There’s been a lot of debate over the Israel Anti-Boycott Act. The ACLU—the standard-bearer of all matters related to civil rights and liberties—says unequivocally that the bill violates the First Amendment right to free speech. Others, including some progressives who one would normally expect to defer to the ACLU’s judgment, insist it does not. All of these arguments deal with the hypothetical. To understand the potential impact of the bill, it is illustrative to move from the hypothetical to the actual. I offer myself as a case study.
As a liberal Zionist, I fiercely defend Israel’s right to exist, its right to security, and its legitimacy as a member of the community of nations. I also fiercely care about what kind of state Israel exists as and the values it embodies. I want to see Israel flourish as a liberal democracy that fully implements the rule of law, adheres to international norms, and respects the civil and human rights of all peoples living under its authority.
For all of these reasons, I vehemently oppose Israel’s now 50-year occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, and the odious policies that undergird it. And for all of these reasons, for decades I have advocated in favor of actions—by individuals, businesses, governments, and international bodies—that support Israel by challenging Israel’s ever-expanding settlement enterprise and ever-deepening occupation.
As for activism targeting Israel, I do not personally advocate boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel itself, but I defend the right of others to do so. Regardless of why people advocate BDS—and I know from personal experience that it is a convenient lie to suggest that only those who are motivated by hatred of Israel or anti-Semitism engage in BDS—it is a fallacy to suggest that BDS is ipso facto an illegitimate form of protest. Boycotts are protected political speech and are used by Americans—and Israelis—every day to express their beliefs on a wide range of issues. That said, I personally advocate focusing activism on settlements and on the occupation. It is in many ways an arbitrary, manufactured distinction—the government of Israel is inarguably responsible for settlements and for the occupation policies to which I object. But I believe that as a tactic focusing activism this way is far more effective than BDS, making clear that the objective is to change Israeli policies, rather than, as some critics suggest with respect to the global BDS Movement, to undermine Israel’s existence.
In practice, this means that for years I have been a prominent voice both arguing against BDS targeting Israel, and calling for boycotts of settlements products, for truthful labeling of products manufactured in settlements, and for boycott and divestment actions targeting the occupation. I have articulated these views in numerous articles, analyses, and reports. I have spoken on university campuses and in synagogues, and lobbied Congress. I even testified at a special session of the United Nations Security Council.
I have also long urged groups like the UN and EU to promote respect for international law, according to which all settlements are illegal. When the UN and EU have adopted resolutions or decisions reminding nations and companies of the legal obligation to differentiate between sovereign Israel and the occupied territories, and to refrain from activities that support settlements, I have enthusiastically welcomed, endorsed, and echoed these positions—not at the behest of either body, but because these actions align with my own deeply held political views and, indeed, are what I have been calling on these bodies to do all along.
Read the rest of the article on Lobelog.
On July 21, Omar el-Abed, a 19-year-old Palestinian from the West Bank village of Khobar, brutally murdered three Israeli civilians inside the settlement of Halamish. Three days later, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, spoke about the attack in an address to the Security Council. In his remarks, Danon insinuated that money was a prime factor motivating el-Abed to attack: “The terrorist who murdered this family did so knowing that the PA [Palestinian Authority] will pay him thousands of dollars a month.”
Danon’s comment was another salvo in the ongoing—and exceptionally successful—campaign to stoke outrage against PA President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian program providing financial support to families of those imprisoned or killed by Israel. The program has existed for decades and some of the funding in question may actually end up in the Israeli prison system, since it enables Palestinian prisoners to purchase goods in prison commissaries. Yet it only recently became a point of contention, with critics like Danon now arguing that these payments incentivize terror, nicknaming the program, “pay-to-slay.” Today, a chorus of voices on Capitol Hill, in the US media, and from Israel demands that the United States cut off assistance to the Palestinians, unless and until the program ends.
