The Palestine Israel Network (PIN) of the Episcopal Peace Fellowship (EPF) calls attention to a
recent decision by the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) not to hear an ACLU appeal of
Arkansas Times v. Waldrip. We call for the Episcopal Public Policy Network (EPPN) to issue an
Action Alert, and for members of the Church to contact their state legislators. The decision,
which may appear insignificant at first glance, deserves notice because the reference case is an
attempt to criminalize the right to engage in boycott as a form of dissent against injustices, and
specifically seeks to target and debilitate the global Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS)
movement directed at the state of Israel.
The authority for response is the 80 th General Convention resolution C013 that opposes
“legislation that penalizes or criminalizes support for all nonviolent boycotts, divestment and/or
sanctions, especially on behalf of Palestinian human rights, as an infringement of First
Amendment rights.”
Here is the background. On February 21, SCOTUS opted not to review a ruling by the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals on the following case. In 2018, the publisher of the Arkansas Times
refused to sign a state law-mandated pledge not to boycott the state of Israel on the basis that
the pledge violated free speech. Overruling its own appeals panel, the full Eighth Circuit Court
ruled that such a requirement is constitutional, letting the Arkansas law stand. In refusing to
hear the case, the SCOTUS decision leaves federal law unsettled. Although similar legal actions
in Kansas, Texas, Georgia, and Arizona have ruled in favor of allowing the right to boycott, the
SCOTUS decision leaves approximately 30 punitive state laws and executive orders in place.
Analysts point out that the SCOTUS decision does not imply a position on the issue, but rather
may reflect a desire to wait for additional lower court rulings before taking it on. Attempts have
also been made to pass federal anti-boycott laws, but so far have been unsuccessful.
There are even broader implications of these cases. Over time, the success at passing state laws
aimed at protecting Israel from criticism has spawned a series of anti-boycott laws aimed at
other issues; for example, boycotts of the fossil fuel and firearms industries, boycotts of
companies that fail to offer reproductive health care or gender affirming care, and boycotts of
companies that fail to meet workplace diversity and equity criteria.
But there is still more to this story – a great deal more.
Economic boycott is a time-honored, non-violent method of overturning deep societal wrongs;
for example, strikes and boycotts on behalf of farm workers led by Cesar Chavez and Dolores
Huerta; the Montgomery bus boycott; and the international boycott that led to the end of
South African apartheid. That tradition is being turned on its head by this peculiar spate of anti-
boycott laws that seek to make exception of criticizing the state of Israel.
Generally, the rationale here has three components, each one weighted with misinformation
and misunderstanding. The first is that the state of Israel inhabits a unique place on the world
stage and must be free of responsibility or accountability to international law either because of
its geopolitical importance to the U.S. and many European governments or to a particular
status derived from Biblical mythology. The former manifests in the U.S. “iron-clad relationship”
that devotes billions of dollars annually to Israel and provides diplomatic protection from U.N.
resolutions and sanctions. The latter is espoused and heavily supported and financed by the
distorted theology of Christian Zionism.
The second rationale for the legislation is that criticism of Israel is an expression of anti-
semitism. Again, The Episcopal Church is on record on this point. In 1991, resolution D122
recognized “that a distinction exists between the propriety of legitimate criticism of Israeli
governmental policy and action and the impropriety of anti-Jewish prejudice.” For some
Christians, this concern is bound up in the “ecumenical deal” that continues to hold some in
thrall to the state of Israel.
Thirdly, the specific rancor toward boycotting the policies of Israel can be partly attributed to
widespread misunderstanding of the BDS Movement, often falsely depicted as calling for the
destruction of the state of Israel. This is dangerously false. Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions is a
non-violent Palestinian-led movement for freedom, justice and equality that “aims to end
international support for Israeli violations of international law by forcing companies,
institutions and governments to change their policies.” Its supporters have included Archbishop
Desmond Tutu and Angela Davis among many others.
BDS urges nonviolent pressure on Israel until it complies with international law by meeting
three demands. Through a series of actions over the years, The Episcopal Church has in fact
supported all three; viz., end the occupation (Executive Council, 2006) and dismantle the Wall
(GC resolution D081, 2003); affirm the right of return of Palestinian refugees (GC resolution
B016, 2000); and recognize the right of Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality (GC
resolution C039, 2022).
The timing of the recent SCOTUS decision is portentous because a new government in Israel is
intensifying policies that will ensure additional suffering for the Palestinian people and dash the
hopes of Jews in Israel and around the world who are committed to justice and human rights.
The new government is led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu but seems to be driven in
policies related to Palestine by new national security minister, the settler and nationalist
extremist, Itamar Ben-Gvir. Barely two months in office, the government legalized nine new
settler outposts, violating decades of international promises and understandings; and passed a
law to revoke the citizenship or permanent residency of Palestinians who committed a vaguely
defined “terrorist act” and received money from the Palestinian Authority in relation to a
“breach of loyalty” and deport them to the Palestinian Authority, a law that may constitute a
war crime. These alarming acts are situated within a context of the entrenching apartheid
regime: accelerating occurrences of “domicide”; unprecedented rise in the number of street
executions of Palestinians; attacks on Christian institutions; and the Prime Minister’s
proclamation that Israel is a state for Jewish people only and signaling the intent to annex the
West Bank.
Within The Episcopal Church are many who stand devoted to Israel, but an understandable
empathy for the historical suffering of Jewish people and a theological affinity for Judaism must
not be blind to a century of the realpolitik of a settler-colonial Zionist state instituting an
apartheid regime. It is no longer tenable to abide in a “sin of neutrality”, persistently hoping to
find democratic ideals in an Israeli society that has betrayed them.
Amidst the many notable challenges all around us, EPF PIN believes that it is proper for The
Episcopal Church to direct attention to Palestine and Israel. It is, after all, Jesus’ homeland, the
birthplace of the Jesus Movement. It is where our faith began and so, rightly, attention to the
injustices there is a sacred imperative. Just now, at the time of this writing, Palestinians are
facing their gravest crisis since the Nakba, the catastrophe that brought the Zionist state of
Israel into existence and displaced and dispossessed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. This
demands response.
In a recent webinar hosted by the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago, “Confronting Israel’s
Apartheid”, Rabbi Brant Rosen said this: “Any religion worth its name is going to oppose
apartheid…we know as people of conscience that it’s wrong and the real question before us
is…what will we do?” Whether it be attention to legislation, standing up to spurious assertions
of anti-semitism, seeking remedy to the wrongs of any government, or boycott, EPF PIN calls
upon Church members to join the quest for justice for that holy land.
Yes, to boycott is second nature to me--as a Green America member I boycott Amazon (although my primary care practice is now owned by them). I grew up with the United Farmworker's boycott of Safeway and head lettuce.
At a time when Jenin Refugee Camp has been violently ethnically cleansed it is all the more important to have this non-violent tool to oppose the Occupation.
In California the state government can't engage in contracts with companies who support the boycott above $100,000 so our state is threatened as well.
'