A pro-BDS demonstration. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

BDS activities in January were shaped by the continuing evolution of the COVID pandemic, which has slowed the reopening of higher education, and also by the hostage-taking situation at a synagogue in Colleyville, Texas. In the latter event, a British Muslim, Malik Faisal Akram, took hostages with the goal of forcing the release of a convicted terrorist, Aafia Siddiqui.

American Muslim organizations, including American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) — a primary group behind the BDS movement — have demanded Siddiqui’s release, going so far as to call her a “political prisoner.” Also calling for Siddiqui’s release were Linda Sarsour and other leaders of the BDS movement.

The hostage situation also came in the wake of calls by leaders of CAIR, including Zahra Billoo, to stigmatize Jewish organizations for their support of Israel and opposition to BDS.

Billoo had stated in a late November talk for AMP that American Muslims must “pay attention to the Anti-Defamation League, we need to pay attention to the Jewish Federation, we need to pay attention to the Zionist synagogues, we need to pay attention to the Hillel chapters on our campuses.”

The hostage situation also came as CAIR issued a report that accused a variety of Jewish foundations and organizations of “fueling a huge upswing” in Islamophobia. Among the groups named were CAMERA (“a lobbying and media-monitoring group that spreads misinformation pertaining to Muslim Americans”), the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (“neoconservative lobbying group encourages the Islamophobic ‘war on terror’ narrative and policies”), and MEMRI (“a pseudo-research organization that carefully selects and purposefully inaccurately translates news from Muslim-majority organizations to provide justification for anti-Muslim propaganda”).

An upcoming vote by the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) membership to fully adopt BDS highlighted the role of the anti-Israel vanguard that has radicalized much of an academic discipline.

The effort to institutionalize discrimination on the basis of national and religious origin in the guise of boycotting Israeli academic institutions, along with other efforts, attracted the ire of politicians and others, particularly in states that have anti-BDS legislation.

Florida State and the University of Arizona ended their institutional memberships in MESA. Other state institutions are expected to follow suit. Observers also note that George Washington University would jeopardize its eligibility to receive Federal funds by hosting an organization that explicitly endorses and organizes discrimination.

The growing recognition of anti-Israel and antisemitic sentiment on campus was also reflected in comments from Arizona Governor Doug Ducey (R) in response to a protest by the Arizona State University Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter, which included chants of, “From the river to the sea Palestine will be free.”

On social media Ducey stated, “This is shocking. This kind of discriminatory behavior cannot be tolerated on a college campus or anywhere. Arizona continues to stand with Israel.” Elsewhere, the Rutgers University SJP chapter protested that school’s research partnerships with Tel Aviv University, and a trip by the school’s president to Israel.

The overt discrimination faced by Jewish and pro-Israel faculty was also the subject of a lawsuit against the City University of New York (CUNY) faculty union. The suit alleges that the union, which in 2021 issued a resolution condemning Israel for “the continued subjection of Palestinians to the state-supported displacement, occupation, and use of lethal force” and called for discussions of union support for BDS, infringed on the First Amendment rights of faculty members who opposed such a statement.

Under New York State law, CUNY faculty are required to be union members for the purposes of workplace representation and contract negotiation. Even if they resign, the union is still the sole representative for collective bargaining.

In its response the union characterized the suit as “meritless,” and called the Right to Work Foundation, which is aiding the plaintiffs, “notoriously right wing” and “rooted in white supremacy.”

Another example of intense antisemitic and anti-Israel bias directed at Jews has been revealed by an Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) report regarding New York City’s Kingsborough Community College. Visibly Jewish and pro-Israel faculty members have been verbally attacked and physically intimidated by “progressive” colleagues and excluded from committee work both deliberately and with meetings scheduled on Shabbat, while Jewish and students have been subjected to anti-Israel tirades and have apparently had grades lowered.

Lawyers for individuals named in the report as sources of the harassment denied the charges, while the university refused to respond. Recent statements from US Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioners suggested that higher education examples were part of a generalized rise in workplace antisemitism.

In another case, the president of Tufts University released a statement reporting on recommendations from a study conducted by outside consultants, including Hillel International and the TCC Group.

The report noted “some Jewish students … felt that, in order to be welcome in student organizations supporting social justice, they had to hide their Jewish identities. Relatedly, some faculty and staff noted that the climate related to antisemitism, which often revolves around issues related to Israel-Palestine, has become more challenging in recent years.”

It recommended:

• Further education and training for students, faculty, and staff, coordinated by the Provost and CDOs’ offices, on what is considered antisemitism and antisemitic speech and partnering with nationally recognized organizations to do so.
• Orientation discrimination and bias awareness programs that educate incoming students on antisemitism distinctly among other forms of race and ethnicity-based forms of discrimination.
• Conversation, dialogue, and discussion forums on understanding better the geopolitical situation in the Middle East, which often influences how antisemitism manifests itself on our campus.
• Better awareness of Office of Equal Opportunity processes and improved communication to the community about these processes.
• The creation of a university-wide advisory council of faculty and staff, to advise the senior leadership team on the best ways to approach the implementation process.

No specific recommendations regarding definitions of antisemitism or BDS activities were included, but the “alarming incident in Texas” was mentioned.

The emerging pattern of acknowledging campus antisemitism but calling for enhancing existing mechanisms as a solution was demonstrated by the University of Toronto’s “Anti-Semitism Working Group” that released a report and recommendations. The report “expressed surprise” at the extent of antisemitic harassment including physical assaults, exclusion from campus life and spaces particularly as a result of attitudes towards Israel, and refusal of accommodations for religious observance, with students “even chastised for being backwards for being religiously observant.” The report recommended “better equipping the equity office,” recommitting to academic freedom, and approaching antisemitism within the framework of antiracism.

But the University of Toronto working group specifically recommended the university not adopt a definition of antisemitism. This reflects the growing effort to avoid or reverse adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism by universities and other institutions. One example was the call by the faculty union at the University of Edinburgh to reverse that institution’s adoption, alleging the definition was “compromising academic freedom, freedom of speech, and the university position on anti-racism.”

Demands for the BBC to adopt the IHRA definition were also leveled after the broadcaster was exposed fabricating a report that Jewish students subjected to antisemitic abuse had used anti-Islam against their attackers.

Jewish groups also protested a proposed BBC debate on whether anti-Zionism was a “protected characteristic” that would have involved Labour Party members under investigation for antisemitic statements. The debate was later canceled.

As the 2022 midterms approach, BDS and anti-Israel politics are also now issues, particularly in the House of Representatives. Prominent BDS supporter Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) has faced criticism in his home district for the disproportionate attention he pays to Israel, while Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) is facing a primary challenge from a center-left candidate who supports Israel. Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) faces a challenge from a far-left candidate.

Finally, a report from the Office of Congressional Ethics revealed that Rep. Marie Newman (D-IL) had offered her opponent, Palestinian-American and BDS supporter Iymen Chehade, a position of foreign policy advisor as an inducement not to run against her in the 2020 election. Chehade’s conditions apparently included Newman opposing military sales to Israel, supporting BDS, a commitment to work with Jewish Voice for Peace, and more. Newman denied the report.

The author is a contributor to SPME, where a version of this article first appeared.