That is one side of the argument. The other side holds that even as terrorism is wholly unacceptable, the root cause of Palestinian violence is Israel’s now 50-year-long military occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip, implemented through policies that are intrinsically violent, and that stoke popular misery, despair, and outrage. Such sentiments echo in the Facebook post el-Abed published immediately before committing his heinous crime: “I am young, I have not yet reached the age of 20, I have many dreams and aspirations. But what life is this, in which they murder our wives and our youth without any justification. They desecrate the Al-Aqsa mosque and we are asleep, it’s a disgrace that we sit idly by.”
It is a fact that Israeli military forces detain an extraordinary number of Palestinians, often for long periods without any due process. Many are convicted in military courts that have nearly a 100 percent conviction rate. According to Palestinian sources, Israel has arrested 40 percent of the male Palestinian population since 1967. This is in addition to Palestinians killed while attacking, or accused of attacking, Israeli targets.
Most Israelis sees these men as terrorists; most Palestinians view them as martyrs and political prisoners. This is the brutal, zero-sum ethos of national struggle—something that will change only after the conflict ends. In the meantime, given this rate of arrests, funding for families of those killed or imprisoned by Israel represents a critical social safety net. Removing it would amount to collective punishment, illegal under international law and viewed by most of the world as immoral.
Read the rest of the article at The Nation.
On August 3rd, the Middle East Institute hosted a panel discussion entitled, “Gaza Approaching a Boiling Point?” Panelists were FMEP’s Lara Friedman, along with Tareq Baconi (al Shabaka), Chris McGrath UNRWA), and Natan Sachs (Brookings). The panel was moderated by MEI’s Paul Salem, and was part of the George and Rhonda Salem Family Foundation Lecture Series. The event was carried on CSPAN-3. For full video of the event and bios of all of the speakers, go to MEI event page, here, or watch it here:
In the weeks leading up to President Trump’s first planned trip to Israel, many observers have been waxing cautiously hopeful that, based on what Trump and officials like Jason Greenblatt have said and done thus far, the new U.S. president is serious about achieving a breakthrough on Israel-Palestine peace. Some are even suggesting that Trump’s unpredictability could be an asset in restarting a meaningful peace process. Only time will tell if the hope is justified.
But make no mistake: Trump’s unpredictability is matched by the predictability of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has spent decades honing various traps to sabotage even the most sincere and resolute peace effort.
One of these traps is the demand that, as a precondition for restarting negotiations, the Palestinians recognize Israel as the “Jewish state.” Predictably, Netanyahu set this trap in his first White House meeting with Trump. No matter that in 1993 the Palestinians recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.” No matter that neither Egypt nor Jordan was ever required to embrace Zionism in their respective peace deals. No matter that this demand is quite understandably a non-starter for the Palestinians, as Netanyahu understands all too well.
Second is the demand that the Palestinians cease “pay-for-slay” payments to families of Palestinians killed or imprisoned by Israel (according to Palestinian sources, Israel has arrested around 40% of the total male Palestinian population since 1967). Never mind that this demand misrepresents what more accurately has been described as a decades-old social safety net. Never mind that the real cause of violence is the occupation, which engenders desperation so profound that a small number of Palestinians turn to violence even though they know that Israel’s retribution will be far-reaching. The attacker’s home—likely home to multiple generations of a family—will be sealed or demolished; fathers and brothers will be arrested; mothers and sisters will be humiliated; work permits will be canceled and bans on movement and travel imposed; entire villages will have their lives turned upside down by closures and raids. And never mind that this demand dismisses Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ longstanding security cooperation with Israel.
Third is the settlements trap. Over the past 50 years, successive Israeli governments have settled more than half a million Israeli civilians on lands occupied in the 1967 war. They have done so in defiance of international law, U.S. policy, and the spirit and goals of the peace process. Now, “pragmatic” voices from the right-wing, the center-left, and possibly even some Gulf states, are adopting Netanyahu’s call for a shift in U.S. policy to legitimize the settlement enterprise for the first time in history. This trap is perhaps the most insidious of all, with such a shift in policy touted as an easy way to neutralize an issue that has been a source of endless conflict with Israel and promote peace.