Focusing on legislation that cracks down on the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, was the focus of one of聽 StandWithUs鈥� 鈥淚srael in Focus鈥� International Conference sessions this past weekend at the Hyatt Regency at Los Angeles International Airport.
Joseph Sabag, executive director of the Israel Allies Foundation, told around 30 attendees that anti-BDS legislation is an important way to defend Israel from 鈥渆conomic terrorism鈥� while upholding free speech.聽 He said while BDS was once the purview of non-government organizations the mantle has now been taken up by student groups including Students for Justice in Palestine and outside organizations including Americans Muslims for Palestine.
鈥淚srael didn鈥檛 just need [the] iron dome [to destroy incoming] rockets, Israel needed an iron dome policy-wise鈥� to protect its economy, he said.
StandWithUS (SWU) Midwest Executive Director Peggy Shapiro, who moderated the session, 聽said that anti-BDS legislation tends to have one or both of the following components: requiring companies to pledge not to boycott Israel when entering into a business contract with state government, and banning companies that boycott Israel from receiving state investment funds. She added 聽it鈥檚 important to ensure that anti-BDS legislation prevents businesses like Airbnb from claiming they鈥檙e not supporting BDS since they still operate in Israel, but rather they鈥檙e just de-listing from Israeli properties in the West Bank.
Stephanie Hausner, deputy director of the Israel Action Network, told attendees that BDS is a 鈥渄iscriminatory鈥� movement and state governments can decide not to do business with companies that engage in discriminatory behavior. 鈥淲e鈥檙e not saying individuals can鈥檛 boycott Israel,鈥� Hausner said, adding that businesses 鈥渁re not obligated to a state contract.鈥�
Sabag said that the current federal anti-BDS bill, S. 1, enshrines state government鈥檚 right to choose not to do business with companies that boycott Israel. He added that claims that such laws inhibit free speech 鈥渋s really a red herring. We鈥檙e not talking about speech in this instance, we鈥檙e talking about commercial policy,鈥� he said.
Hausner cited a Jan. 23 case in Arkansas where a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against the state government鈥檚 anti-BDS law on the grounds that the law regulated commercial policy, not speech.
With 26 states adopting anti-BDS laws and anti-BDS legislation being considered at the federal level, Sabag argued that proponents of anti-BDS laws should focus on 鈥渆nforcement and litigation鈥� of those laws and then take the fight against BDS to the 鈥渃ultural鈥� arena.
鈥淸It鈥檚] important for you guys to invoke that many state governments agree that BDS is discriminatory in nature,鈥� Sabag said, adding that it鈥檚 a 鈥渕istake to think that this is only about financial regulation.鈥�
