It is true that over thirty states have passed laws that prohibit the government from contracting with those who engage in a boycott of Israel (read this terrific breakdown by Jack Elbaum). Boycott isolates three very different cases where plaintiffs objected to a provision often included which means that those taking on any sort of government contract have to preemptively agree not to be part of BDS. Each has its merits, and it’s important to note the reasons behind each case to understand the broad application of this law.

Bahia Amawi is a Palestinian-American speech therapist in Texas who won’t consider signing the pledge. Mikkel Jordahl is a Jewish lawyer in Arizona who was deeply moved by a trip to Israel to advocate for Palestinian rights. The one that truly stands out is Alan Leveritt, a newspaper publisher in Arkansas who doesn’t have any opinion on what’s happening in the Middle East but does not want to have his right to boycott stifled just so that he can take ad money from a state-funded university.

Boycott opens with a Republican state senator in Arkansas alleging his fierce love of the Jewish people and how he was compelled to introduce anti-BDS legislation as a show of that affection. A Democratic colleague of his is interviewed later in the film and mentions that he voted in favor of the bill without understanding that his constituents might object to it, and that he might have voted differently after finding that out. Rabbi Barry Block, who leads one of Arkansas’ nine synagogues, explains his take, which is the most level-headed and relatable perspective in the entire film: he fully supports Israel and is just as much against the idea of prohibiting people from engaging in boycotts.

Footage of speeches at AIPAC, CPAC, Christians United for Israel, and other conferences is included to highlight the extensive work by the “pro-Israel lobby” to elicit support for the campaign against BDS. The nuance that is missing in most of this documentary is that there could be a legitimate reason to not be happy about BDS, and that fighting it may not always be the same as suppressing it. In one clip, there is mention of how anti-Semitism can be embedded within the BDS movement, which singles out Israel as the target of boycott efforts without holding other offenders to account, but it’s glossed over as just another scare tactic that should be summarily dismissed.

There are comparisons made to segregation-era rulings that Black-led boycotts of white businesses were illegal, and the right to boycott is emphasized by highlighting its significance in the end of South African apartheid. A closing note explains that anti-BDS bills have been copied almost verbatim to pass similar legislation in Texas that prohibits boycotts against fossil fuels and firearms. The concept, therefore, is that banning any type of boycott is dangerous because it could be used for other nefarious purposes.

But this documentary does devote a large chunk of time to defending the case for BDS as a cause on its own, which doesn’t feel critical to its point that free speech should be permitted in all forms, regardless of its proven validity. Additionally, the emphasis on how the evangelical community’s support for Israel is often more formidable and vocal than the Jewish community’s is made but not underscored in the way that other documentaries like ’Til Kingdom Come have done, clarifying that Christian support for Israel is often aligned with a belief that Jews will need to accept Jesus or face eternal damnation.

The other question that isn’t quite answered is one that is brought up in a clip of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who made a video declaring that if someone boycotts the State of Israel, “Israel will boycott you.” The right of an institution or government to respond to a boycott is worth discussing, though admittedly requiring people to sign a pledge not to engage in anything is likely to inspire more people to protest it simply for the sake that it is mandated. This film makes its point that boycotts should not be outlawed, but fails to fully investigate certain pieces of its arguments while overemphasizing others.

The post SXSW Documentary Review: ‘Boycott’ appeared first on Jewcy.

Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said that Ben & Jerry’s “has decided to brand itself as the anti-Israel ice cream,” and that the move would have “serious consequences, legal and otherwise.” 

As a part of the pressure campaign, Israel’s ambassador to the US urged states that have passed laws to combat the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement to act on them in order to essentially sanction Ben & Jerry’s. Additionally, Texas threatened to use their anti-BDS law against Ben & Jerry’s — while Arizona and Florida actually did.

Anti-BDS laws have been hotly debated ever since they began to gain traction in state legislatures across the country starting in 2015. And in the aftermath of the Ben & Jerry’s fiasco, they have taken on new importance (despite the fact it is disputable whether or not their actions actually constituted a boycott of Israel).

