US listing of BDS as anti-Semitic sparks freedom-of-speech debate

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks during a joint statement with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem. (AP)
Short Url
Updated 23 November 2020
Follow

US listing of BDS as anti-Semitic sparks freedom-of-speech debate

  • Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel officially rejects anti-Semitism
  • American attorney: ‘To equate BDS and anti-Zionism as a whole with anti-Semitism is just factually wrong’

NEW YORK: US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s decision to list the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel as an anti-Semitic organization has reignited a ferocious debate over what constitutes anti-Semitism, and where the line should be drawn regarding freedom of speech.

Kenneth Stern, an American attorney and director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, called Pompeo’s move “unproductive and troubling.”

Stern told Arab News: “Even though the BDS movers and shakers are clearly anti-Zionist, there are many organizations that support it because they’re concerned about Israel’s control of the West Bank. So to equate BDS and anti-Zionism as a whole with anti-Semitism is just factually wrong.”

Pompeo directed the State Department’s envoy on combating anti-Semitism “to identify organizations that engage in or otherwise support” BDS.

This has raised fears that Palestinian and international human rights groups that Israel accuses, rightly or wrongly, of supporting BDS could be denied US funding.

Though a self-identified Zionist, Stern considers the creation of a blacklist of groups that are highly critical of Israeli policy and society as problematic.

“That’s not how you deal with political differences, by creating a hard and fast rule that takes on all types of protest and dissent and says it’s a hateful one. In fact, it’s not,” he said.

But Harley Lippman, president of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), could not agree more with Pompeo.  

“BDS is an international movement to bring Israel to its knees,” Lippman told Arab News. “They’re not just criticizing Israeli policies. They're putting in place something that, if the nations of the world cooperated, could destroy Israel.”

Critics say BDS represents a hindrance to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by rejecting the right of the Jewish state to exist and shunning bridge-building efforts on the grounds that they “normalize” Israel.

“All these claims were created by right-wing politicians because none of them are true,” Miko Peled, an Israeli-American activist, told Arab News.

“The demands of BDS are very, very clear: Ending the military occupation, equal rights for Palestinians and all the people who live in historic Palestine, and the right of refugees to return to their land and homes,” he said. 

“These aren’t demands to hurt or expel anyone. They’re remedial, to remedy the reality in which Palestinians exist as a result of the creation of the state of Israel.”

Peled was born and raised in Jerusalem by a “very Zionist family, as Zionist as you can imagine.”

His grandfather signed Israel’s Declaration of Independence, his father was a general in the army, and many of his uncles were ambassadors.

But a journey into Palestinian territories made him come out “to support the struggle for justice and liberty in Palestine.”

He discovered “a narrative that I wasn’t told, that Israelis were kept away from,” and chronicled it in his book “The General’s Son: Journey of an Israeli in Palestine.”

Peled said: “The Palestinians in Palestine live under a brutal apartheid regime, subjected to racist laws and a police state that makes their life impossible.”

He believes that Pompeo’s move to brand BDS as anti-Semitic is based on a false premise: “That opposing and rejecting Israel and Zionism is racist, where in fact the opposite is true. Opposing Zionism is opposing racism and anti-Semitism. But they (Israel’s supporters) flipped it around. Now they perpetuate this myth everywhere.”

The US House of Representatives passed a resolution opposing BDS last year, and several American states have enacted similar laws.

Some of those laws have been struck down, however, for violating the First Amendment regarding freedom of speech.

A survey released last year showed that one in five Americans approved of BDS as a means of opposing Israeli policy toward the Palestinians.

“In campus after campus around the world, students are supporting BDS,” said Peled. “Is it bringing the collapse of the Israeli economy? Of course not. But these things take time. It’s about awareness. More and more people are aware that buying something that’s made in Israel is wrong.”

But Lippman, a longtime member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), said BDS is actually backfiring.

“All it does is galvanize people around Israel. We see ourselves threatened by this, so it ends up motivating us to do more for Israel and defend it more,” he said.

Despite pullouts from Israel by some companies, foreign investment in the country is booming. Israel relies less on exporting commodities than intellectual property such as software, which makes it harder to boycott.

“Israel, while it’s the most powerful nation in the Middle East, is also the most fragile. The fact that its economy is booming despite BDS doesn’t diminish the sinister, prejudiced nature of what they’re trying to do,” Lippman said.

