equated left critics of Israel with white supremacists.

“Anti-Zionism as an ideology is rooted in rage,” said Greenblatt. “It is predicated on one concept: the negation of another people, a concept as alien to the modern discourse as white supremacy. It requires a willful denial of even a superficial history of Judaism and the vast history of the Jewish people. And, when an idea is born out of such shocking intolerance, it leads to, well, shocking acts.”

The ADL’s own website states that anti-Zionism “isn’t always necessarily antisemitic,” but this isn’t the first time that Greenblatt has seemingly contradicted the organization’s official view. “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: anti-Zionism is antisemitism,” the former Obama special assistant told an ADL crowd in November 2021. “Denying the right of Jews — alone among all peoples of the world — to have a homeland is antisemitism. Singling out just the Jewish state for condemnation while ignoring others, is prejudice.”
Advertisement
Women walk between the Israeli apartheid wall and Palestinian owned buildings in this advertisement for a documentary video.

Greenblatt’s latest speech declares that “radical left” groups like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are just as dangerous as the right-wing insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021. “Unlike their right-wing analogs, these organizations might not have armed themselves or engaged in an insurrection designed to topple our government, but these radical actors indisputably and unapologetically regularly denigrate and dehumanize Jews,” he said.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), who have been denounced by pro-Israel groups for embracing the BDS movement, were also a target of Greenblatt, who compared their arguments to those of “1950s Kremlin supporters.”
“The ADL is dangerously conflating all Jewish people with the state of Israel and attacking groups that hold the Israeli government accountable for running an apartheid regime. We’re not backing down.”
Stefanie Fox
Some of the organizations that Greenblatt attacked have already pushed back. “For far too long, the ADL has prioritized promoting the state of Israel over its other work – now they’re saying the quiet part out loud,” JVP Executive Director Stefanie Fox told Mondoweiss in an email. “Instead of dismantling antisemitism by fighting white supremacy, the ADL is dangerously conflating all Jewish people with the state of Israel and attacking groups that hold the Israeli government accountable for running an apartheid regime. We’re not backing down. The anti-Zionist left and the movement in solidarity with Palestinian liberation is growing stronger daily – we won’t stop until we’ve built a future grounded in justice and equality.”

“The ADL’s latest unhinged, hypocritical attack on Jewish, Palestinian and Muslim human rights activists is another sign of its isolation and desperation,” tweeted CAIR. “The #ADL is increasingly desperate to halt growing support for a #FreePalestine among diverse communities in America.”

Another target of Greenblatt’s speech was the Palestinian writer Mohammed El-Kurd, who the ADL recently devoted an entire page of its website to. Last month Georgetown Law School faced pressure, from the ADL, right-wing media, and members of the school’s community, for inviting El-Kurd to speak. The event ended up taking place anyway, but this hasn’t stopped the campaign against the school. In his remarks Greenblatt accused El-Kurd of using a medieval antisemitic trope about Jews consuming the blood of non-Jews. “Georgetown SJP invited Mohammed El-Kurd to its campus, a man who alleged that Jewish Israelis and Zionists eat the organs of Palestinians and claimed that Zionism is inherently linked to ‘blood thirsty and violent’ actions,” he said.

Greenblatt’s assertions are demonstrably false. One of El-Kurd’s poems (which he says he wrote when he was 14 or 15) contains the line, “They harvest organs of the martyred, feed their warriors our own.” The first part of this line is referencing documented cases of Israeli pathologists harvesting the organs of dead Palestinians during the 1990s. When this news initially broke, the Israeli military admitted that such a program had been in place. El-Kurd’s poem contains a footnote with this information.

As for the part about warriors being fed, El-Kurd says that it’s clearly for literary effect. “It’s a metaphor, it’s not something I literally believe, I’m just now realizing that they actually think, or are pretending to think for purposes of exaggeration, that I actually believe Israelis eat Palestinian organs,” he told The Intercept. “At first it was comical, but now it seems very sinister. The line is about the practice of withholding Palestinian bodies and using them as bargaining chips and in the past, exploiting the bodies in ways that have been documented and are widely discussed. It’s not a conspiracy theory.” El-Kurd also points out that the ADL never attempted to reach out to him about the line or engage with him about his views.

