July 12, 2023:
Information Clearing House
-- " The
British government has introduced a bill to
prevent boycotts of
Israel and the territories it occupies. The
dreadfully titled “Economic Activity of Public
Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill”
passed its second reading this week.
The British government - in the form of
Michael Gove, perhaps one of the most pro-Israel
ministers in this government - has falsely
framed the bill as an attempt to combat
antisemitism. If only; that would be a
laudable and needed effort.
In fact, the bill will only serve to stoke
community tensions, while regrettably giving
antisemites and conspiracy theorists plenty to
chew over as Israel is offered a unique special
exemption from any attempt at public
accountability.
Yet again, the promoters of the bill have
misleadingly
conflated legitimate criticism of Israel
with antisemitism - a view that is not shared by
a number of Jewish groups. There are perfectly
legitimate grounds for criticism of Israeli
actions, not least at a time of
record levels of settlement building, and in
a year when Israeli forces have already
killed more Palestinians in the occupied
West Bank in any year since 2005.
The United Nations, human rights groups and
indeed the British government have
consistently noted Israel’s routine
violations of international law, not least with
regards to settlements and annexation of
occupied territory (including the Golan Heights
and East Jerusalem).
Palestinians in areas such as the South
Hebron Hills, Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah are also
threatened with
forced displacement.
Are You Tired Of
The Lies And
Non-Stop Propaganda?
To seek to disinvest in such circumstances
from occupied territory should be encouraged,
not condemned. Many argue that Israel should be
targeted with such measures until it adheres to
international law.
But the bill goes far further than
just Israel, preventing divestment from any
territory unless the minister directs otherwise.
Public bodies, including government departments
and universities, will not be able to seek to
influence a decision on procurement with “regard
to a
territorial consideration in a way that
would cause a reasonable observer of the
decision-making process to conclude that the
decision was influenced by political or moral
disapproval of foreign state conduct”.
The vague term “reasonable observer” is a
classic example of how poorly this bill has been
drawn up.
Protesting injustice
Regimes with appalling
human rights records around the globe will
be delighted with this bill - such as
China, where the legislation would
ostensibly prevent British authorities from
disinvesting because of its treatment of the
Uyghurs.
Just as the bill passed its second reading,
family members of
Alaa Abd el-Fattah, a British citizen
imprisoned in Egypt for sharing a Facebook post
about rights abuses in 2019, were protesting
outside the Foreign Office. No public authority
would be able to boycott
Egypt on account of this and other grave
human rights abuses.
Many argue that public bodies, including
local government, should be encouraged towards -
not prevented from - boycotting regimes with
appalling human rights records. Some speakers in
the debate correctly pointed out that under this
bill, sanctions against apartheid South Africa
would never have happened.
Boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) has
a long, proud history as a non-violent form of
protest against injustice.
The bill also has binding gagging clauses.
Although Gove falsely
asserted that “it would be problematic if we
were to restrict freedom of speech in any way,
but the bill does not do that”, Clause 4 does
exactly that. It even prohibits a decision-maker
from stating if they “would intend to act in
such a way were it lawful to do so”.
Legal advice supplied to the Labour Party and
others indicates that this could put the UK in
violation of
Article 10 of the European Convention on
Human Rights, which safeguards the right to free
expression.
That is not the only international legal
consideration. The bill also fails to
distinguish, as UN Security Council Resolution
2334
demands, between the sovereign territory of
Israel and the territories it occupied in 1967.
This is an alarming deviation from longstanding
UK policy.
Senior Conservative politicians have
acknowledged that the Foreign Office expressed
reservations about the bill with regards to the
UK’s legal obligations. MP Alicia Kearns, who
chairs the Foreign Affairs Select Committee,
stated: “The Foreign Office’s own legal
advice states that the bill could breach UNSC
2334.”
Power grab
It is also a power grab. One man, Gove, is
attempting to seize enormous powers over foreign
policy by determining which territories can and
cannot be boycotted. He is not the foreign
secretary, a position he has long craved, but
the secretary of state for levelling up, housing
and communities. As one senior Conservative MP
pointed out, Gove “has had the UK’s foreign
policy delegated to his department as well”.
Gove appeared shocked by the opposition to
the bill, red-faced and even shouting. One
senior Conservative MP told me that he was
“agitated”. Some Tories abstained, and often for
reasons that had nothing to do with
Israel-Palestine.
Central government dictating to local
government how they should invest pension funds
or carry out procurement has all the hallmarks
of a nanny state, which is anathema to Tories.
The gagging clauses also run against traditional
Tory beliefs. Strangely, Gove himself
declared on the BBC just last month that he
was a “free speech fundamentalist”.
The Labour Party put down a reasoned
amendment to the bill and whipped to abstain on
the vote. Any “reasonable observer” might wonder
why, given the trenchant criticisms of the bill,
Labour would not oppose it outright. As Labour
MP and shadow minister Lisa Nandy
stated, the bill was “needlessly broad, with
sweeping, draconian powers and far-reaching
effects”.
But the person who summed up this bill most
perfectly was none other than Dame Margaret
Hodge. The senior Labour backbencher was in the
vanguard of challenging
Jeremy Corbyn on antisemitism when he was
Labour leader, and thus has huge reserves of
credit on this issue.
It is worth
quoting Hodge substantively: “They
[government ministers] have not done it to
support Israel, to demonstrate solidarity with
the Jewish community, or to show they really
care about undermining the BDS movement. They
simply want to set a political trap for Labour.
By putting their crude party political interests
above the public interest, they confirm what
voters think about us: that politicians waste
time on childish political games rather than
trying to make the world a better place. It is
that behaviour that leads to a loss of trust.
“The bill is not a considered attempt to
bring about peace, provide better security for
Israel or respond to the threats posed by BDS.
It is about using Jews as a pawn in the
government’s political game. To debate the bill
on the day that violence has flared up again in
the West Bank is a solemn reminder of why this
really matters.”
The bill has many hurdles to cross before it
becomes law. It may yet get amended out of all
recognition, or even thrown into the long grass.
Yet the very attempt of a government trying to
stymie free speech, local democracy and
accountability for the rule of law should
terrify us all.