Costly and desperate measures by anti-BDS lobby

This posting has these three items:
1) i24: US Congress passes anti-BDS legislation, key trade bill;
2) American Conservative: Israel Battles the Boycotts, Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer,now executive director of the Council for the National Interest casts an appraising eye over the fight;
3) IBTimes: Israel boycott sanctions and divestment campaigns stir up US colleges in ‘turning point’ year;

Congressmen believe Defend Israel bills will always have popular support. Above, demonstration for Israel, July 20, 2014, Times Square, New York City. Photo Yana Paskova/ AFP/ Getty Images

US Congress passes anti-BDS legislation, key trade bill

Trade bill makes rejection of boycott campaign against Israel a principal objective in negotiations with EU

By i24 news with AFP
June 25, 2015

After weeks of political wrangling President Barack Obama scored a key victory Wednesday with Congress passing legislation that allows him to swiftly negotiate a Pacific trade accord.

Two amendments in the bill had also opposed the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) campaign against Israel, particularly by European countries.

Obama relied on a majority of Republicans to get the measure, which passed the House of Representatives last week, across the finish line with a vote of 60 to 38 in the Senate.

The so-called trade promotion authority expands Obama’s powers to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade deals and present them to Congress for an up-or-down vote, without lawmakers able to pick apart the accord, under a so-called “fast-track authority”.

Fifteen pro-trade Democrats joined all but five Republicans in supporting the measure.

The anti-BDS provisions require US negotiators to make the rejection of the BDS campaign a principal trade objective in negotiations with the European Union, making the incentive of free trade with the US a leverage against cooperation with the BDS campaign.

It is the first legislation by the US Congress in four decades which pushed back against efforts to boycott Israel.

The Senate is also voting Wednesday on a bill that reinstates a worker aid program known as Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), which helps American workers displaced by globalization, and on trade benefits for developing nations, mainly in Africa.

The TAA measure still requires passage by the House, where its fate is uncertain because several Democrats may choose to oppose a program they support because it is linked to the TPA measure.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell hailed the TPA vote as a “win” for the American middle class.

“Achieving this positive outcome was never going to be easy, but it proves that the power of a good idea, no matter where it comes from, can win out over the stasis of gridlock,” he said.

Sheldon Adelson, left, and Haim Saban flank Israeli-America Council Chairman Shawn Evenhaim at the Israel American Council conference in D.C. (Adelson urged Saban to join him buying the NY Times in order to silence the ‘anti-Israel’ views it sometimes publishes.) Photo by Shahar Azran.

The BDS movement is now drawing official opposition from Tel Aviv and its American allies.

By Philip Giraldi, The American Conservative
June 18, 2015

Back in the 1980s I had a friend who was, like me, a CIA Case Officer. He came from a German-Jewish family that had immigrated to the United States in 1933 and, though non-practicing in religion, he was a devoted reader of Commentary. At that time Commentary was the house organ for what we now would describe as a neoconservative foreign policy, a fringe viewpoint that had not yet captured the Republican Party.

One day my colleague approached me and began to rant and rave about the movie “Gandhi.” He had been reading about the film in Commentary and told me that it was historically inaccurate and little more than a puff piece that had been funded by the Indian government. Lacking any particularly insight into the matter I made agreeable noises and left it at that, but it occurred to me that there was something more to the story.

Today I understand what the problem was. Gandhi forced a seemingly unassailable imperial occupying power to pull up stakes and go home. And he did it through nonviolence. Commentary clearly understood that if the Palestinians were to copy Gandhi it would create possibly insurmountable difficulties for the Israeli occupation, which was even then beginning to build permanent settlements for 100,000 settlers in East Jerusalem, on the West Bank and the Golan Heights, as well as in Gaza. It could also expose Israel’s denial of basic human rights to many of the Palestinians under its control.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and numerous other friends of Israel have essentially declared war on the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS), which one might describe as the Palestinian version of Gandhi, as it is nonviolent and nonconfrontational. BDS essentially seeks to bring about change through exposing the immorality of the status quo and even challenging the legitimacy of the Israeli state, which was founded by dispossessing the Palestinians. BDS was organized in 2005 and has three stated objectives: ending the Israeli occupation, granting Arab Israelis full citizenship rights, and respecting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes. The third demand, the most contentious, is generally conceded to be a bargaining chip, expected to be subsumed into an agreement that would produce two contiguous states, which the BDS organizers explicitly support.