“This attack on El-Kurd reeks of a disturbing tendency,” reads an open letter from a Georgetown University Law Center Alumni. “It undermines and subjugates his message—about state-sponsored dispossession of Palestinian residents in East Jerusalem—to concerns about antisemitic slurs and dog whistles. The condemnation of El-Kurd is first, foremost, primary, and elevated above concerns about Israel’s structural violence, which has been recognized as an apartheid regime by B’tselem, Yesh Din, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Harvard International Human Rights Clinic, the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine, and the UN Committee for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, among so many other organizations and scholars. The cause of Palestinian liberation is buried under bad faith interpretations of El-Kurd’s poetry.

A single metaphorical line, subject to interpretation, becomes prioritized over the vile condition of Palestinian unfreedom.”

The reference to the El-Kurd poem isn’t the only part of Greenblatt’s speech that stretches the truth. At one point he refers to a recent BDS campaign launched by Tufts University’s SJP group. “When campus organizations like SJP interrupt speeches, disrupt events and call for an end to any action that normalizes any relationships, or programs associated, with Israel or Israelis – including participating with the local J Street chapter as happened at Tufts University, my own alma mater, last month, that is extremism,” he told viewers. However, the Tufts campaign has nothing to do with boycotting Israelis, or individual people, it’s a call for students to embrace BDS and stop joining pro-Israel groups. “The idea that it’s divisive and this idea that we’re asking people to boycott students is just false,” a Tufts SJP member told Mondoweiss last month. “You can’t boycott a person and clubs are not people.”

In 2020 a coalition of pro-Palestine groups launched a campaign aimed at getting progressive organizations to sever their connections with ADL. The groups penned an open letter, and created a website, detailing the ADL’s long track record of smearing black activists, collaborating with law enforcement, surveilling political enemies, and engaging in Islamophobia. “Even when it may seem that our work is benefiting from access to some resources or participation from the ADL, given the destructive role that it too often plays in undermining struggles for justice, we believe that we cannot collaborate with the ADL without betraying our movements,” reads the letter.

Greenblatt mentioned this campaign in his speech too, claiming that the effort “uses innuendo and untruths to libel our organization.” However, with awareness of Israeli apartheid seemingly increasing and the BDS movement gaining more momentum it seems likely that calls to “Drop the ADL” will only increase in the coming months.
 

‘Harvard Crimson’ gets backlash over endorsing BDS — though this time it feels different​

Link: https://mondoweiss.net/2022/05/harv...sing-bds-though-this-time-it-feels-different/

