The Minnesota Legislature may soon consider enacting a proposal on Israel and territory it holds under the law of belligerent occupation. The legislation would undermine prospects for a two-state solution in the Middle East, compromise respect for the rule of law and undermine the security interests of Israel.
It's understandable that Minnesota legislators might, at first glance, want to support this misdirected piece of legislation, which would require that vendors with Minnesota state contracts not engage in a boycott of Israel.
Indeed, on these pages last year, I myself condemned the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and its effort to pressure companies not to do business with Israel ("Student demands to divest from Israel go too far," Feb. 29). I noted that the boycott movement sought to challenge the very legitimacy of a democratic and Jewish state in the Middle East. I urged the University of Minnesota Student Association to reject a BDS-sponsored resolution calling on the university to divest from certain corporations doing business with Israel.
So if that was my position, why am I now so opposed to the proposed legislative measure, and why am I so convinced it will have negative implications for Israel and for the prospects for a two-state solution?
The reason is simple. The legislation applies not only to Israel, but also to "Israeli-controlled territories," and is part of a troubling national effort among some advocacy organizations — an effort that is controversial within the U.S. Jewish community — to create the fait accompli of an Israel that effectively includes territories seized in the Six Day War in 1967. These territories should be the subject of negotiation between Israelis and Palestinians.
Moreover, the legislation would make Minnesota legislators guardians of a belligerent occupation, as it would impose punishment on those who might support economic pressure that is directed not at Israel, but at the occupation and activities in occupied territory. Whatever one's view of such pressure, this is not an appropriate role for the Minnesota Legislature.
Supporters of Israel should be concerned about this legislation for another reason: It undermines efforts to combat the BDS movement worldwide. I and others have argued that the BDS movement must be opposed because it challenges the idea that there can be a democratic and Jewish state in the Middle East that can live side by side with a Palestinian state. Measures that endorse or accept an Israel that includes occupied territory undermine the possibility of such a two-state solution, and hand the BDS movement its argument on a silver platter.
Proponents of this unfortunate Minnesota legislation will also contend that it is consistent with the intent of the U.S. Congress which, in 2016 trade legislation, enacted an anti-BDS provision that also extends its coverage to "Israeli-controlled territories." But that legislation stands in stark contrast to five decades of U.S. policy, in which Democratic and Republican administrations have expressed firm opposition to congressional and other measures that would impact the status of occupied territory and interfere in the president's authority to conduct foreign policy.
