Despite its Crimes Against Palestinians, Why is the UK Seeking to Ban ‘Israel Boycott’?

Amidst the Israeli Occupation policies of brutality and repeated aggression against Palestinian territories, the British government presented a bill to Parliament to ban the “boycott of Israel” and impose restrictions on freedom of expression in this regard.

A UK parliamentary bill set to be tabled this week aims to prevent public bodies from divesting in companies based on the conduct of a foreign government, particularly “Israel” and occupied Palestine.

On June 26, 2023, the House of Commons approved the Economic Activity of Public Bodies Bill with a majority of 268 to 70 votes after hours of debate.

Under the new law, the boycott of Israeli goods will be prohibited by introducing new provisions that prevent public bodies, including local councils, from being influenced or subjected to political or moral pressure related to certain foreign countries, especially when making specific economic decisions.

Why did the government introduce this bill? Who is it specifically targeting? And what are the possibilities of its implementation and enactment?

 

A Controversial Bill

Despite objections and warnings that it restricts freedom of expression and the defense of human rights, the British government pushed ahead with the bill, which was voted on in the second reading in Parliament.

After the second reading, the bill moves on to the committee stage in the House of Commons, where lawmakers can discuss the bill from all aspects and propose additions, deletions, or amendments to its provisions before it reaches the third reading.

Following that, the bill is then sent to the House of Lords, where it may be voted in favor of becoming a law, or amendments may be proposed. In the latter case, the bill returns to the House of Commons for a further vote.

According to the law, all institutions funded by the British public sector will be legally accountable and face substantial fines if they comply with boycott campaigns and divestments against foreign countries and regions, particularly the Israeli Occupation.

Therefore, local councils and British pension funds, among the largest investment funds in the country, which base their investment decisions on ethical standards, such as withdrawal from companies dealing with Israeli settlements or other companies cooperating with countries violating human rights, are among the primary targets of the new law.

 

BDS Movement

The bill aims to target the BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions), which seeks to pressure “Israel” to end its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, inspired by the successful boycott of South Africa during apartheid.

The BDS movement was launched on July 9, 2005, through a call by 171 Palestinian non-governmental organizations and quickly spread across 55 countries, including major countries like the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Brazil, and others.

The movement’s primary goal is to boycott, divest, and impose sanctions against “Israel” until it complies with international law and human rights principles. Its three declared objectives are ending Israeli Occupation and colonization of Arab lands, dismantling the apartheid wall around occupied Jerusalem, and recognizing the basic rights of Palestinians and Arab citizens within the 1948 occupied territories.

The BDS movement demands respect for “Israel” obligations to protect and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties, as stated in UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

The BDS movement has long caused concern and annoyance to “Israel.” In 2007, during its first annual conference, the British academic union (Universities and Colleges Union) voted in favor of boycotting Israeli academic institutions but not individuals.

In June 2015, the US-based RAND Corporation, a research and analysis organization for the US military, conducted an analysis suggesting that if the BDS movement continued its current rate of success for another ten years, it could cost the Israeli economy $47 billion.

In 2016, then-Israeli Intelligence Minister Israel Katz called for pursuing and targeting BDS leaders and activists around the world.

Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor considered this an infringement on the personal security rights of activists, as well as the right to life, freedom of expression, and peaceful protest.

Nevertheless, it indicates that the movement is a source of concern and annoyance to Israeli governments, making it one of the main targets of British law, restricting the role of BDS movements, divestments, and imposing sanctions on them.

 

In the Wrong Direction

On July 4, 2023, former British MP Margaret Hodge, who served in the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, declared that the proposed legislation is flawed and poorly worded and will have serious consequences here and abroad.

She emphasized that the bill is not a well-thought-out attempt to achieve peace or provide better security for “Israel” or respond to the threats posed by the boycott movement.

On July 8, 2023, Alicia Kearns, a Conservative MP and chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the British Parliament, expressed her concerns to The Guardian, warning about the confusion present in the law between “Israel” and the occupied Palestinian territories.

She added that this law contradicts the UK’s foreign policy, which considers the West Bank and East Jerusalem as occupied territories.

Kearns noted that the new law includes provisions that could lead to its failure if opposed and brought before British courts.

Of particular concern is the clause that expands the scope of banning the boycott of any company or institution, even those operating in the occupied Palestinian territories, as recognized by international law, and the same applies to the occupied Golan Heights.

The opposition Labour Party was at the forefront of those rejecting the law, issuing a statement that strongly emphasized that the poorly worded bill could fuel anti-Semitism and restrict freedom of expression.

Lisa Nandy, the Shadow Secretary for Communities, criticized the law as loose, granting Housing and Communities Secretary Michael Gove far-reaching powers, leading to negative repercussions.

She pointed out that the law’s provisions have nothing to do with the issue of boycotts, for which the government claims to seek a solution.

The Palestinian Mission in the United Kingdom expressed concern over the bill, stating that it prevents public bodies from making ethical decisions regarding their investments and could undermine the ability of human rights and environmental activists, among others, to hold violators of international law accountable.

The leader of the Social Democratic Party, Colum Eastwood, called for the cancellation of the law, as it supports governments and communities that persecute minorities. He openly stated that the Palestinian people should be supported in the face of the Israeli Occupation for a fairer world.

On an international level, the Human Rights Watch organization issued an “angry statement,” recalling the United Kingdom’s history in 1980 when the British government tried to pass a law banning the boycott of apartheid South Africa.

The human rights organization stated that London should not stand on the wrong side of history again by penalizing public institutions that attempt to make the right decisions.

 

Racist Law

Palestinian academic residing in the United Kingdom, Mahmoud al-Ghassani, commented on the Economic Activity of Public Bodies Bill and its impact on institutions and active movements engaged in boycotting “Israel,” saying, “Trying to hinder peaceful boycott movements against ‘Israel’ and its oppressive methods against the Palestinian people is not new.”

He emphasized that these efforts exist and persist not only in the United Kingdom but also in many Western countries.

In 2015, France worked to ban the boycott movement against “Israel,” and in the United States, laws were passed in 25 states, preventing companies and even individuals from boycotting the Israeli Occupation, specifically and exceptionally among all other countries in the world.

In other words, it is possible to boycott China, India, or Arab countries but not to consider boycotting “Israel,” according to his opinion.

“Washington imposed sanctions on boycott advocates by depriving them of government contracts. However, those obstacles did not stop the advocates of boycott. France, which condemned the BDS movement in 2015 and criminalized 11 individuals supporting Palestine, had its laws thrown to the winds when the European Court of Human Rights overturned these laws in 2020,” according to al-Ghassani.

Therefore, the fate of the racist British law will likely follow the same pattern, especially as it reflects double standards. It may also deprive other groups of their rights and resistance against their oppressors, such as the Uighurs in China or Muslims in India, among others.

Consequently, the boycott movements will continue their work, accompanied by tens of thousands of supporters around the world. Without that impact, such unjust laws would not have been passed.