Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

BDS Tag

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 22, 2014 13 Comments
I haven't paid much attention to Richard Silverstein.  I did once describe him as an "apologist for anti-Israel extremism," in my post Most pathological #BostonMarathon Tweet. Nothing I've seen since leads me to think that description was wrong.  Others are less charitable, and he is a frequent target of mockery from pro-Israel bloggers, including when he recently accused his local synagogue in San Francisco of outing the date of his child's Bat Mitzvah for some nefarious purpose; turns out Silverstein himself had tweeted out the date. Silverstein insists he is not anti-Zionist. He just appears to act like one. Silverstein sent out a tweet yesterday that is quite astounding in its viciousness. The tweet was directed at Chloé Simone Valdary, a pro-Israel American Christian who is black. You may remember her from this video we featured in the post BDS is just the same old, same old hate:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 20, 2014 11 Comments
To repeat, take the Boycott Divest and Sanction movement seriously, because it reflects an insidious coalition of anti-Israeli leftists and Islamists, which reflects a sophisticated part of the overall war on Israel. But, keep things in perspective. Despite all the heated anti-Israel rhetoric coming from academic extremists, Israel has favorability ratings in the latest Gallup survey have surged in the last year, and remain far beyond favorable views of the Palestinians: Gallup Survey Israel Favorability February 2014 Also don't panic about Israel's economic isolation, as pointed out by Yoram Ettinger (emphasis in original):

1. A record of 5.3 million tourists in Israel in 2013.

2. A record of $83.2BN foreign exchange reserves reflects the strength of Israel's Shekel, at a time when the currencies of the emerging markets plummet.

3. A record of $2.3BN invested in 662 Israeli startups in 2013 (21% above 2012), according to KPMG and IVC (Globes, January 23, 2014).

Posted by David Gerstman on February 14, 2014 5 Comments
Previously we noted that the New York Times has a tendency to play up the successes of the BDS movement and to play down the true nature of the BDS movement. The New York Times has since carried two more articles about BDS; one in the news section and one op-ed. Surprisingly, the opinion article took a critical look at BDS. Unfortunately the news story was consistent with previous New York Times coverage of the issue. In the news section, Jerusalem bureau chief, Jodi Rudoren wrote West Bank Boycott: A Political Act or Prejudice? For the most part Rudoren treats the issue "evenhandedly," giving each side equal time and not judging either side. In the course of the reporting Rudoren interviews BDS activist Omar Barghouti.
“He can say anything he wishes, but immoral? Resistance to his immoral policies can never be immoral,” Mr. Barghouti said of Mr. Netanyahu. “The litmus test is are you boycotting a group of people based on their identity, or are you boycotting something — an act, a company, a business — that you disagree with. “We have three reasons,” Mr. Barghouti said, citing the movement’s goals of ending the occupation; ensuring equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel; and promoting the right of return for Palestinian refugees. “End the three reasons and we won’t boycott.”
Barghouti, who got a degree from Tel Aviv University is a pretty good example of equality of Israel's minorities. That degree also makes Barghouti a hypocrites as his boycott would affect Tel Aviv University too. Rudoren ignores these inconsistencies. She also remains silent about Barghouti's demand for the right of return. Everyone knows that the point of that "right" is the destruction of Israel. In fact, Barghouti's claim confirms that the  the goal of the BDS movement is an assault on Israel's right to exist is correct. Rudoren doesn't appear to grasp this. Oddly, it is columnist Roger Cohen who got things right about BDS. In The B.D.S. Threat, Cohen writes:

Posted by A.F. Branco on February 10, 2014 6 Comments

Note: You may reprint this cartoon provided you link back to this source.  To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here. Branco’s page is Cartoonist A.F.Branco...

Posted by David Gerstman on February 09, 2014 4 Comments
Professor Jacobson made a very good point last week:
The BDS movement presents little real threat to Israel currently, while the European governments do present a potential threat, but it is a diplomatic, not boycott, threat.  Kerry, and the boycott movement, conflate the two.
The problem is that despite the fact that there's no evidence that the BDS movement is gaining mainstream acceptance there are many who pretend that it has. Let's look at the New York Times coverage of some recent BDS activity. Last May the paper reported, Stephen Hawking Joins Boycott Against Israel:
The academic and cultural boycott, organized by international activists to protest Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians, is a heated and contentious issue; having Dr. Hawking join it is likely to help the anti-Israel campaigners significantly.
There are two items of note. The first is that the BDS movement is described in terms of being a "protest" against "Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians." It is not described as a movement to delegitimize Israel. The second is the assertion that Hawking's action "is likely to help the anti-Israel campaigners significantly." This is a judgment, but it is also somewhat quantifiable. Will subsequent reporting use similar standards? The article later noted that the Oxford student union overwhelmingly voted against an academic boycott of Israel. Later that month when Alicia Keys announced that she would defy the anti-Israel activists two months later, the New York Times reported:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 07, 2014 16 Comments
Over 225 University Presidents have issued statements condeming the anti-Israel academic boycott by the American Studies Association as a threat to academic freedom and education, as have several major academic organizations such as the American Association of University Professors and the Association of American Universities. Of the 80 ASA Institutional Members, at least 8 have dropped their membership and at least 11 have denied being Institutional Members in the first place. It is not an exaggeration to say that ASA has become a pariah in the academic community, and the boycott passed by a vote of less than 25% of the membership (because so few participated) has split the organization. There also has been legislative activity with regard to anti-boycott laws that is stalled because even critics of the ASA boycott are concerned with preserving university and individual academic autonomy. Nonetheless, even though stalled, the legislation does reflect a political backlash against the ASA. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper publicly called the academic boycott part of “mutation of the old disease of anti-Semitism” From the earliest days, the ASA has played victim, mistaking harsh criticism of its boycott as an infringement of its academic freedom.  ASA's incoming President, NYU Prof. Lisa Duggan, also has accused one critic, an author at Forbes, of homophobia.  Others have accused Israel Lobby money of being behind the backlash. All the while, ASA as an organization has sought to put on a happy face, as if none of this troubles them and all is well. But there are significant signs that the backlash is being felt at ASA. First, the ASA activism caucus issued an urgent request to BDS supporters to join the organization to increase individual memberships. Next, ASA has increaed the activity of its non-profit legal advisers to speak out on the subject, defending ASA's boycott. Today I received an Open Letter to college and universities signed by the leftist National Lawyers Guild and other anti-Israel groups and individuals making inflammatory accusations that the Universities that have spoken out against the ASA boycott are engaged in "McCarthy" like witch hunts and are themselves abusing academic freedom by speaking out.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 06, 2014 2 Comments
While legislation regarding academic boycotts is stalled in the NY State Assembly after widespread protests, a federal bill has been introduced by House Chief Deputy Whip Peter Roskam (R., Ill.) and Rep. Dan Lipinski (D., Ill.). The bill is embedded at the bottom of this post. Roskam was one of the Congressman behind the Letter signed by 134 Members of the House condeming the anti-Israel boycott by the American Studies Association. The new Bill cuts off funding for institutions of higher education "if the Secretary [of Education] determines that such institution is participating in a boycott of Israeli academic institutions or scholars." "Participation" is defined as:
if the institution, any significant part of the institution, or any organization significantly funded by the institution adopts a policy or resolution, issues a statement, or otherwise formally establishes the restriction of discourse, cooperation, exchange, or any other involvement with academic institutions or scholars on the basis of the connection of such institutions or such scholars to the State of Israel.
My first and quick read is that the Bill, as drafted, is unlikely to accomplish the desired effect. It will make martyrs of the academic boycotters, who are in fact the villains, and amounts to a blunt instrument to deal with a narrow problem. There is no university, that I'm aware of, currently even contemplating an academic boycott of Israel. Also, the definition of "participation" is sufficiently broad that it will ignite serious pushback from universities. The ASA, which had been a pariah, now will be defended by people who are against the academic boycott, but even more against such legislation. I think there are ways to deal with the ASA and related academic boycotts. I'm not sure this Bill is one of those ways, as it puts at risk universities, not the ASA. The story was first reported by Adam Kredo at The Washington Free Beacon:
The “Protect Academic Freedom Act,” jointly filed by House Chief Deputy Whip Peter Roskam (R., Ill.) and Rep. Dan Lipinski (D., Ill.) could serve as a deterrent to other groups considering Israeli boycotts. It would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 “to prohibit an institution that participates in a boycott of Israeli academic institutions or scholars from being eligible” to receive federal funds, according to text of the legislation. “Attempts to single out Israel for discriminatory boycotts violates the principle of academic freedom guaranteed by the United States,” the bill states.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 06, 2014 12 Comments
John Kerry has done a great disservice to the peace process by pumping up the anti-Israel boycott movement far beyond its reality, and doing so in a way that was widely and accurately perceived as a bullying threat to Israel.  Such overhyping only serves to entrench those who think Israel can be pressured into giving up key security considerations. At the Munich Security Conference last week, Kerry said :
I believe that – and you see for Israel there’s an increasing de-legitimization campaign that has been building up. People are very sensitive to it. There are talk of boycotts and other kinds of things. Are we all going to be better with all of that? ... ... not to mention that today’s status quo absolutely, to a certainty, I promise you 100 percent, cannot be maintained. It’s not sustainable. It’s illusionary. There’s a momentary prosperity, there’s a momentary peace. Last year, not one Israeli was killed by a Palestinian from the West Bank. This year, unfortunately, there’s been an uptick in some violence. But the fact is the status quo will change if there is failure. So everybody has a stake in trying to find the pathway to success.
