Anti-BDS laws
Since the Second Intifada in particular, these efforts have primarily been coordinated at an international level by the Palestinian-led BDS movement ("Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions"), which seeks to mount as much economic pressure on Israel as possible until the Israeli government allows an independent Palestinian state to be established.
Generally, such condemnations accuse BDS of closeted antisemitism, charging it with pushing a double standard and lobbying for the de-legitimization of Israeli sovereignty, and are often followed by laws targeting boycotts of Israel.
[6] There has been debate over whether the laws violate the right to free speech and organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) have challenged many of them in court cases.
[12] The spread of anti-BDS laws in U.S. states is largely due to the lobbying of the Israel Allies Foundation (IAF), an Israeli group that encourages formation of pro-Israel caucuses in foreign parliaments.
[27] The Copy, Paste, Legislate investigation into the proliferation of model acts in U.S. state politics revealed that, in addition to IAF, AIPAC, the Israel Action Network, and local Jewish Federations were directly involved in lobbying for anti-BDS laws.
Gilad Erdan of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, wrote an email to Ohio Governor John Kasich after signing his state's anti-BDS bill into law: "I sincerely appreciate your contribution.
It argued that Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc. (FAIR) was the controlling case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could withhold funds from universities for refusing to give military recruiters access to school resources.
Timothy Cuffman cites the Arizona anti-BDS statute which defines a "boycott" as "engaging in a refusal to deal, terminating business activities or performing other actions that are intended to limit commercial relations".
[72] On June 22, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its decision holding that the law was constitutional and did not violate the First Amendment as it was intended to serve "purely commercial purposes".
The Court held that "content based laws ... are presumptively unconstitutional" and that "[v]iewpoint-based regulations impermissibly 'license one side of a debate' and 'create the possibility that the [government] is seeking to handicap the expression of particular ideas'".
[107] The law had the following effects:[108] The bill was criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida who wrote an open letter to Governor Rick Scott, urging him to use his veto.
[24] Deborah Silcox and Michael Wilensky introduced an amendment to the law, HB 1058, in February 2020 to raise the certification exemption from $1,000 to $100,000 in response to documentary filmmaker Abby Martin suing the University of Georgia for cancelling her speaking arrangement after she refused to pledge not to boycott Israel.
[117][118] In January 2020, House Representative Jonathan Carroll[119] introduced the bill HB 4049 which adopts a contested definition of antisemitism equating criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish discrimination.
[146] On January 27, 2014, the New York State Senate, by a vote of 56–4, approved the bill S 6438 that would ban universities and colleges from funding organizations that "have undertaken an official action boycotting certain countries or their higher education institutions".
Klein stated that "we should never ask taxpayers to support religious, ethnic or racial discrimination" and further vowed to "not allow the enemies of Israel or the Jewish people to gain an inch in New York".
[78] The law came under fire in October 2017 from both Democrats and Republicans[citation needed] as Dickinson, Texas required Hurricane Harvey victims who applied for disaster relief funds to promise not to boycott Israel.
[193] During an address to the Knesset, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected criticism over his failure to attend the boycott law vote, and stressed that he had in fact approved the bill.
[207] On September 26, 2009, and May 22, 2010, eleven activists of the Palestine 68 Collective, a group supportive of BDS, participated in demonstrations outside the same supermarket urging customers not to purchase goods imported from Israel.
[209] They wore shirts emblazoned with the words "Long live Palestine, boycott Israel" and handed out flyers saying that "buying Israeli products means legitimizing crimes in Gaza".
[210] In 2011 following a memo issued by French Minister of Justice Michèle Alliot-Marie instructing prosecutors to prosecute citizens calling for boycotts of Israeli products,[211] the activists were charged with inciting discrimination under article 24 (8) of the Press Law of 1881.
[223] On October 17, 2020, the Bavarian Administrative Court ruled in Ried's favor, citing that unless there is an immediate threat towards public peace, the city council cannot use racial discrimination as an excuse to obstruct political expression.
[231] In December 2019, the British Conservative government under Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that it would attempt to pass a law banning local councils from supporting BDS.
[232][233] The subsequent Sunak government introduced the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill in 2023, which did not complete passage before a general election took place the following year.
[235] The Supreme Court's decision allowed Local Government Pension Scheme funds to divest from or boycott companies involved in Israel's illegal settlement programmes and siege of the Gaza Strip.
[240] BDS[vague] slammed the "anti-Palestinian" resolution in a statement, claiming that it "contains outright lies, contradicts Austrian and international law, and undermines the important fight against real anti-Jewish racism".
Matan Peleg, CEO of the Zionist Im Tirtzu, slammed the letter, calling it "hypocrisy and ungratefulness, in which these professors earn their living at the expense of the Israeli taxpayer yet at the same time work to boycott and slander them.
They argued that the law unduly interfered with the right of the German people to engage in political speech, namely to express support for BDS, and that criticising the Israeli government was not antisemitic.
Co-sponsors of the resolution were Democrats Richard Boykin, John Fritchey, Larry Suffredin, Luis Arroyo Jr., Robert Steele, Deborah Sims, Stanley Moore and Joan Patricia Murphy and Republicans Timothy Schneider, Gregg Goslin and Sean M.
It also claimed the Movement's agenda was "antithetical and deeply damaging to the cause of peace, justice, equality, democracy, and human rights" and "promoting a climate of hatred, intimidation, intolerance and violence against Jews".
[263] The National Lawyers Guild and a number of other American organizations involved in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict signed an open letter to Indiana Governor Mike Pence asking him to repudiate the resolution.