The Harvard Crimson's endorsement of BDS is facing intense backlash. But this time round the pro-Israel arguments feel familiar, and have lost their bite.
BY PHILIP WEISS MAY 10, 2022 0
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Harvard_Crimson_14_Plympton_Street_Cambridge_Massachusetts-1024x694.jpg
THE HARVARD CRIMSON OFFICES IN CAMBRIDGE, MA.
Last week in a landmark for the nonviolent BDS campaign to boycott Israel, the student newspaper at Harvard endorsed it in an editorial, calling BDS a “living breathing movement of great promise” to “liberate” Palestinians.
Now the Harvard Crimson reports that it is facing “backlash” over its endorsement, including statements from 69 former editors and from 70 Harvard faculty saying the newspaper has endangered Jewish students. The BDS campaign is “quite simply an accelerant of antisemitism,” and endorsing it “is seriously damaging to a newspaper we love,” says a letter from another six former editors, including Linda Greenhouse, a former New York Times correspondent.
I’ll review some of the criticism in a moment, but what strikes me is that the Harvard Narrative seems different this time.
Harvard is of course quite a hilltop to capture in the U.S. discourse; and in the past, pro-Palestine progressives at Harvard have repeatedly been beaten back.
In 2002, Harvard and MIT professors abandoned a proposal to divest-from-Israel’s-military after Harvard President Lawrence Summers said that the move was antisemitic in effect if not intent. As Summers himself wrote, the profs “did not want to go near anything where they could be seen as anti-Semitic.”
Then in 2006, when the famous paper “The Israel Lobby” was published, pro-Israel Harvard faculty succeeded in stripping the Harvard Kennedy School logo from its publication as a “working paper” at the school; and Alan Dershowitz was granted the privilege of publishing a rebuttal.
More recently Cornel West was denied tenure at Harvard, and said it was because his pro-Palestinian views disturbed “donors” and the school’s “elite.” The pro-Israel figure Marty Peretz once invoked that donor power himself, saying that Summers had resigned as president in 2007 over anti-Israel sentiment– and his departure put at risk three $100 million gifts to the school. Yes and Jeffrey Epstein gave a lot of money to Harvard and pushed the Israel cause there…
This time around many of the attacks seem familiar. They’ve lost some of their bite.
Larry Summers and Alan Dershowitz are trotting out arguments they made years before, like the one that Israel enriches the world. The faculty/editors statements attacking the Crimson editorial are absent any consideration of Palestinian conditions that gave rise to the boycott movement, even as they speak of Jewish students feeling alienated on campus.
It’s like watching an old class marching into commencement, their numbers dwindling by the year. And yes, I want to say the pushback won’t succeed.
Consider that just a few weeks ago the Human Rights Clinic at the Harvard Law School teamed up with Addameer, the Palestinian prisoners’ organization, to issue a report condemning Israel for the crime of apartheid. That was also a landmark, and a sign of greater ethnic inclusion at Harvard. (Or the “decentering” of the privileged by the left; I’ll return to this theme at the end of the article.)
Here are some of the criticisms of the editorial. Many call it a threat to Jewish life.
Some 70 Harvard faculty have signed a letter saying they are “saddened,” “disheartened,” and “dismayed” by the editorial. The faculty say the editorial is antisemitic, causing Jewish students to feel alienated.
We are deeply concerned about the long-term impact of this recent staff editorial on the morale and well-being of Jewish and Zionist students at Harvard, some of whom have already reported that they have become alienated from the newspaper on account of the inhospitable culture that prevails there….In seeking to delegitimize Israel through diplomatic, economic, academic, and cultural isolation, and by opposing the very notions of Jewish peoplehood and self-determination, BDS is disrespectful of Jews, the vast majority of whom view an attachment to Israel as central to their faith identity.
Note the claim that the “vast majority” of Jews see “an attachment to Israel” as “central to their faith identity.” Batya Ungar-Sargon put that majority at 95 percent. But if that’s true, why did only 70 faculty sign on to the statement? I suspect that there are a lot of Jewish faculty who are in some agony about what Israel has become these days, and even reject it as an element of their identity.
Sixty-nine current and former editors of the Crimson have signed an open letter decrying the editorial, “in support of Harvard’s Jewish community.”
This letter also has an old-school Zionist tone. Zionism is the “belief in the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in its historic homeland… [the] Jewish iteration of an essential aspiration welcomed and cheered on when expressed by every other people on our planet.” And the BDS movement — and therefore the editorial — “lies about Jewish history.”
But the former editors never mention Israel’s occupation; and while they express solidarity with 850,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries, they don’t reference Palestinian refugees and the Nakba, the period of ethnic cleansing that established Israel.
(Most of the 69 former editors graduated before 2000. All six former editors signing the Greenhouse letter graduated in 1985 or earlier. But here’s a Crimson president from that era celebrating the editorial.)
The American Jewish Committee is alarmed: “Harvard’s Student Newspaper Endorses Antisemitic BDS Movement Signaling the rising tide of anti-Israel sentiments on college campuses…”
The AJC goes on to call the allegation that Israel is an apartheid state a “toxic canard” and says that two human rights groups’ reports saying as much and cited by the Crimson “have been debunked as libelous.”
Can you libel a state? Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have stood by their reports, and many in progressive circles are paying attention. Though yes, the Democratic Party says the reports besmirch Israel.
Alan Dershowitz wrote a letter to the Crimson bewailing the new mood on campus.
“The megaphone of the Crimson will increase the high rate of anti-Semitism on campuses…. It takes no courage on campuses to oppose Israel’s existence.”
Then he cites the cultural superiority of Israel, a theme among Zionists:
No country has contributed more to humanity—medically, agriculturally, scientifically, artistically – than Israel in the less than 75 years of its existence.
In a similar vein, former Crimson president Ira Stoll wrote a letter to the editor, extolling the material advantages of the relationship to Israel. If BDS succeeds, Harvard will be vulnerable to missile attacks!
No Pfizer coronavirus vaccine — Israeli public health data was used to validate its use here in America…
No gas-saving self-driving cars equipped with Israeli Lidar technology.
It would be a less secure Harvard. No chance of using Israeli-proven missile defense technology like the Arrow or Iron Dome to protect Cambridge from missile attacks.
Michael Koplow at Israel Policy Forum is worried by the intellectual trend, the fact that the editorial blesses a statement from the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee that Zionism is “racism, settler colonialism, white supremacy, apartheid.”
This was not opposition to the manifestation of Zionism as it has been carried out by Israel, and not opposition to Israel itself, but opposition to the notion of Jewish nationalism.
Dara Horn, author of a book on antisemitism and an advocate for Israel, has a long article saying that college campuses are now hostile to Jews, and she’s glad her daughter isn’t applying to her own alma mater, Harvard. Bari Weiss posted that article to Substack.
This seems to me an important element of the story: the Jewish presence in prestige institutions is on the wane in the age of diversity. The Crimson reports that the Harvard student body is today 5.2 percent Jewish. That is quite a drop from just a few years ago, when Jews made up 10 percent of Harvard classes. While past data are not precise, other Ivy League schools have experienced drops from about 20 percent Jewish in the early 2000s to roughly 10 percent by 2018, Tablet reports in a piece lamenting the trend.
We have all seen the push on the left to “decenter” the privileged in establishment institutions; and I venture that the era in which Jews made up a large presence of the liberal establishment is coming to an end. Jews are overall a highly privileged group— and oppose BDS by about 4 to 1 (those who know about it, anyway). There used to be three Jewish Supreme Court justices, soon there will be one. When Bari Weiss leads the fight against “wokeness” for the sake of Jews, she is surely trying to maintain a large pro-Israel presence in elite institutions. Those fighting BDS at Harvard seem defensive and demoralized.
h/t James North.
 