Boycotting Israeli products, divesting from companies that operate there, and calling for sanctions directed against particularly egregious human rights violations are intended to create economic pressure to bring about the type of change that eventually occurred in apartheid South Africa. Netanyahu clearly understands that BDS is the greatest threat that the current Israeli government faces because it actually might be successful, as the world now realizes that Tel Aviv plans a perpetual de facto occupation of all of Palestine coupled with second-class status for anyone who is not Jewish. As a result, even many traditional supporters of Israel regard continuation of the Israel-Palestine status quo as both morally and politically indefensible.

Supporting boycotts or foreign sanctions has now been declared illegal for any citizen of Israel and the government is also taking aim at local human rights groups that it says are providing fodder for foreign critics. Israel was rocked two weeks ago by a near miss over a possible suspension of the country from the international soccer federation FIFA due to its treatment of Palestinian footballers, and fears that similar moves might be taken against its participation in next year’s Olympic Games. Netanyahu understands that international ostracism is a threat far greater than a potentially nuclear-armed Iran and much more significant than the two intifada outbreaks of violence that began in 1987 and 2000. He has stated so explicitly, saying recently that BDS “is an international campaign to blacken [Israel’s] name” and declaring that it “is not connected to our actions; it is connected to our very existence.”

Ayelet Shaked, the Israeli justice minister, has instructed her department to “prepare a plan of legal steps” against BDS to “move from the defense to the offense.” The government has budgeted $26 million to fund the effort. Gilad Erdan, Minister for Public Security Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy, will lead the effort together with Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely. Erdan and Hotovely might well be considered gifts to the Palestinians as both are poster children for Israel’s hardest hardliners, Erdan saying that Arab members of the Israeli parliament will be “cleansed” when the time is right while Hotovely has declared “This land is ours. All of it is ours.”

The Israeli government view is that accepting BDS is analogous to letting Nazis into your house. Yair Lapid, a former Finance Minister, told a New York audience that BDS organizers were “outright antisemites” linked to Arabs who “collaborated with the Nazis” and for a kicker threw in that they were “responsible for 9/11, for terror attacks in Madrid and London, and for the 250,000 people already killed in Syria.”

In the United States a broad array of organizations considered to be part of the Israel lobby have also mobilized, while Israeli-American billionaires Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson, who recently hosted a meeting in Las Vegas to address the problem, are funding the effort with $20 million to raise an activist army called “Campus Maccabees.” Saban noted that “Any company that chooses to boycott business in Israel, we’re going to look at this case, and once we’re done, they’re going to think twice about whether they want to take on Israel or not.” Self-described “America’s Rabbi” Shmuley Boteach was at the meeting as designated point-man, damning BDS as “Hitler’s U-boats” and an “an act of war” that is “driven by a malignant pulse of anti-Semitism.”

The BDS movement in the United States has won some minor victories, to include resolutions supporting boycotts on 15 university campuses as well as divestment by the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches. In Brazil, the government recently canceled a $2 billion contract with an Israeli security firm linked to the upcoming Rio Olympics. In Europe, the movement is much more advanced. The European Union (EU) intends to demand that products originating in Israeli settlements be identified as to place of origin while 16 of 28 EU foreign ministers now support sanctioning such goods. Recently, major French telecom company Orange Chief Executive Stephane Richard recognized the problem in doing business in Israel, stating that he would like to pull out completely. He was forced to travel to Israel to apologize personally to Netanyahu, recanting obsequiously under pressure from Jewish organizations and the French government.

