Defeated

S 2479 withholds U.S. funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) unless the Secretary of State certifies in writing that no UNRWA employee, contractor, or partner organization has criticized Israel, expressed support for boycotts for justice, or propagated antisemitic rhetoric. Examples of prohibited rhetoric include “describing Israelis as ‘occupiers’ or ‘settlers,’” expressing support for BDS, and advocating for the right of return. In defining antisemitism, the bill relies on the distorted IHRA definition, including its contemporary examples related to Israel. The IHRA definition has been widely criticized for encompassing nearly all criticism of Israel and circumscribing protected political speech activities. Related bills: HR 4721, S 3467.

This non-binding resolution adopts the distorted IHRA definition of antisemitism. The definition includes the following problematic examples of antisemitism related to Israel: “[a]pplying a double standards” to Israel,” or “[d]enying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” The definition has been widely criticized for its potential to circumscribe political speech in support of Palestinian rights in violation of the First Amendment. 

This non-binding resolution condemns boycott, divestment, and sanctions efforts and academic boycotts, in particular. The resolution falsely claims that boycotts for Palestinian rights foster discrimination against Jewish people. Similar resolutions were introduced in 2016 (HR250, which passed), and 2019 (HR40, which was defeated).

This non-binding resolution was introduced on the same day that Angela Davis was scheduled to speak at the University of South Carolina. The resolution describes Davis as “controversial,” and notes her involvement with the Communist Party, the Black Panther Party, and her support for defunding the police. The resolution also notes that she has endorsed boycotts for Palestinian rights, which the resolution falsely claims are “inspired by, and consistent with [the objectives of] Hamas.” While stopping short of an outright call to rescind her invitation to speak, the resolution calls on the university “to recognize speakers that support the mission of the university to support the historical understanding of [the] State and all perspectives that are a better and more faithful index to the needs of [the] State.” The resolution also notes an expectation “that all ideological points of view and all future speakers will be honored in like fashion in speaking at the University of South Carolina.”

This anti-boycott bill prohibits investment of state retirement funds in entities, including non-profits, that engage in boycotts of Israel or territories occupied by Israel. Since 2015, South Carolina has had an anti-boycott law in effect (H 3583) that prohibits state contracts with companies that boycott South Carolina’s trading partners, including Israel. 

This anti-boycott law prohibits state investment in entities that engage in boycotts of Israel. The law calls for the creation of a blacklist of companies engaged in prohibited boycotts and requires public agencies to divest from blacklisted companies. The bill’s legislative findings target boycott and divestment campaigns, including “environmental, social, or governance campaign[s]” and misrepresent boycotts for justice as based on “discriminatory decision[s] based on geographic or national origin.” 

This antisemitism redefinition bill amends Iowa’s Civil Rights Act to adopt a distorted definition of antisemitism that could encompass any and all criticism of Israel, circumscribing protected political speech activities. The bill requires the consideration of the problematic IHRA definition, including the contemporary examples, such as “Applying a double standard to the State of Israel by requiring behavior of the State of Israel that is not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation,” when investigating discrimination complaints. As a result, political speech supportive of Palestinian rights could be deemed unlawful discrimination in the workplace, in public accommodations, and in educational institutions in Iowa. The bill was withdrawn after a companion bill (HF 2220) was passed.  

This bill, formerly HSB 639, amends Iowa’s 2016 anti-boycott law (HF 2331), and expands the definition of companies subject to the law  to include a “wholly owned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary, parent company, or affiliate of such business or business.”

Iowa’s anti-boycott law requires state entities to create a blacklist of entities that boycott Israel and territories it occupies. The law prohibits state entities from investing in or contracting with blacklisted entities for contracts of $1,000 or more.  The amendments in HF2373 are specifically aimed at Ben & Jerry’s and in response to the ice cream company’s 2021 announcement that it would stop doing business in illegal Israeli settlements. Ben and Jerry’s and its London-based parent company, Unilever, have come under attack from Israel and its allies who have called for states to use anti-boycott laws to divest from Unilever. The bill was signed by the governor in March 2022 and will go into effect in July 2022.

A companion bill, HF 2373 (formerly HB 639), was signed by the governor in March 2022 and will go into effect in July 2022.

HR 6940, titled the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, is an anti-boycott bill that criminalizes participation in boycotts of Israel, singling out international efforts to hold Israel accountable for its illegal settlements. The bill amends the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA) of 2018, a successor to the Export Administration Act of 1979 that targeted the Arab League boycott, to prohibit U.S. entities from complying with or supporting boycotts of Israel fostered or imposed by international governmental organizations. This prohibition includes “furnishing information” for the U.N. Human Rights Council’s database of entities contributing to Israel’s illegal settlements. Violations may be punishable by severe fines, up to $300,000 in civil cases and up to $1 million in criminal cases, though the possibility of prison time included in previous iterations has been removed. 

The bill conflates coercive commercial boycotts—like the Arab League boycott where U.S. companies were forced to boycott Israel as a condition of doing business with other foreign parties—with constitutionally protected political expression in support of Palestinian rights. 

This bill is identical to HR 5595, which was defeated in 2021. Similar bills failed to pass in the last Congress after multiple revisions (S 720, HR 1697).

This antisemitism redefinition bill amends provisions of the state’s education law to adopt a distorted definition of antisemitism that could encompass any and all criticism of Israel, circumscribing protected political speech activities. The bill requires public schools, universities, and community colleges to treat antisemitic discrimination in the same way as race discrimination, but defines antisemitism to include criticism of Israel, including: “Applying a double standard to the State of Israel by requiring behavior of the State of Israel that is not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, or focusing peace or human rights investigations only on the State of Israel.”