{ "id": "R44281", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44281", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 610311, "date": "2019-12-03", "retrieved": "2019-12-13T15:08:29.332780", "title": "Israel and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement", "summary": "Israeli officials seek to prevent a boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel from gaining strength. The BDS movement is a loose grouping of actors from various countries that advocate or engage in economic measures against Israel or Israel-related individuals or organizations. Defining precisely who may or may not constitute the BDS movement, or what may or may not constitute BDS activity, is subject to debate. \nCongress and the executive branch have taken actions to counter BDS measures, and Members of Congress debate how best to do so in light of various constitutional issues, as well as foreign policy questions regarding Israeli-developed settlements whose legality is uncertain under international law.\nThe BDS movement that announced itself in 2005 calls for BDS as a means to change Israel\u2019s treatment of Palestinians. Because the movement appears by its own words to equate Zionism with \u201csettler colonialism,\u201d observers generally conclude that the movement is anti-Zionist and seeks to delegitimize the specifically Jewish character of Israel.\nDebate is ongoing in the United States and elsewhere about whether economic differentiation between Israel in general and Israeli-controlled areas and settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights\u2014areas that Israel has controlled and administered since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war\u2014constitutes a form of BDS. Some international organizations\u2014including the European Union and United Nations\u2014have taken actions that either encourage states to differentiate between Israel and its settlements, or could make it easier for political or economic differentiation to take place. Israel\u2019s government and many of its leading political figures draw little or no distinction between economic measures targeting settlements and those targeting areas clearly inside of Israel. \nTo date, BDS or differentiation measures have not significantly affected Israel\u2019s economy or relations with countries around the world. However, these measures exist within a larger context of international criticism of Israel on its dealings with Palestinians. Israel and many of its supporters regularly raise the possibility of Israel\u2019s political isolation, asserting that it could lead toward Israel\u2019s delegitimization. Israeli anti-BDS and anti-differentiation efforts in the United States apparently have included public diplomacy, outreach to allies within the Jewish diaspora, and countering activist groups in contexts where pro-BDS sentiment and criticism of settlements is particularly strong\u2014including college campuses and social media. \nPending legislation for the 116th Congress includes the Combatting BDS Act (CBDSA), which is part of a larger bill known as Strengthening America\u2019s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019 (S. 1). CBDSA would protect state and local government measures from federal preemption if they prohibit investment in or contracts with certain business or government entities engaging in economic measures targeting Israel or Israel-controlled territories. The Senate passed S. 1 in February 2019, and it is the subject of robust debate among Members of Congress. \nBoth federal and state laws regulating BDS activity may implicate the protections of the First Amendment, insofar as these laws might affect constitutionally protected speech. In particular, a number of state measures restricting government contractors\u2019 ability to engage in BDS activity have been challenged in the courts, with varying results. State-level measures also may raise three related constitutional issues: (1) whether they are preempted by federal law under the Constitution\u2019s Supremacy Clause, (2) whether they burden foreign commerce in violation of the dormant Foreign Commerce Clause and, if so, whether they are protected by the market participant exception; and (3) whether they impermissibly interfere with the federal government\u2019s exclusive power to conduct the nation\u2019s foreign affairs.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44281", "sha1": "8111da3d4dcac2d8731cb7bba25f843a2555039c", "filename": "files/20191203_R44281_8111da3d4dcac2d8731cb7bba25f843a2555039c.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44281", "sha1": "1c95dd528315abe4cb3528c526eae77488759f52", "filename": "files/20191203_R44281_1c95dd528315abe4cb3528c526eae77488759f52.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4758, "name": "Middle East & North Africa" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4938, "name": "Major Economies & U.S. Trade Relations" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 462639, "date": "2017-06-09", "retrieved": "2017-08-16T15:47:45.233269", "title": "Israel and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement", "summary": "This report provides information and analysis on a boycott, divestment, and sanctions (\u201cBDS\u201d) movement against Israel. The BDS movement is generally seen as a loose grouping of actors from various countries who advocate or engage in economic measures against Israel or Israel-related individuals or organizations, though defining precisely what may or may not constitute BDS activity is subject to debate.