The U.S. Congress recently approved an anti-BDS amendment to the omnibus European trade bill, mandating that nations engaging in anti-Israel boycotts, to include “Israeli controlled territories,” should be penalized in any trade agreement. In early June the South Carolina legislature made it illegal for any public entity to do business with a company or organization that “boycotts others” based on “national origin.” The bill also targeted other kinds of discrimination, but it was really all about Israel, with one State Representative acknowledging “our great ally” before noting that the legislation would counter “economic warfare to forward the purposes of hatred and bigotry … the tactics employed by the Nazis.” Similar bills have also passed in Indiana and Tennessee while Illinois has unanimously approved legislation prohibiting any pension fund investment in companies that boycott either Israel or territories occupied by Israel. There are reportedly 18 other states with similar legislation pending.

New York State considered cutting off funding to colleges that pass resolutions boycotting Israel, a step that GOP Presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz also supports at the federal level, blocking money that would include student loans and research grants. Cruz, who called BDS both a “lie” and “antisemitism,” was picking up his Defender of Israel award from the Champion of Jewish Values International Awards Gala at the time.

The counterattack in the U.S. has also spawned an interesting website called Canary Mission, which “was created to expose individuals and groups that are anti-Freedom, anti-American and anti-Semitic.” In reality it is all about Israel, targeting BDS activists at colleges and naming students involved, as “We believe in the right of employers to know which potentially threatening organizations prospective employees were affiliated with during their time on campus.” In short, if you become too active with BDS, we will attempt to make you unemployable.

Some observers note that attempts to use “Lawfare” and coercion against BDS activists might also actually make the movement go underground and be more difficult to confront. Instead of demonstrating or demanding divestment in public fora, critics will simply avoid having anything to do with Israel or with the business interests of prominent American and European Jews who are heavily engaged in supporting the Israeli government. Entertainers will increasingly avoid performing in Israel and academics will stop going to conferences. At a certain point, even friendly investors will consider the country to be a poor risk due to its politics.

The Nazi theme inevitably surfaces regularly in the attacks on BDS. One editorial describes the movement as “a blatant lie rooted in Goebbels’ school.” Benjamin Weinthal, a research fellow for the neocon Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, notes that neo-Nazi groups support BDS and that the first phase of the Holocaust consisted of boycotting Jewish businesses. He cites an acerbic Israeli Foreign Ministry response to European efforts to label settlement products, “It seems European nations now want to put a yellow patch on Israeli products…” It is a familiar argument: since neo-Nazis support boycotting Israel then anyone supporting a boycott must be considered a neo-Nazi.

One can only expect the fight over BDS to become even more bitter as the two sides dig in. The involvement of both federal and state governments on behalf of Israel is particularly regrettable as there will be pressure on universities to conform, and First Amendment rights could easily be trampled along the way. The argument that efforts to bring about change in Israeli policies equates to anti-Semitism is also dangerous, particularly as it could lead to a questionably broad definition of “hate speech.” Even if Netanyahu is able to win by blocking critics, it will still be a Pyrrhic victory because it will not address the fundamental issue: Israel, by its own actions, has become internationally isolated, reducing the number of countries that are reliably sympathetic to a handful. As Israel’s leading columnist Nahum Barnea, in describing the unsustainability of the status quo, put it laconically, “…as long as we have not occupied the rest of the world, we have a problem.”

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

Israel boycott sanctions and divestment campaigns stir up US colleges in ‘turning point’ year

By Mary Papenfuss, IBTimes
June 11, 2015

Universities across America are being rocked by increasingly pitched battles over student resolutions calling for divestment in companies doing business with Israel. The campaigns have been hit with charges of antisemitism which in turn trigger accusations of free speech intimidation, pitting students — and even faculty — against one another.

A push for divestment by supporters of Palestinian rights is the new darling of a segment of US universities and activists. It’s the same tactic students used to press college administrations to divest in companies active in South Africa during apartheid.

This time, though, there are student factions and and organisations battling fiercely for both sides of the issue.

The campaign against Israel — often referred to as BDS for boycott, divestment and sanctions — has been debated for years on US campuses, beginning in 2002. But divestment resolutions have made notable gains in the last several months, particularly in California, where seven of the ten schools in one of largest public university systems in the US passed such declarations.