Anti-BDS laws have been passed in 35 states, meaning the campaign to implement them across the country has been largely successful. On its face, this sounds like an affirmative good for the pro-Israel movement. But, even if you are stridently opposed to BDS as a movement — as I am — there are still significant questions about the prudence of anti-BDS laws. In order to understand why, we first need to understand what they are.

What Are Anti-BDS Laws?

The basic goal of anti-BDS laws is simple: to discourage boycotts of the state of Israel.

In order to effectuate this goal, state governments have passed various laws which preclude certain parties from contracting with the state if they engage in such boycotts. However, not all of the laws are the same. There are two main types.

The first type of anti-BDS law mandates that the government does not contract with — or have investments in — any business that is engaged in a boycott of Israel. As a part of most of these types of laws, the state creates a list of companies that boycott Israel and prohibits the state from contracting with those on the list.

The second type of anti-BDS law requires any person or business signing a governmental contract to certify, in writing, that they do not currently, and will not, boycott Israel for the duration of the contract. For states that pass such a law, it means that a lot of people will have to sign that pledge. Just think of how many public employees there are that sign contracts with the state: school teachers, police officers, firefighters, DMV workers, etc. Under this type of anti-BDS law, each and every one of them is required to affirm in writing that they will not engage in a boycott of Israel.

The Costs

In order to assess whether a law is worthwhile, considering its benefits and drawbacks — and then comparing them — is a helpful place to start. The issue with anti-BDS laws is that while their costs are immense, their benefits are marginal — and possibly even non-existent.

First and foremost, anti-BDS laws draw a great deal of negative attention. While looking into the subject, it is impossible not to notice the vast imbalance in the coverage of them. Articles from non-profits like the ACLU, or Palestine Legal, or news organizations like Middle East Monitor or Al Jazeera often dominated the search results. Even mainstream outlets usually frame anti-BDS laws in a negative light.

This is doubly true when we realize that much of the coverage associated with these laws come from the lawsuits filed by organizations, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the ACLU, in an effort to strike them down. To date, there have been six lawsuits filed in states ranging from Arkansas, to Texas, to Arizona, to Georgia. They have mostly been filed because a public employee — whether it be a school teacher or speech pathologist — did not wish to make a pledge to the state that they would not engage in a personal boycott of Israel. These lawsuits have had varying degrees of success. 

But, whether or not any individual lawsuit is successful is irrelevant to the fact that it generates news coverage centered around the narrative that these laws are a threat to the American peoples’ First Amendment rights. With that narrative comes the covert message that the pro-Israel movement has values antithetical to those of the U.S. Constitution.

The pro-Israel movement should be fighting for the liberal democratic values that both the US and Israel hold dearly — not against them.

It is also important to note that all of this is only taking perceptions of the pro-Israel movement into account — meaning it is a somewhat limited analysis. There are also significant questions about what implications these laws have for principles of freedom of association and speech. Seriously grappling with those questions would make the case for anti-BDS laws even weaker.

The Benefits

On the other hand, if anti-BDS laws were serving a truly important purpose — and doing it effectively — then a certain amount of negative press would be a relatively small price to pay. The issue is that for all of those costs, the benefits are largely non-existent. 

First, in states where the law holds that companies that boycott Israel should be divested from and not have the ability to contract with the state, this has been applied to very few firms. Among the states with publicly available lists of companies that boycott Israel, three-quarters of them list less than 10 companies. Moreover, only one lists more than 20 companies, and zero list more than 40 companies. 

It is important to point out that the number of companies that have actually been divested from is certainly smaller than the number of companies on the list. The reason is simple: the list does not only consist of companies that the state previously had investments in. 

Next, there is no evidence to suggest that these laws have actually discouraged people from either boycotting Israel or holding anti-Israel attitudes more generally. During the most recent flare-up between Israel and Hamas, large anti-Israel protests were held across the country. Polls also show that young people (age 18-34) are dramatically less likely to support Israel than those who are 35+ and that over half of Democrats now want the U.S. to put increased pressure on Israel.

Lastly — and this may be the most important point — BDS poses no actual threat to the Israeli economy. Studies from the Brookings Institute, and even the Israeli Knesset itself, confirm this. 