\nThe report also analyzes economic measures that \u201cdifferentiate\u201d or might be seen as differentiating between (1) Israel in general and (2) entities linked with Israeli-developed areas and settlements (whose legality is questioned under international law). Such settlements are found in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights\u2014areas that Israel has controlled and administered since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Debate is ongoing in the United States and elsewhere about whether economic differentiation (such as with regard to product labeling policies) between Israel proper and Israeli settlements constitutes a form of BDS. \nThe report also discusses\nAnti-BDS or antidifferentiation efforts to date, including U.S. legislative action and proposals at the federal and state level.\nLegislative considerations arising from existing antiboycott law, First Amendment issues, and issues regarding congressional powers over commerce and foreign affairs.\nThese considerations present a number of policy questions for Congress and the Trump Administration. For more information, see CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti. \nThe labeling of certain products imported from the West Bank is a subject with some connection to the debate regarding the BDS movement and economic differentiation. There appear to be some similarities between U.S. and European Union (EU) labeling laws and guidelines. Both jurisdictions call for the West Bank to be identified as the place of origin, but a November 2015 European Commission notice called for the labels for certain imports into the EU\u2014Israel\u2019s largest trading partner\u2014to provide additional information to EU consumers by further differentiating between products from Israeli settlements and from nonsettlement areas within the West Bank. This has fueled debate about whether the EU\u2019s guidelines might constitute, encourage, or foreshadow punitive economic measures against Israel. \nIn 2015 and 2016, President Barack Obama signed trade and customs legislation (P.L. 114-26 and P.L. 114-125, respectively) that opposed BDS-related measures against Israel. However, the Administration asserted\u2014including in a presidential signing statement for P.L. 114-125\u2014that certain provisions in the legislation that sought to treat \u201cIsraeli-controlled territories\u201d beyond 1949-1967 armistice lines (including West Bank settlements) in the same manner as Israel itself were not in line with U.S. policy. Some legislation proposed in the 115th Congress contains similarly controversial language.\nParticipating in the BDS movement would not appear to place a U.S. organization in violation of existing federal antiboycott legislation, which targets organizations\u2019 participation in foreign boycotts. No foreign state has proclaimed that it participates in the BDS movement, and the movement does not have a secondary tier targeting companies that do business in or with Israel. If Members of Congress are inclined to propose legislation regarding BDS, they might consider using, as points of reference, legal and regulatory frameworks Congress and the executive branch have used to designate actors of concern under various rubrics having to do with trade and/or national security. \nOpponents of the BDS movement or of economic differentiation have proposed the enactment of legislation that would prohibit the provision of public funding to U.S. corporations, academic institutions, groups, or individuals that engage in BDS activity. Some scholars and commentators have argued that such legislation would raise First Amendment concerns, while others have argued that such legislation would be consistent with the First Amendment. The constitutionality of a restriction on the availability of public funds would depend upon the particulars of the legislation at issue.\nSome state and local governments have enacted or are considering measures to counteract BDS-related or differentiation measures. State and local economic sanctions meant to influence foreign politics ordinarily raise three related constitutional issues: (1) whether they are preempted by federal law under the Constitution\u2019s Supremacy Clause, (2) whether they burden foreign commerce in violation of the dormant Foreign Commerce Clause and, if so, whether they are protected by the market participant exception; and (3) whether they impermissibly interfere with the federal government\u2019s exclusive power to conduct the nation\u2019s foreign affairs. Some Members of Congress have proposed legislation intended to preserve state and local anti-BDS or antidifferentiation measures.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44281", "sha1": "8854a5e8ba8367a3cb27543f66b2432a425b2a07", "filename": "files/20170609_R44281_8854a5e8ba8367a3cb27543f66b2432a425b2a07.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44281", "sha1": "9257341c622d0b472874624f06e3ec3142b254ef", "filename": "files/20170609_R44281_9257341c622d0b472874624f06e3ec3142b254ef.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4758, "name": "Middle East & North Africa" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4938, "name": "Major Economies & U.S. Trade Relations" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 448244, "date": "2015-11-24", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T17:52:19.030733", "title": "Israel and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement", "summary": "This report provides information and analysis on a boycott, divestment, and sanctions (\u201cBDS\u201d) movement against Israel, as well as on economic measures that \u201cdifferentiate\u201d or might be seen as differentiating between (1) Israel in general and (2) entities linked with Israeli-developed areas and settlements (of disputed legality). Such settlements are found in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights\u2014areas that Israel has controlled and administered since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. The report also discusses\nAnti-BDS or anti-differentiation efforts to date, including U.S. legislative action and proposals at both the federal and state level.