A turning point year

“This was a turning point year,” Jewish Vote for Peace spokeswoman Naomi Dann told IBTimes UK. She attributes the West Coast success of the resolutions to activist, progressive California campuses and the disturbingly large Palestinian civilian death toll in last summer’s Israel-Gaza conflict.

It remains to be seen what kind of impact the resolutions will have. They’re only advisory and so far haven’t apparently resulted in any actual divestment by university administrations.

“As far as noise — decibel level — and media interest, it’s grabbed a lot of attention, but it really hasn’t been effective,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. He points out that the issue is being seriously debated in only a fraction of the thousands of US universities, with resolutions winning in only a fraction of those.

generation of college students who will become our teachers, our politicians, our business people. This is a battle for hearts and minds.”

The California momentum has been a “wake up call,” said Max Samarov, senior researcher for the organization Stand With Us, a pro-Israel nonprofit organisatin that fights BDS campaigns. “This is a time to think about strategy.”

US Jewish business and philanthropic leaders met last month in Las Vegas to talk strategy. The meeting was hosted by casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson — a major backer of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — with a key organising push over the last year by Hollywood billionaire and major Democratic contributor Haim Saban.

Saban has reportedly been speaking to Israeli officials about setting up a special task force to deal with American campus calls for divestment.

Canaries on a mission to expose BDS supporters

A newcomer to the anti-divestment battle is the shadowy Canary Mission, an organisation posting online “dossiers” on activists fighting for Israeli divestment. The idea is that employers can check the files and opt not to hire one of the activists. A video on its Facebook page asks for help so that “today’s radicals are not tomorrow’s employees.”

Targeted individuals include a current employee of the American Civil Liberties Union, and a Muslim student member of the UC Board of Regents. Groups, including the Jewish Voice for Peace, are also targeted with dossiers.

The “database was created to expose individuals and groups that are anti-Freedom, anti-American and anti-Semitic in order to protect the public and our democratic values,” states the group’s web site, which asks readers to also donate “profiles.”

The site doesn’t identify who’s behind the operation or who works for the site — only that it’s run by “students and concerned citizens galvanised and motivated by our mission to protect the universal values of freedom and democracy.” Nor does Canary Mission offer “spoken media interviews.”

Anti-Zionist, antisemitic or both?

“It’s annoying to be called anti-American and antisemitic because I’m a Jew who supports Palestinian rights,” said one of the individuals profiled on the site who asked that his name not be used. “They’re trying to intimidate.”

Because we’re Jews we see our role speaking out for justice as particularly important because what Israel is doing is being done in our name.
– Jewish Vote for Peace spokeswoman Naomi Dann

The Times of Israel recently carried a blog by a high school junior, Zachary Kolodny, who decided to “turn myself in” to Canary Mission. “I consider myself a Zionist but I disapprove of the way Zionism has been carried out,” he writes.

“I disapprove of the censorship in our community over Israel. This blacklist of college-aged activists is the pinnacle of this censorship.”

Charges of antisemitism particularly infuriate divestment supporters. They argue that the label is being used to kill debate. A clone Facebook account also called Canary Mission (with the canary upside down in the logo) features an animated drawing of what appears to be a student wearing a headband with the words Palestinian State and a sticker saying “anti-Semitism” slapped across his mouth.

“Because we’re Jews we see our role speaking out for justice as particularly important because what Israel is doing is being done in our name,” said Dann.

While Samarov believes the majority of divestment supporters are motivated by compassion in responding to a “deceptive” campaign for justice, many organisers aim to “eliminate the Jewish state,” which he believes is profoundly antisemitic.

Foxman agrees. He sees criticism of Israel as perfectly acceptable but not to “demonise” the nation with the aim to eliminate it. “That’s when it crosses the line,” he adds.

Even some divestment supporters concede that debate over the issue can sometimes provide “cover” for anti-Semitism. Hate-crime vandalism recently rattled both the Stanford University campus (which voted against a divestment resolution) and UC-Davis (which supported a resolution) amid pitched debates over divestment.

Swastikas were spray-painted on buildings at both schools, including one on a Davis Jewish fraternity. School administrators declared the attack an “affront to us all.”