“It’s like saying, ‘There’s a Nazi party in the US but they’re not hurting Jews right now, so what’s the problem?’ Well, not yet. But we all know the Nazi ideology. We know that their goal would be to murder all Jews,” added Lippman, whose family lost 86 members during the Holocaust.

Stern, author of “The Conflict over the Conflict,” which tackles the Israeli-Palestinian debate on college campuses, said: “I understand the desire in parts of the Jewish community and the evangelical community, that there’s one Jewish state and to target it and question its right to exist is a manifestation of anti-Semitism. I get why they want to push that.

“But I worry about the flip side of that. We’re implying in legal terms the idea that anti-Zionism is always anti-Semitism. It’s going to have a negative impact on the ability of Palestinians and others to make their cases. I may not be agreeing fully with their case, but they certainly have a right to make it.”


US, China agree to slash tariffs in trade war de-escalation

Updated 53 min 3 sec ago
Follow

US, China agree to slash tariffs in trade war de-escalation

  • The United States and China announced Monday an agreement to drastically reduce tit-for-tat tariffs for 90 days

GENEVA: The United States and China announced Monday an agreement to drastically reduce tit-for-tat tariffs for 90 days, de-escalating a trade war that has roiled financial markets and raised fears of a global economic downturn.
After their first talks since US President Donald Trump launched his trade war, the world’s two biggest economies agreed in a joint statement to bring their triple-digit tariffs down to two figures and continue negotiations.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described the weekend talks with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng and international trade representative Li Chenggang as “productive” and “robust.”
“Both sides showed a great respect,” Bessent told reporters.
US President Donald Trump had imposed duties of 145 percent on imports for China last month — compared to 10 percent for other countries in the global tariff blitz he launched last month.
Beijing hit back with duties of 125 percent on US goods.
Bessent said the two sides agreed to reduce those tariffs by 115 percentage points, taking US tariffs to 30 percent and those by China to 10 percent.
In their statement, the two sides agreed to “establish a mechanism to continue discussions about economic and trade relations.”
China hailed the “substantial progress” made at the talks.
“This move... is in the interest of the two countries and the common interest of the world,” the Chinese commerce ministry said, adding that it hoped Washington would keep working with China “to correct the wrong practice of unilateral tariff rises.”
The dollar, which tumbled after Trump launched his tariff blitz in April, rallied on the news while US stock futures soared. European and Asian markets also rallied.
The trade dispute between Washington and Beijing has rocked financial markets, raising fears the tariffs would rekindle inflation and cause a global economic downturn.
The head of the World Trade Organization, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, praised the talks on Sunday as a “significant step forward” that “bode well for the future.”
“Amid current global tensions, this progress is important not only for the US and China but also for the rest of the world, including the most vulnerable economies,” she added.
Ahead of the meeting at the discreet villa residence of Switzerland’s ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Trump had signalled he might lower the tariffs, suggesting on social media that an “80 percent Tariff on China seems right!“
However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later clarified that the United States would not lower tariffs unilaterally, saying China would also need to make concessions.
The Geneva meeting came days after Trump unveiled a trade agreement with Britain, the first with any country since he unleashed his blitz of global tariffs.
The five-page, nonbinding deal confirmed to nervous investors that Washington was willing to negotiate sector-specific relief from recent duties.
But Trump maintained a 10 percent levy on most British goods, and threatened to keep it in place as a baseline rate for most other countries.


UK’s Starmer says net migration will fall significantly

Updated 12 May 2025
Follow

UK’s Starmer says net migration will fall significantly

LONDON: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer promised net migration would fall significantly by 2029 as he announced policies to boost skills and training.
“It’s (...) a white paper that deals with skills and training, and one of the reasons that we’ve had stagnant growth chronically in skills and growth,” he said on Monday.


India great Virat Kohli retires from test cricket

Updated 12 May 2025
Follow

India great Virat Kohli retires from test cricket

  • Kohli, 36, announces retirement only days after Rohit Sharma stepped down from test cricket as well
  • He scored 9,230 runs including 30 centuries and 31 half-centuries at a test batting average of 46.85

NEW DELHI, India: India great Virat Kohli retired from test cricket Monday after playing 123 matches in his glorious 14-year red-ball career.