AS ANTI-BDS BILLS BECOME THE NORM, ACLU TAKES FREE SPEECH FIGHT TO THE SUPREME COURT

Link: https://www.mintpressnews.com/anti-...takes-free-speech-fight-supreme-court/281277/

LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS — In June, a federal appeals court upheld an Arkansas law barring state contractors from boycotting Israel, sparking concerns over First Amendment rights in the United States.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision made last year by a panel of three judges who found that mandating a pledge to not boycott Israel is unconstitutional.
However, the recent court ruling determined boycotts are not expressive conduct and instead related to commercial activity and therefore the state can regulate such actions.
“It only prohibits economic decisions that discriminate against Israel,” Judge Jonathan Kobes, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, wrote in the court’s opinion. “Because those commercial decisions are invisible to observers unless explained, they are not inherently expressive and do not implicate the First Amendment.”
“By declaring Arkansas’ Anti-BDS Law to be constitutional, the court has tacitly endorsed a Palestine-exception to the First Amendment,” Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) National Litigation Director, Lena Masri, said in a statement.
In 2018, The Arkansas Times sued the state over its Israel boycott law after refusing to sign the pledge. Originally, Arkansas Times publisher Alan Leveritt lost in District Court but won when he appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court. The state then appealed to the full appeals court and was granted a rehearing.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented The Arkansas Times, confirmed it plans to appeal to the Supreme Court. Brian Hauss, the ACLU’s chief litigator on the case, said in a statement that the court’s decision “misreads Supreme Court precedent and departs from this nation’s longstanding traditions.” “It ignores the fact that this country was founded on a boycott of British goods and that boycotts have been a fundamental part of American political discourse ever since,” Hauss said.

Leveritt, who is not participating in a boycott of Israel, told MintPress News that, as a matter of free speech, he wouldn’t sign the pledge.
“No media protected by the First Amendment in this country should take a political position in return for advertising,” Leveritt said. “This is America. The government doesn’t dictate to us what we say and do and think, so that’s why we’re fighting it.”
A clause in the law mandates contractors who do not sign the pledge must then reduce their fees by 20%, which Leveritt said has severely hurt the publication’s finances.

ISRAELI GOVERNMENT INFLUENCING US LAWS​

Bills targeting the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement have spiked in recent years, according to Palestine Legal, an organization protecting the rights of pro-Palestine activists. This legislative development was not just created out of thin air, however. Documents obtained by Israeli journalist Itamar Benzaquen from The Seventh Eye reveal the Israeli government is the brains behind enacting these bills.
As detailed in the documentary, “Boycott”, the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs established the propaganda project, Concert, as a public benefit corporation in order to circumvent U.S. laws on foreign interference. Concert’s primary purpose is to quell growing support for the BDS movement worldwide.

Through Concert, Israel has been able to funnel millions of dollars to organizations that would then lobby for these anti-BDS bills. Christians United for Israel — one of the main advocates for pro-Israel legislation — received $1.3 million from the Israeli government. Other groups include Eagle’s Wings, Hasbara Fellowships, America-Israel Friendship League, and the Israel Allies Foundation.