\nLegislative considerations drawing from existing antiboycott law and from First Amendment issues.\nThe BDS movement exists within a larger context of Israel\u2019s complex economic and political relations with the world. Since the breakdown of the last round of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in April 2014, challenges that Israel has faced to its international economic and cultural relations have received greater public attention. Many Israeli officials and other observers speculate that Israel could, over time, face greater international isolation. For more information, see CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti. Congress and the Obama Administration currently encounter a number of policy questions related to the BDS movement and other international economic measures affecting Israel. \nThere appear to be some similarities between U.S. and EU laws and guidelines for labeling of certain products imported from the West Bank. Both jurisdictions require the West Bank to be identified as the place of origin, but a November 11, 2015, European Commission notice requires that the labels for certain imports into the EU\u2014Israel\u2019s largest trading partner\u2014provide additional information to its consumers by further differentiating between products from Israeli settlements and from non-settlement areas. This has fueled debate about whether the EU\u2019s guidelines might contravene international trade commitments under the World Trade Organization (WTO) or constitute, encourage, or foreshadow punitive economic measures against Israel. \nThe Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-26), enacted in June 2015, contains a trade negotiating objective for the U.S.-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) that discourages politically motivated economic actions \u201cintended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with Israel or persons doing business in Israel or in Israeli-controlled territories.\u201d Public debate over P.L. 114-26 focused on whether economic actions differentiating between commerce with Israeli settlements and commerce with Israel constitute or promote BDS-related activity. In a statement after the law\u2019s enactment, the State Department reiterated its continued opposition to BDS activity targeting Israel, but asserted that the inclusion of the phrase \u201cIsraeli-controlled territories\u201d in P.L. 114-26 \u201cruns counter to longstanding U.S. policy towards the occupied territories, including with regard to settlement activity.\u201d \nIn November 2015, two Senators proposed an amendment to H.R. 22 (Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2015) that, if enacted, could lead the Export-Import Bank of the United States to deny credit applications in cases where the executive branch discerns a need to advance U.S. policy in opposing politically motivated behavior intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations with Israel-related persons or entities. Observers question whether and to what extent the proposed amendment might affect the \u201ccarefully crafted compromise\u201d on H.R. 22 and its proposed reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank\u2019s charter. \nParticipating in the BDS movement would not appear to place a U.S. organization in violation of existing federal antiboycott legislation, which targets organizations\u2019 participation in foreign boycotts. No foreign state has proclaimed that it participates in the BDS movement, and the movement does not have a secondary tier targeting companies that do business in or with Israel. If Members of Congress are inclined to propose legislation regarding BDS, they might consider using, as points of reference, legal and regulatory frameworks Congress and the executive branch have used to designate actors of concern under various rubrics having to do with trade and/or national security.\nOpponents of the BDS movement have proposed the enactment of legislation that would prohibit the provision of federal funding to United States corporations, academic institutions, groups, or individuals that engage in BDS activity. Some scholars and commentators have argued that such legislation would raise First Amendment concerns, while others have argued that such legislation would be consistent with the First Amendment. The constitutionality of a restriction on the availability of federal funds would depend upon the particulars of the legislation at issue.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44281", "sha1": "958527e7af10d8a8c092a62f87f0bb6ebad9a4b0", "filename": "files/20151124_R44281_958527e7af10d8a8c092a62f87f0bb6ebad9a4b0.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44281", "sha1": "76c7c3a4a65a03a4e738ef18d3e453754336121e", "filename": "files/20151124_R44281_76c7c3a4a65a03a4e738ef18d3e453754336121e.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 282, "name": "Middle East and North Africa" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3362, "name": "First Amendment: Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4102, "name": "Major Economies and U.S. Trade Relations" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Constitutional Questions", "Foreign Affairs", "Industry and Trade", "Middle Eastern Affairs" ] }