The reaction was furious, and in some cases hyperventilated, because this is not the first time Kerry has held a Palestinian protest  sword over Israel's head.  In November, Kerry warned Israel it faced a Third Intifada:
"The alternative to getting back to the talks is the potential of chaos," Kerry said. "Does Israel want a third intifada?"
This all is diplomatic foolishness. Expressing "concerns" in public has a way of creating its own reality that such expressions in private do not.  Abe Foxman of the ADL was correct in this assessment:
In speaking about the price Israel will pay if the peace talks break down and Israel is blamed, you may have thought you were merely describing reality. But as the key player in the process, the impact of your comments was to create a reality of its own. Describing the potential for expanded boycotts of Israel makes it more, not less, likely that the talks will not succeed; makes it more, not less, likely that Israel will be blamed if the talks fail; and more, not less, likely that boycotts will ensue. Your comments, irrespective of your intentions, will inevitably be seen by Palestinians and anti-Israel activists as an incentive not to reach an agreement; as an indicator that if things fall apart, Israel will be blamed; and as legitimizing boycott activity.
David Horovitz, founder of The Times of Israel and someone I've always viewed as a voice of moderation, calls him The petulant Secretary Kerry:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 02, 2014 5 Comments
Anyone who has read this blog the past months knows that I take the international boycott threat against Israel very seriously. It is a venomous movement conceived by propagandists that has had some success in Europe, but few victories in the U.S. Israel has lived all of its existence under boycott. The current boycott movement is a shadow of the Arab League boycott that started even before Israel was a nation and grew with great force as Arab oil wealth grew in the 1970s. Yet somehow Israel's economy survived and prospered nonetheless, helped in great part by U.S. anti-boycott legislation that mostly kept the boycott disease from our shores. The Israeli economy is more diverse, high tech, and privatized than it was in the 1970s. Israel also is less dependent on Europe, and a sought-after participant in the global economy, most of which wants no part of the boycott movement.  The leverage of Europeans who capitulate to anti-Israel groups is much less than in the past. The U.S. Congress also could significantly deflate the boycott movement once again by extending current legislation to cover the new form of boycott movement.  Congress should do so now, and in so doing will aid the peace process by letting the Palestinians know that they cannot achieve more through international boycotts than through negotiations. While it seems invincible because largely unchallenged, the boycott movement is susceptible not only to legislation, but the type of pushback academic boycotters in the U.S. are receiving. The boycott movement, while it should be taken seriously and combatted, should not be allowed to dictate Israel's strategic security needs as part of peace negotiations. Doing business with a few extra European banks will be a hollow achievement if the West Bank is turned into another Gaza-style Iranian missile base. Don't let the boycott tail wag the security dog. Yet John Kerry is playing the boycott card to pressure Israel, running around like chicken little screaming that the sky is falling.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 02, 2014 7 Comments
We have reported about legislation making its way through both the NY State Assembly and Senate seeking to stop state funds being used by state higher educational institutions to support groups that engage in academic boycotts. The bills, though they have different language, are a reaction to the anti-Israel academic boycott passed by the American Studies Association. As I have stated before, I hope the legislature will review the language of the bills very carefully, since there certainly will be challenges. Not surprisingly, claims are being made that the legislation violates the academic freedom of the boycotters. It's the challenge free societies face, that those who seek to destroy what we hold precious get to invoke our laws to protect their destructive actions. So people who seek to destroy the academic freedom of everyone through academic boycotts based on national origin cry that their own academic freedom is violated when good people try to stop the destruction. Already a threat of a constitutional challenge was made in a January 30, 2014 letter to the legislature from the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has a working group devoted to supporting the anti-Israel BDS movement. The letter is embedded at the bottom of this post. The gist of the letter is that this is an unlawful attempt to silence unpopular speech. The letter also misrepresents that the ASA boycott only targets institutions. That is false, as I described in my IRS challenge. ASA adopted the full scope of the BDS boycott, but issued non-binding guidelines that purport to scale it back. Even so, the boycott is directed at Israelis based on national origin, which already is unlawful under the NY State Human Rights law. Jewish Voice for Peace, a group which uses the title "Jewish" to give credibility to its anti-Israeli views, is a big supporter and organizer of the SodaStream boycott. JVP has issued an urgent call to try to stop the NY legislation:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 01, 2014 21 Comments
She stood up to the BDS bullies. She likely will come under increasing attack and boycotts directed at her. She deserves our support. Someone started a Facebook support page called I support Scarlett Johannson against the haters.  It would be good to increase the number of "Likes" and for people to share the page. Brendan O'Neill at The Telegraph has a brilliant take on the situation, Three cheers for Scarlett Johansson's stand against the ugly, illiberal Boycott Israel movement:
Ever since she was signed up as the face of SodaStream, Ms Johansson has had a tsunami of flak from campaigners who think that buying Israeli stuff, working with Israeli academics or attending Israeli theatre performances is the very worst thing a human being could ever do. You know the kind: they stand outside Marks & Spencer’s on Oxford Street warning all whom enter that this evil shop sells blood-stained products (ie, stuff made in Israel), and they screech and wail, these philistines for Palestine, when an Israeli violinist starts playing at the Proms. I mean, can you imagine it – a musician from Israel inside the Royal Albert Hall? *Shudder*. .... And then, brilliantly, totally stealing Oxfam’s puffed-up thunder, Ms Johansson’s people issued a statement saying: “Scarlett Johansson has respectfully decided to end her ambassador role with Oxfam after eight years.” Sassy Actress 1, Self-Important Moaners About Israel 0....

