Israel boycott divides capital
Bill would pressure firms not to join economic protest
State lawmakers are wading into the conflict in the Middle East as they consider legislation that would put Maryland squarely on the side of Israel against critics who would boycott the Jewish state.
Under legislation filed in the General Assembly last week, companies that take part in an international movement to refuse to do business in Israel or its occupied territories could be denied state contracts and pension fund investments in Maryland. Supporters say the legislation is aimed at thwarting the Palestinian-led Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions campaign, which they portray as an effort to destroy Israel. Opponents say it’s an attempt to squelch constitutionally protected free speech and
nonviolent political organizing.
The legislation, introduced by state Sen. Bobby Zirkin in the Senate and Del. Benjamin F. Kramer in the House, is part of a national effort by pro-Israel groups to marginalize a movement that has won support from a broad coalition of groups, ranging from mainstream Protestant organizations to left-leaning Jewish groups that oppose the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
More than a dozen states have adopted laws or executive orders targeting the BDS movement amid a national push by proIsrael organizations such as the Jewish Council of Public Affairs and the Jewish Federations of North America.
Kramer, a Montgomery County Democrat, said the bill’s chances are good in a legislature where support for Israel is strong.
It has bipartisan sponsorship in both the House and Senate, where the Republican leaders have joined senior Democrats in signing on.
“There’s a very good possibility, once the members of the body have a better understanding what the issue is, what the relevance is and why this is the appropriate action to take,” said Kramer.
“For those who assert their right to boycott, it would be hypocritical for them not to recognize that there is still that same fundamental right to boycott the boycotters.”
Gov. Larry Hogan will take “a very close look” at the legislation, spokesman Doug Mayer said.
Mayer directed a reporter to a statement issued by AJC: Global Jewish Advocacy, endorsed by Hogan and two dozen other governors, that condemned what it called the BDS movement’s “pernicious goals.”
Saqib Ali, a former state delegate who founded the group Freedom to Boycott, said the legislation would use state power to demonize his point of view.
“This is really about punishing those who support Palestinian human rights,” he said.
Ali, an American of Pakistani descent, said companies taking part in the boycott are primarily expressing their opposition to Israel’s policy of building settlements in the disputed West Bank.
Donald F. Norris, director of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, said both sides are pushing action “to feel better about themselves.”
“It’s one side trying to make headlines that hurt the other — knowing full well that it would possibly have no impact other than symbolically,” Norris said.
The U.S. government does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the occupied land. The legislation targets companies that boycott or divest from businesses in the Israeli-occupied territories.
In the preamble to the legislation, the lawmakers declare that the BDS movement is “intended to delegitimatize the democratic state of Israel.”
It’s a view endorsed by Howard Libit, executive director of the Baltimore Jewish Council. The council is lobbying for passage of the legislation.
“We don’t want to be doing business or spending our state procurement dollars with companies that are participating in a movement to destroy Israel,” Libit said. Ali disputed Libit’s premise. “It’s ridiculous. I don’t want to destroy Israel. They have no evidence,” he said. “How can they claim to know my motivations when I am stating very clearly that I support the existence of Israel as a democracy?”
BDS activists urge companies and organizations to avoid doing business with Israel, to refuse to invest in Israeli entities and to support sanctions against the country.
They describe the effort as a nonviolent campaign to pressure Israel to change its policies. They want an end to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and equal treatment of Israeli citizens of Arab descent.
The demand that alarms Israel and its backers is the right of return for Palestinians displaced during the founding of the Jewish state. To many Israelis, that right would permit a Palestinian influx that would fundamentally alter the Jewish character of the nation.
Some BDS supporters say their primary goal is to end the settlements. That’s what brought Susan Kerin to Annapolis last week.
“We want to use nonviolence to promote peace, and we think the settlements are thwarting peace,” said Kerin, a member of the Catholic peace group Pax Christi. “We’re trying to accomplish an end to settlements and put leverage on Israel to come back to the table” to negotiate with Palestinians.
The legislation has significant support among Jewish lawmakers. Kramer’s cosponsors include Dels. Sandy Rosenberg of Baltimore and Shelly Hettleman of Baltimore County, both Democrats.
But not all Jewish lawmakers are on board. Del. Jimmy Tarlau, the grandson of a rabbi, said he supports Israel, but opposes many of the government’s policies.
“I feel that companies boycotting Israel in order to change their policy is a legitimate way to protest,” the Prince George’s County Democrat said. “This is not the right issue for the Maryland legislature to get involved in.”
Proponents say there is precedent for Maryland’s intervention in Middle East affairs. They point to the state’s adoption of sanctions barring pension fund investments in companies from doing business in Iran.
There is one key difference, however. The Iran sanctions bar companies that make investments in that country.
The BDS sanctions would penalize those that decline to invest in Israeli interests and publicly identify themselves as supporters of the BDS movement.
Rahul Saksena, a staff attorney with the Chicago-based advocacy group Palestine Legal, said the legislation would violate the First Amendment.
“The state cannot engage in this type of viewpoint discrimination,” Saksena said. “They’re singling out those companies that have taken a First Amendment political position on this issue.”
Kramer said the legislation would not infringe on the rights of boycotters. He pointed to the strong economic relationship forged through Maryland’s Declaration of Cooperation with Israel.
“There is nothing unconstitutional about saying we do not want to use taxpayer funds that would undermine state policy,” he said.
Norris questioned whether that logic would will hold up in court.
“Now that the Supreme Court has told us money is speech, it will have First Amendment implications, which would make it unconstitutional,” he said.