“As I step away from this format, it’s not easy — but it feels right,” Kohli posted on Instagram. “It’s been 14 years since I first wore the baggy blue in Test cricket. Honestly, I never imagined the journey this format would take me on. It’s tested me, shaped me, and taught me lessons I’ll carry for life.”

The 36-year-old Kohli’s retirement comes only days after Rohit Sharma stepped down from test cricket, taking two senior batters out of selection contention for India’s tour to England.

Kohli scored 9,230 runs including 30 centuries and 31 half-centuries at a test batting average of 46.85. He also led India in 68 test matches and was India’s most successful captain with 40 test wins.

Kohli said the traditions and ebbs and flows of the five-day format were special to him, including “the quiet grind, the long days, the small moments that no one sees but that stay with you forever.”

“I am walking away with a heart full of gratitude — for the game, for the people I shared the field with, and for every single person who made me feel seen along the way,” he wrote. “I will always look back at my test career with a smile. #269, signing off.”


India’s diplomatic ambitions tested as Trump pushes for deal on Kashmir

Updated 12 May 2025
Follow

India’s diplomatic ambitions tested as Trump pushes for deal on Kashmir

  • India wary of third-party mediation, sees Kashmir as integral part of its territory
  • India’s clout on global stage has risen with its rapid economic growth

NEW DELHI/ISLAMABAD: India and Pakistan have stepped back from the brink of all-out war, with a nudge from the US, but New Delhi’s aspirations as a global diplomatic power now face a key test after President Donald Trump offered to mediate on the dispute over Kashmir, analysts said.
India’s rapid rise as the world’s fifth-largest economy has boosted its confidence and clout on the world stage, where it has played an important role in addressing regional crises such as Sri Lanka’s economic collapse and the Myanmar earthquake.
But the conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir, which flared up in recent days with exchanges of missiles drones and air strikes that killed at least 66 people, touches a sensitive nerve in Indian politics.

How India threads the diplomatic needle — courting favor with Trump over issues like trade while asserting its own interests in the Kashmir conflict — will depend in large part on domestic politics and could determine the future prospects for conflict in Kashmir.
“India ... is likely not keen on the broader talks (that the ceasefire) calls for. Upholding it will pose challenges,” said Michael Kugelman, a South Asia analyst based in Washington.
In a sign of just how fragile the truce remains, the two governments accused each other of serious violations late on Saturday.
The ceasefire, Kugelman noted, was “cobbled together hastily” when tensions were at their peak.
Trump said on Sunday that, following the ceasefire, “I am going to increase trade, substantially, with both of these great nations.”
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, for his part, has not commented publicly on the conflict since it began.
India considers Kashmir an integral part of its territory and not open for negotiation, least of all through a third-party mediator. India and Pakistan both rule the scenic Himalayan region in part, claim it in full, and have fought two wars and numerous other conflicts over what India says is a Pakistan-backed insurgency there. Pakistan denies it backs insurgency.
“By agreeing to abort under US persuasion ... just three days of military operations, India is drawing international attention to the Kashmir dispute, not to Pakistan’s cross-border terrorism that triggered the crisis,” said Brahma Chellaney, an Indian defense analyst.

For decades after the two countries separated in 1947, the West largely saw India and Pakistan through the same lens as the neighbors fought regularly over Kashmir. That changed in recent years, partly thanks to India’s economic rise while Pakistan languished with an economy less than one-10th India’s size.
But Trump’s proposal to work toward a solution to the Kashmir problem, along with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s declaration that India and Pakistan would start talks on their broader issues at a neutral site, has irked many Indians.
Pakistan has repeatedly thanked Trump for his offer on Kashmir, while India has not acknowledged any role played by a third party in the ceasefire, saying it was agreed by the two sides themselves.
Analysts and Indian opposition parties are already questioning whether New Delhi met its strategic objectives by launching missiles into Pakistan on Wednesday last week, which it said were in retaliation for an attack last month on tourists in Kashmir that killed 26 men. It blamed the attack on Pakistan — a charge that Islamabad denied.
By launching missiles deep into Pakistan, Modi showed a much higher appetite for risk than his predecessors. But the sudden ceasefire exposed him to rare criticism at home.
Swapan Dasgupta, a former lawmaker from Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, said the ceasefire had not gone down well in India partly because “Trump suddenly appeared out of nowhere and pronounced his verdict.”
The main opposition Congress party got in on the act, demanding an explanation from the government on the “ceasefire announcements made from Washington, D.C.”
“Have we opened the doors to third-party mediation?” asked Congress spokesperson Jairam Ramesh.
And while the fighting has stopped, there remain a number of flashpoints in the relationship that will test India’s resolve and may tempt it to adopt a hard-line stance.