HOW THE SUPREME COURT MAY RULE​

If the Arkansas case does reach the Supreme Court, opponents of anti-BDS legislation like CAIR are optimistic the recent appeals court decision will be overturned.
“We realized the Supreme Court is not always a friend of civil rights, but the Eighth Circuit is very conservative, far more conservative than the Supreme Court even,” Justin Sadowsky, trial attorney with CAIR, said. “We’re very hopeful that the Supreme Court, which has often been champions of the First Amendment, will take a more nuanced look at it.”
CAIR’s deputy executive director, Edward Ahmed Mitchell, agreed with this sentiment. He noted that most of the Supreme Court justices take an originalist approach when interpreting the law, meaning they consider the original text of the constitution and apply it to modern scenarios.
“If they really look at what the constitution says — the plain meaning of it — and then also the history of it as originalists tend to do, then they have to rule that these laws are an unconstitutional violation of the free speech of the American people,” Mitchell told MintPress News.
Yet Alison Weir, founder and executive director of the independent research institute, If Americans Knew, outlined the Supreme Court’s pro-Israel influences – something that could lead to a less favorable ruling.
Weir explained in a recent article how the Supreme Court has a history of handing down decisions related to Israel that have changed longstanding American traditions.
These included a 1967 ruling which sided with an Israeli citizen and overturned a ban on dual citizenship and a decision in 1998 that handed the Israel lobby’s flagship organization, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a victory over allegations the group violated federal election laws.
These decisions can be attributed to Israel partisans on the court like former Justices Abe Fortas and Stephen Breyer. Today, the court is still packed with Israel loyalists. Kentanji Brown Jackson, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh all have pro-Israel influences hidden in their education and career beginnings. Weir surmised Justice Elena Kagan may also pose a potential problem, given her love for Israel and her admiration for the country’s former Supreme Court president, Aharon Barak.

SETTING A ‘DANGEROUS PRECEDENT’​

Other versions of the boycott law have passed in 33 states since 2016. Several Americans have challenged these laws in recent years — in Texas, Georgia, Arizona, and Kansas — suing their states for violating their First Amendment rights and winning. But Arkansas is an outlier. Leveritt fears that if he loses in the Supreme Court, this could overturn favorable rulings in lower courts as well.
But it is not just Israel boycotts that are under threat. Boycotts, in general, appear to be at risk in the U.S. “In upholding Arkansas’ anti-BDS law, the court refused to confront the reality that these laws are part of an effort to shield Israel from accountability,” Palestine Legal said in a statement. “Given the proliferation of anti-boycott laws targeting other social justice movements, this decision sets a dangerous precedent for anyone interested in seeking social, political, or economic change.”

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which has been instrumental in passing anti-BDS laws across the country, is now targeting financial firms for divesting from the fossil fuel industry.
The group works with corporate lobbyists and Republican state legislators to author legislation. In 2021, ALEC drafted the Energy Discrimination Elimination Act, requiring companies of 10 or more full-time employees to provide written verification it doesn’t boycott fossil fuel businesses before entering into a government contract. So far, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Texas have signed similar legislation into law. Texas has also passed legislation prohibiting contracts with companies that boycott the firearms industry. ALEC is funded primarily by Koch Industries and a host of other energy and utility companies.
Other states are also using the anti-boycott model to target politically-charged industries. Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin all have drafted anti-BDS legislation.
Julia Bacha, director of the documentary “Boycott”, described the rapid trajectory of anti-BDS legislation in the U.S. in a Twitter thread following the Eighth Circuit Court ruling. “When we started production, the risk that the anti-BDS bill would be used as a template was still theoretical. By the time we locked-picture, it was a reality,” she wrote.
But she also cautions Americans to not solely pin the blame on Republicans over anti-BDS bills becoming the norm, writing,
Beware of press coverage that points the finger at Republicans for stripping away our rights without recognizing that Democrats were complicit in opening the pandora’s box when they overwhelmingly supported anti-BDS bills. There’s no First Amendment Exception to Palestine and this is as good [sic] time as any for the Democratic Party to learn this lesson, before irreparable damage to our rights in America is done.”
Thus, if certain pro-Israel and pro-fossil fuel advocates get their way, a fundamental right to protest will be removed from Americans.
 
Back
Top