In Effect

This non-binding resolution condemns boycott, divestment, and sanctions efforts, and academic boycotts, in particular. The resolution falsely claims that BDS campaigns have resulted in animosity toward Jewish students and attempts to link boycotts for Palestinian rights to rising antisemitism. The resolution reaffirms the legislature’s support for Israel and opposition to “all attempts to deny the legitimacy of Israel as a sovereign state.”

This anti-boycott executive order prohibits contracts with executive branch agencies unless contractors provide written certification that they have not engaged in boycotts of Israel related to the subject matter of the contract. Contractors that engage in such boycotts during the contract term may risk having their contracts terminated. The order provides an exception for companies with less than five employees and contracts under $100,000. 

HCR 1005 is a non-binding resolution that condemns boycotts for Palestinian rights, condemns academic boycotts of Israel, labels the boycott movement as damaging to peace, and affirms South Dakota’s support for Israel. The resolution falsely claims that boycotts for Palestinian rights are a vehicle for spreading antisemitism and have resulted in intimidation of Jewish students on college campuses. Making multiple references to the Old Testament in justifying state support for Israel, the resolution calls on Congress and the president to condemn BDS and respond to “hostile actions against Israel by all means necessary.” 

Affirming South Dakota’s support for Israel, including its occupation of the West Bank, this non-binding resolution targets efforts to seek accountability via the United Nations for Israel’s ongoing violations of international law. It calls for opposing UN Security Council Resolution 2334 “by all means necessary” for contributing to BDS efforts and for making “direct negotiations more, not less, challenging.” UN Security Council Resolution 2334 reaffirmed that Israel’s illegal settlements constitute a flagrant violation of international law. The US broke from its practice of blocking UN accountability measures focused on Israel and abstained rather than vetoing the resolution, causing consternation among pro-Israel groups. HCR 1014 falsely claims that boycotts for Palestinian rights are one of the main drivers of antisemitism and have resulted in intimidation of Jewish students. Making multiple references to the Old Testament in justifying state support for Israel, the resolution declares that “Israel has been granted her lands under and through the oldest recorded deed.” 

HCR 1017 is a non-binding resolution affirming South Dakota’s relationship with Israel and Israel’s right to exist. The resolution falsely claims that boycotts for Palestinian rights are one of the main drivers of antisemitism and have resulted in intimidation of Jewish students. Making multiple references to the Old Testament in justifying state support for Israel, the resolution declares that Israel “is neither an attacking force or an occupier of the lands of others.” 

HCR 6005 is a non-binding resolution affirming Israel’s right to exist and South Dakota’s relationship with Israel. One of its preambulatory clauses claims that boycotts for Palestinian rights are one of the main vehicles advocating the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. Other preambulatory clauses insist that the West Bank and East Jerusalem belong to Israel and that God promised Israel its land in Genesis of the Old Testament. Earlier versions falsely claimed that boycotts for Palestinian rights are a primary driver of antisemitism and result in intimidation of Jewish college students. Related legislation: HCR 8004.

This antisemitism redefinition provision requires South Carolina public colleges and universities to consider a distorted definition of antisemitism to determine whether there has been a violation of policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion. The definition includes some contemporary examples related to Israel, such as “applying double standards,” “multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations,” and “denying Israel the right to exist. The definition is so broad and vague that it could encompass any and all criticism of Israel, circumscribing political speech in support of Palestinian rights, potentially in violation of the First Amendment.

The provisions were attached as a rider to the 2019-2020 appropriations bill, which expires at the end of the fiscal year. Similar provisions were passed in the 2018-2019 budget (H4950) and are included in the 2020-2021 bill (H5201).

H3678 is a non-binding resolution that attacks the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) for a series of resolutions referring to Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem and its obligations to protect cultural sites within the city. The resolution’s preambular language also attacks boycotts for Palestinian rights, suggests it is antisemitic to call Israel an occupying force, and asserts that Israel has “God-given” rights to the land and to all of Jerusalem. 

This antisemitism redefinition provision requires South Carolina public colleges and universities to consider a distorted definition of antisemitism to determine whether there has been a violation of policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion. The definition includes some contemporary examples related to Israel, such as “applying double standards,” “multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations,” and “denying Israel the right to exist. The definition is so broad and vague that it could encompass any and all criticism of Israel, circumscribing political speech in support of Palestinian rights, potentially in violation of the First Amendment.

The provisions were attached as a rider to the 2018-2019 appropriations bill, which expires at the end of the fiscal year, after a standalone version of the bill (H3643) failed to pass the Senate in 2017. The provision was renewed in the 2019-2020 budget (H4000).

This anti-boycott bill prohibits state contracts with businesses unless they provide a written certification that they are not and will not engage in a boycott of “a person or an entity based in or doing business with a jurisdiction with whom South Carolina can enjoy open trade.” The bill provides exceptions for bids at least 20% less than other bids and excludes contracts worth less than $10,000. Because H3583 excludes boycotts based on the specific conduct of a targeted entity and those applied in a nondiscriminatory manner, boycotts for justice fall outside its scope.