 

The top issue for Pakistan, diplomats and government officials there said, would be the Indus Waters Treaty, which India suspended last month but which is a vital source of water for many of Pakistan’s farms and hydropower plants.
“Pakistan would not have agreed (to a ceasefire) without US guarantees of a broader dialogue,” said Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, a former foreign minister and currently chairman of the People’s Party of Pakistan, which supports the government.
Moeed Yusuf, former Pakistan National Security Adviser, said a broad agreement would be needed to break the cycle of brinksmanship over Kashmir.
“Because the underlying issues remain, and every six months, one year, two years, three years, something like this happens and then you are back at the brink of war in a nuclear environment,” he said.


US and China to publish details of ‘substantial’ trade talks in Geneva

Updated 12 May 2025
Follow

US and China to publish details of ‘substantial’ trade talks in Geneva

  • Both sides agree to set up a joint mechanism focused on “regular and irregular communications related to trade and commercial issues,” says China's vice premier
  • WTO chief Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala welcomed the progress in trade talks as important for the whole world, including the most vulnerable economies

GENEVA: The United States and China are set to provide details on Monday of the “substantial progress” made during talks in Switzerland over the weekend aimed at cooling trade tensions ignited by President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs.
US Treasury Scott Bessent and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer met with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng and international trade representative Li Chenggang for closed-door talks in Geneva on Saturday and Sunday.
It was the first time senior officials from the world’s two largest economies have met face-to-face to talk trade since Trump slapped steep new levies on China totalling 145 percent, with cumulative US duties on some Chinese goods reaching a staggering 245 percent.
In retaliation, China has put 125 percent tariffs on US goods.
The increasingly ugly trade spat between Washington and Beijing has rocked financial markets and raised fears of a global economic slowdown and an inflationary spike in the United States.
Both sides sounded an optimistic note after the talks concluded on Sunday, without providing many specifics, with the Chinese delegation pledging to release a joint communique on Monday.
China’s He told reporters that the atmosphere in the meetings had been “candid, in-depth and constructive,” calling them “an important first step.”
The two sides have agreed to set up a joint mechanism focused on “regular and irregular communications related to trade and commercial issues,” Li told reporters at the briefing.
In a statement, the White House hailed what it called a new “trade deal” with China, without providing any additional details.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (L) and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer speak to the media after talks Chinese officials on tariffs in Geneva on May 11, 2025. (AFP)

“These discussions mark a significant step forward and, we hope, bode well for the future,” World Trade Organization chief Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala said in a statement shortly after her own meeting with He.
“Amid current global tensions, this progress is important not only for the US and China but also for the rest of the world, including the most vulnerable economies,” she added.
Ahead of the talks at the discrete villa residence of Switzerland’s ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Trump signalled he might lower the tariffs, suggesting on social media that an “80 percent Tariff on China seems right!“
However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later clarified that the United States would not lower tariffs unilaterally. China would also need to make concessions, she said.
“It’s definitely encouraging,” Asia Society Policy Institute (ASPI) vice president Wendy Cutler told AFP on Sunday after the talks had concluded.
“The two sides spent over 15 hours in discussions,” she said. “That’s a long time for two countries to be meeting, and I view that as positive.”
But, she added, “the devil will be in the details.”
The Geneva meeting comes days after Trump unveiled a trade agreement with Britain, the first with any country since he unleashed his blitz of global tariffs.
The five-page, non-binding deal confirmed to nervous investors that Washington is willing to negotiate sector-specific relief from recent duties. But Trump maintained a 10 percent levy on most British goods, and threatened to keep it in place as a baseline rate for most other countries.
“What we get in these talks is a beginning of the narrative, the beginning of a dialog,” Citigroup global chief economist Nathan Sheets said in an interview over the weekend, as the US-China talks were under way. “This is just the beginning of a process, getting the ball rolling.”