So, on one hand, anti-BDS laws don’t really do much in terms of positive impact. They are not being used by states very often; they are not leading to less anti-Israel sentiment; they are not protecting the Israeli economy from actual harm. On the other hand, they are attracting a lot of negative attention to the pro-Israel movement while also creating negative perceptions of it.

The conclusion I draw from this is simple: as the Brookings Institute wrote, those who advocate for these laws are “providing more fuel to a fire that is small to begin with.”

Alternative Paths Forward

The real way to discourage boycotts of Israel is not to coerce our opponents but to make a persuasive argument against them. 

Point out that the BDS movement has strong links to terrorists. Point out that the founder of BDS, Omar Barghouti, is not interested in a peace deal where both sides concede some things; rather, he has said that he does “not buy into the two-state solution” and would like to “end Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.” Lastly, simply point out the willingness of Israel to make peace — two states for two peoples — for as long as it has been a country, even while they have had no partner to make it happen.

Additionally, getting involved with various organizations is now easier than ever. Whether it be through established groups such as AJC or AIPAC, or new groups for young Jews such as New Zionist Congress, the opportunities to promote Zionism and fight against BDS are innumerable.

We should continue the good fight against BDS. But we should not get distracted by counterproductive laws.

The post The Zionist Case Against Anti-BDS Laws appeared first on Jewcy.

The street was long and filthy. Along its sides were dusty shops creaking under tall, concrete Bauhaus-inspired buildings that crumbled behind tired-looking groups of men speaking unfamiliar languages. In front of us a young man in the park reached for his friend’s needle to shoot up a dose of heroin. Across the way a police station stood idle, not interfering, as the police had more important issues to deal with than everyday drug use. No, this wasn’t a shanty town in South Africa, the favelas of Rio De Janeiro or American urban slums. Rather, this was Tel Aviv.

I went to Israel this past summer as a member of Greater MetroWest Diller Cohort 9. The Diller Fellowship, based out of San Francisco, is an international program centered around four pillars: Social Action, Israel, Leadership and Jewish Identity. Each city with a Diller grant selects 20 students to engage in the 15-month initiative and is paired with an Israeli city. Over the summer the cohorts meet in Israel with their sister communities as well as with all 26 international cohorts. My group, from Greater MetroWest, New Jersey, had been in Israel for three grueling, yet eye-opening weeks and for our last day we were finally given a chance to relax in Tel Aviv. After getting off our bus, we quickly noticed this was not the modern, cosmopolitan Tel Aviv we had become so accustomed to seeing. Around us the milieu reeked of sewage as we witnessed an African man being beaten by a gang of Israeli men in broad daylight. Hurriedly, we crossed the street and ducked into a side alley where our guide was waiting. Here in South Tel Aviv, this was not an anomaly.

Today this neighborhood is home to many of Israel’s 60,000 African and South Asian migrants and asylum seekers. We learned that these immigrants, African ones especially, traveled thousands of miles, often walking, just for the opportunity to step foot in a free land. They were forced to survive in barren deserts as they trudged toward Jerusalem. When the journey got tough, they were forced to give away most of their meager possessions to Sinai Bedouins in exchange for guidance.

In the Sinai, families were tricked, women raped, and men murdered by manipulative and deceitful guides. If they were lucky enough to survive up to this point, the immigrants would be forced to pay more to be smuggled into Israel or find ways to circumvent the border fence. Immigration has stopped since 2015, however, since Israel’s closing of the Rafah Crossing due to ISIS’s growing presence in the Sinai.

Israel has long been open to immigration, even financing and organizing transports for Jews abroad. Unfortunately for these particular non-Jewish migrants, they arrived at the wrong time in Israeli history. With additional generations of Palestinians claiming refugee status and a right wing government struggling to preserve a Jewish State, non-Jewish immigrants have not been able to obtain asylum status in Israel. With no life to return to and no rights in Israel, the stranded migrants have been clumped into South Tel Aviv, an area known for being Israel’s “wasteland.” The government has not only blocked these immigrants, but has put pressure on them as well, demanding they leave or face detention at Saharonim Detention center in the Negev.

