The Battle over BDS - Trends, Lessons, and Future Trajectories

Key Findings:

The following study begins with an analysis of the evolving strategies of both the BDS and counter-BDS networks, as well as of the external factors that may affect the trajectory of the BDS campaign. It then examines two of the primary processes that have put BDS on the defensive: the exposure of the links between BDS and anti-Semitism, and between BDS and terrorism. It examines the implications of this analysis for the counter-BDS community.

Among the key trends in the international BDS campaign is the increasing importance of the political and governmental arenas. This is true both on the national, subnational (municipal and local), and supranational (EU and UN) levels. On the national level, the greatest determining factor as to whether BDS will intensify or recede in a particular country will be the political fortunes and power-sharing arrangements between various political actors (for example, the hard-left wings of the U.S. Democratic Party and the UK Labour Party, Podemos in Spain, and the radical branches of the ANC in South Africa).

The UN Human Rights Council blacklist is being used by the BDS campaign to promote economic boycotts in a wide variety of arenas. A closer examination of the list however reveals that it actually reflects a rejection of many of the BDS movement’s main claims. Despite the UNHRC’s anti-Israel bias, and the extremely broad mandate given to the OHCHR, many of the BDS movement’s primary targets were not included on the blacklist. This would seem to imply that these targeted companies should not be included on the blacklists of any other public or economic body.

The counter-BDS community must work to mitigate the effects of the list, including through the expansion of existing U.S. legislation prohibiting participation in boycotts established by governments. Given that the blacklist includes U.S. companies employing tens of thousands of Americans, and given that the BDS movement is trying to have additional companies added to the list, the U.S. should make clear that continued UN work on the list will lead to immediate consequences in terms of U.S. funding and cooperation.

The BDS movement must generate a constant stream of “victories” for both internal and external consumption. As a result, it has adopted a pragmatic strategy of focusing on “low-hanging fruit,” particularly in the economic arena. Therefore, a key predictor as to which companies will be targeted and prioritized is whether there is already a non-related (i.e., non-Israel focused) divestment campaign underway, onto which the BDS movement can piggy-back (a prime example are companies targeted for divestment due to their involvement in the production of cluster munitions.)

Experience indicates that corporate attempts to appease or engage the BDS movement generally lead only to an intensification of the BDS campaign, while a policy of ignoring BDS tends to lead the BDS movement to prioritize “softer” targets. To meet the demand for a constant flow of “successes,” the BDS movement is willing to manufacture and advertise artificial victories. In some cases, where it appears that it will be difficult to convince consumers to actually boycott a targeted company, the BDS movement lowers the bar by advocating “BDS virtue signaling” rather than actual boycotting.

The manifold connections between the BDS movement and designated terrorist organizations have begun to be revealed. The research regarding these links is being used by the counter-BDS community primarily in the financial sphere (e.g., closure of BDS- affiliated bank ) The counter-BDS community should increase its engagement on this issue with municipal and state policy-makers, national and local law enforcement bodies, and tax and charity agencies.

In light of the exposure of these terror connections, it is imperative to engage in coordinated action to press all governments, municipalities, EU, and UN bodies to cease funding, directly or indirectly, to terror-affiliated NGOs. This includes insisting that the EU and European countries enforce conditions in funding agreements which prevent recipients from working with designated terrorist organizations. It is particularly important to engage in outreach on this issue to taxpayers in countries providing such funding.

It appears that the Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO) was and may still be a significant provider of resources to the Palestinian BDS National Committee coalition (BNC). In fact, there are indications that the BNC, on an administrative level, is essentially a project of the PNGO. The PNGO has received funding from Western governments and foundations, mainly through the NGO Development Center (NDC). There are indications that an additional source of funding for the BNC comes or came from the Palestinian philanthropists associated with the “Welfare Association.”

Given the presence of the Palestinian National and Islamic Forces (PNIF) coalition and its five designated terror organizations on the BNC Steering Committee, it follows that those providing or facilitating the transfer of funds to the BNC and PACBI must be concerned that they are wittingly or unwittingly in violation of anti-terrorism financing regulations. As a result of the growing identification of the BNC with terror, it is likely that the BNC will increasingly use the PACBI label for fundraising in the West, or as the organizational affiliation of its activists. It is essential to highlight the fact that there is no substantial difference between the BNC and PACBI, particularly on the administrative level.

It would be a grave mistake on the part of the counter-BDS community to pull back and cease investing sufficient resources. New challenges will require an even higher degree of coordination, as well as investment in developing critical capacities, research capabilities, and relationships. If the counter-BDS community continues to work strategically and synergistically, it is likely that BDS, while not disappearing, will be able to be successfully contained.