UK anti-boycott bill that protects Israel from accountability must be opposed in defence of human rights

The Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill or, as it is better known, the anti-Boycott Bill, reached its committee stage in Parliament last week. If anyone were in any doubt both about the widespread opposition to the Bill and the moral bankruptcy of the arguments being used by those who support it, then the committee proceedings would have dispelled it.

Strong evidence from amongst others Friends of the Earth, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and UNISON, articulating views shared by a coalition of more than 70 organisations publicly opposed to the Bill, made clear why it represents a threat to freedom of expression and to local democracy, and will undermine a whole range of legitimate campaigns for social and climate justice. But the proceedings also underlined the Government’s main target – campaigns aimed at public bodies calling on them to divest from companies supporting Israel’s violation of the rights of the Palestinian people. They confirmed the illegitimate and pernicious nature of the political and moral argument used to justify this aim.

Whilst the Bill, if passed, will have wide reaching impact, preventing divestment because of concerns about any state’s violations of international law or human rights, it offers Israel a unique protection. The bill contains a provision to allow the government, by passing future regulations, to exempt certain states from falling under the rubric of the law. However, one state – Israel – is offered a unique shield. No government minster can exempt it from the scope of the bill and allow divestment, no matter how egregious its violation of the rights of the Palestinian people.

''Opposition to this Bill is mounting and pressure now needs to be ramped up on MPs and members of the House of Lords to defeat it. But not only must the Bill be defeated, so must any amendment that does not recognise that the right to undertake boycott and divestment actions is a core democratic right that it is legitimate to apply in support of all people resisting oppression, including Palestinians.''

This Bill needs to be understood within the context of Israel’s intensifying efforts to shield itself from accountability by persuading friendly states to pass laws or regulations which seek to proscribe support for the Palestinian-led BDS movement. The underpinning rationale used by Israel and its allies rests on the conflation of antisemitism with calls for legitimate non-violent action to protect the rights of Palestinians. This conflation rests on 3 key prongs of argument. One, is the claim that Zionism and support for Israel is a key integral part of Jewish identity.

This is an argument that rests on the antisemitic foundations of proposing that Jews have a uniform set of political beliefs all supporting Israel’s oppression of Palestinians. The second prong, is the claim that BDS is antisemitic because it targets Israel alone. Such an argument used against a campaign targeting a single state is used almost uniquely against Palestinians.

Who would gain a public hearing, let alone be called to give evidence to a parliamentary committee, if they were currently criticising Ukrainians for racism because they call for action against Russia, and not simultaneously against China because of its violation of the rights of Uyghur people?

And yet the Government dominated committee called a whole host of witnesses, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Jewish Leadership Council, who all justified support for the Bill on this foundation.

The third prong of argument rests on a wilful misrepresentation of the methodology of BDS suggesting that it encourages campaigns that directly target Jewish people by, for example, seeking the removal of all kosher goods from supermarket shelves. This too was presented in evidence in the community and has formed part of the government narrative in debate around the Bill. As the Palestinian Boycott National Committee, which leads the BDS movement, made clear in a submission to the Committee, it regards the Palestinian liberation struggle as an integral part of struggles for racial, climate, gender and social justice worldwide, and tolerates no form of racism. It targets complicity not identity, calling for action against all institutions and companies that can be shown to be involved in the violation of the core rights of the Palestinian people.

Those supporting the BDS call do so because they believe Palestinians should enjoy the same rights as all people. The ask is not to treat Israel by a different standard but to treat it by the same standard as all rights abusing states should be treated.

Denying Palestinians the right to use the time honoured non-violent tactics of BDS can only be justified by recourse to anti Palestinian racism which denies the facts of history and the truths of Palestinian’s ongoing experience of oppression.

It is in that context that the committee’s decision to invite Melanie Philips and UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) to give evidence and not to invite a single Palestinian organisation needs to be understood. UKLFI has consistently denied the illegality of Israel’s occupation, an extremist position which they repeated, without challenge, in evidence to the Committee.

They also have a track record of supporting racist organisations, hosting in the UK a representative of Regavim an extremist far right Israeli organisation. Its founder, Bezalel Smotrich, is an Israeli Government Minister, who is a self-declared proud fascist and homophobe who has openly advocated ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and denied the actual existence of a Palestinian people.

Melanie Philipps could only be regarded as a suitable person to give evidence to a parliamentary committee by people ignorant of or who couldn’t care less about her egregious record of anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia.

Opposition to this Bill is mounting and pressure now needs to be ramped up on MPs and members of the House of Lords to defeat it. But not only must the Bill be defeated, so must any amendment that does not recognise that the right to undertake boycott and divestment actions is a core democratic right that it is legitimate to apply in support of all people resisting oppression, including Palestinians.

An important motion expressing just those principles will be debated and hopefully passed by Trade Union Council (TUC) this week in a direct rebuke to the Labour Party leadership which says it will oppose the Bill but has endorsed the arguments seeking to delegitimise the BDS movement.

PSC has called for a day of action against the Bill on 7 October and we hope to see actions taking place in towns and cities across the UK.

This Bill is passing through parliament at a time when the Palestinian people are under unprecedented attack from the most extreme far-right government in Israel’s history, one embarked on an open policy of annexation of the entire West Bank.

Against this backdrop, any government or political party that claims to care about the upholding of international law, respect for human rights and the struggle against racism in all of its forms, should be taking urgent and meaningful action to provide protection and support for those under attack. A bill rooted in anti-Palestinian racism, whose central intent is to leave Palestinians unprotected and unable to call for meaningful nonviolent solidarity actions to protect their rights, should not be supported.

Ben Jamal is Director of UK-based Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC).

Follow him on Twitter: @BenJamalpsc

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@alaraby.co.uk

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.