This is a horrible situation that has no easy resolution. The preservation of a strong, secure Jewish State has always been a top priority to the Israeli government, but even so, the country cannot sacrifice human rights to do so. Yet, the Likud leadership is willing to exploit people in life-or-death situations in exchange for the prospect of a purely Jewish state. These immigrants came to Israel because they believed it was a true democracy in the Middle East, a nation where human rights were valued and a destination on the doorstep of Europe where their Christianity would be accepted, even respected. Yet, what they have encountered is severe poverty, racism, and hatred. One 2012 study even found that over half of Israeli Jewish citizens approve of likening African migrants as a “cancer.”

This issue was reported on when it first came to prominence, but has since faded from the public consciousness. The issue, however, has not gone away. It’s too big of a human rights infringement not to address. While it may not have been Israel’s responsibility to accept these migrants, it has now become Israel’s undeniable burden.

Outside of the greater argument that this is a moral obligation, if Israel is concerned with battling BDS on college campuses, they should think pragmatically about the fates of these migrants. Today, pro-BDS groups ground their arguments in civil rights, portraying Israel as a systematically racist and repressive state that resembles apartheid (or worse).

The PR disaster that will ensue if Israel does not help these asylum seekers, who make up a mere 0.5% of the population, will be tremendous. It is perhaps easier to cast blame and deny asylum to Palestinians when their leadership bombards the country with rockets, but when a group’s only crime is their presence, we must ask ourselves how Israel has failed them. Whether we like it or not, the migrants are here to stay and with European nations saturated with refugees and civil war raging around the Middle East, Israel must learn to absorb those at society’s fringes, not only because it is the right thing to do, but because the world is watching.

Today, walking through Lewinsky Park on the outskirts of this migrant metropolis, a close observer will notice the gentrification slowly taking place as young Caucasians live just blocks away from these migrants in order to escape the real estate prices of central Tel Aviv. This poses a new challenge, as modern Israeli society will have two options: coexist or force the migrants out. This issue is by no means a new dilemma; rather it has been culminating for over a decade. In that time no progress has been made and previous Israeli governments have simply practiced a “kick the can” approach. After seeing the situation firsthand, I believe this problem must be resolved immediately.

I also think every Jew who visits Israel has to understand all of Israel through first hand experiences that include the good and the bad. I saw the raw, unscripted version of Israel firsthand. I am both in awe of its beauty and in fear of an impending crisis. I am unafraid and even eager to admit its flaws, because I know eventually it will only make Israel stronger.

Image: Eritrean asylum seekers at Levinsky park Tel Aviv. Via Wikimedia

The post A Different Tour of Israel appeared first on Jewcy.

When actress Scarlett Johansson signed on as spokesperson for the Israeli company SodaStream in January, a P.R. battle of epic proportions erupted. Supporters of BDS pressured her to step down because the company has a factory in the West Bank, and Israel advocates urged her to stay on, citing the company’s favorable standing with its Palestinian employees and commitment to “doing the right thing and helping people.”

The upshot: Johansson stuck by SodaStream and ended her eight-year relationship with the charity Oxfam, which opposes trade from Israeli settlements.

Now the actress has spoken out in support of SodaStream, highlighting their environmental credentials and assiduously steering clear of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

“I’m not an expert on the history of this conflict, and I’ve never professed to be. But it is a company that I believe in, that I think has the ability to make a huge difference, environmentally. [SodaStream’s CEO] Daniel Birnbaum has said many times that this factory is one he inherited, and that he doesn’t want to fire people – the majority of those people being Palestinian.”

Johansson has been quietly but firmly reiterating this stance since the controversy first erupted in January, but this is her most lengthy statement yet. In the lead-up to her appearance in SodaStream’s Super Bowl commercial, she told the Huffington Post that the company was “building a bridge to peace between Israel and Palestine.” And in an interview with Dazed Magazine in February, she alluded to her discomfort with her default position a “role model,” saying she “never wanted to step into those shoes.”

The post Scarlett Johansson Speaks Out About SodaStream Boycott Scandal appeared first on Jewcy.