Latest Posts

HR 4721 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: S 2479, S 3467. 

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 non-binding resolution takes aim at Ben & Jerry’s 2021 announcement that it would stop doing business in illegal Israeli settlements. Ben & 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 resolution declares it inconsistent with Oklahoma’s anti-boycott law (HB 3967) for Oklahoma to invest any state funds in companies such as Unilever that decide not to do business with illegal settlements. Although Oklahoma’s anti-boycott law targets only state contracts and not investments, the resolution calls on the State Treasurer and Comptroller to divest the state and its retirement funds of all Unilever investments. 

HB 2673 is an antisemitism redefinition bill that requires state agencies and public educational institutions to consider the distorted IHRA definition of antisemitism in assessing discrimination allegations in Tennessee’s public schools and universities. The bill specifically references the IHRA definition’s “contemporary examples of antisemitism” which include the following as 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 is so broad and vague that it could encompass nearly any criticism of Israel, circumscribing political speech in support of Palestinian rights, potentially in violation of the First Amendment. 

S 2434 is an antisemitism redefinition bill that directs the state to consider the distorted IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its contemporary examples related to Israel, for the purpose of determining whether a discriminatory act had antisemitic intent. The legislative statement accompanying the text notes that the bill “establishes a State definition of anti-Semitism.” Similar bills (S 4001/H 5755 ) were defeated after civil rights groups raised constitutional concerns. Related bill:  A 3882.

A 3882 is an antisemitism redefinition bill that directs the state to consider the distorted IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its contemporary examples related to Israel, for the purpose of determining whether a discriminatory act had antisemitic intent. The legislative statement accompanying the text notes that the bill “establishes a State definition of anti-Semitism.” Similar bills (S 4001/H 5755 ) were defeated after civil rights groups raised constitutional concerns. Related bill: S 2434.

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.