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 31, 2014 7 Comments
A Resolution passed yesterday by the Philadelphia City Council is a good reflection of how deeply the pushback against the American Studies Association academic boycott of Israel has reached in American civil and political society.  (Full Resolution embedded at bottom of post.)
Condemning the American Studies Association’s academic boycott against Israeli academic institutions and urging the Department of Education, the State System of Higher Education and all colleges and universities in Pennsylvania to reject the academic boycott.

* * *

WHEREAS, The academic boycott of Israeli academic institutions, including colleges and universities, serves to restrict academic freedom and hinders the collaboration and free flow of information between academics all over the world; and WHEREAS, Academic freedom, the free flow of information and ideas and international academic collaboration are crucial factors in promoting progress in all areas of study from the hard sciences and technology to the humanities; and .... WHEREAS, Academic freedom is an indispensable component of a free and democratic society and should be guarded vigilantly; and WHEREAS, The American Studies Association’s call for an academic boycott of Israeli academic institutions threatens academic freedom and should therefore be rejected; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, That the City Council condemns the American Studies Association’s academic boycott of Israeli academic institutions and urges the Department of Education, the State System of Higher Education and all colleges and universities in Pennsylvania to reject the academic boycott.
The Philadelphis Resolution was proposed by Councilman Kenyatta Johnson, who made the announcement on his Facebook and Twitter pages. https://www.facebook.com/CouncilmanKenyattaJohnson#!/CouncilmanKenyattaJohnson/posts/574424249299048?stream_ref=10

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 30, 2014 28 Comments
Scarlett Johhansson has been under attack by the anti-Israel Boycott Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement because she became a "Global Brand Ambassador" for SodaStream, the Israeli company that has factories around the world, including one in the "West Bank." See yesterday's post,  SodaStream wins French court case against boycott group, for more about how SodaStream's factory has become a model of cooperation, employing over 500 Palestinians on the same terms and conditions as Israelis, and providing a boost for the moribund and corrupt Palestinian economy. BDS doesn't care. Palestinians literally are starving to death in Syria, yet BDS is obsessed with SodaStream. Even supporters of the anti-Israel group Anonymous saw the absurdity: Anonymous Israel Johansson Yarmouk As readers know, BDS is not about supporting Palestinians, it's about hating Israel's existence. Johansson also has been a global ambassador for Oxfam International.  Oxfam has an image of a neutral, non-political humanitarian organization that only cares about feeding the poor and improving living conditions. That's a false image.  Oxfam is a BDS supporter as to the disputed West Bank, you just didn't know it.  BDS started harassing Oxfam demanding it cut its ties to Johansson.  When Oxfam announced that it was reviewing her role, Johansson beat them to the punch and resigned last night. Johansson didn't just resign, though, she unmasked Oxfam's support for BDS as incompatible with growing peaceful relations between Israelis and Palestinians, as AP reported:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 29, 2014 9 Comments
This is a small win, but a win is a win. We need a lot more such legal challenges to anti-Israel boycott groups, who  are propagandists and have no compunctions about lying and making up accusations in the worst tradition of Pallywood. Whether it's hummus, coffee cafes, or academic scholars, there is nothing Israeli that the deranged Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement will not attack. SodaStream has been under attack for years, with BDS groups trying to keep the product out of stores and commercials off the airwaves. The BDS movement is so obsessed with SodaStream that it even uses a term, Greenwashing, to complain about SodaStream touting the environmental benefits of its product. SodaStream has a compelling story to tell, however, as a bridge for peace, one we have focused on before: SodaStream just won a case against a French BDS group, getting a small amount of damages but also an order that the group stop claiming that it is illegal for stores to sell SodaStream products. As reported by Haaretz:
Accessibility by WAH