Bookstore Glossary Library Links News Publications Timeline Virtual Israel Experience
Anti-Semitism Biography History Holocaust Israel Israel Education Myths & Facts Politics Religion Travel US & Israel Vital Stats Women
donate subscribe Contact About Home

Anti-Semitism: History of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions Movement

Dr. Mitchell Bard (February 2016)

Almost every statement by BDS exponents claim that the movement originated in a July 9, 2005, “call… by Palestinian civil society organizations for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel and for academic and cultural boycott of Israel.” This followed the establishment of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) in Ramallah on April 6, 2004. The “Call” is portrayed as a response to Israel’s unwillingness to submit to a “ruling” of the International Court of Justice condemning Israel’s security barrier (that ruling was an advisory opinion that Israel was under no obligation accept).

In truth, the boycott campaign actually predates the establishment of Israel. The Arab boycott was formally declared by the newly formed Arab League Council on December 2, 1945:

“Jewish products and manufactured goods shall be considered undesirable to the Arab countries.” All Arab “institutions, organizations, merchants, commission agents and individuals” were called upon “to refuse to deal in, distribute, or consume Zionist products or manufactured goods.”

As is evident in this declaration, the terms “Jewish” and “Zionist” were used synonymously. The objective of the boycott has been to isolate Israel from its neighbors and the international community, as well as to deny it trade that might be used to augment its military and economic strength.

The boycott was primarily conducted by Arab states until 2001. In August and September of that year, a forum of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) was held in Durban, South Africa, at the same time as the UN World Conference against Racism. The forum was marked by repeated expressions of naked anti-Semitism by NGO activists and condemned as such by United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson who chaired the Conference.

The Forum’s final declaration described Israel as a “racist, apartheid state” that was guilty of “racist crimes including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing.” The declaration established an action plan – the “Durban Strategy” – promoting “a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state…the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full cessation of all links (diplomatic, economic, social, aid, military cooperation and training) between all states and Israel” (para. 424).

In November 2007, the first Palestinian BDS conference convened in Ramallah and established the BDS National Committee (BNC) as the Palestinian coordinating body for the international campaign. The BDS movement seeks to link Israeli policies with the racial segregation practice in South Africa from 1948-1994. By making a specious comparison, BDS proponents hope to convince the international community to adopt the same type of boycott and sanctions campaigns that contributed to the downfall of that despicable system. The ultimate objective of the BDS movement was articulated by As’ad AbuKhalil, a professor at California State University Stanislaus:

“The real aim of BDS is to bring down the state of Israel... That should be stated as an unambiguous goal. There should not be any equivocation on the subject. Justice and freedom for the Palestinians are incompatible with the existence of the state of Israel.”

The BDS movement rejects the peace process and the idea of a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Its leaders routinely dismiss peace efforts ranging from the 1978 Camp David Peace Accords to the Oslo Process to President Barack Obama’s peace initiatives. Omar Barghouti, founder of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, for example, has said:

“Good riddance! The two-state solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is finally dead. But someone has to issue an official death certificate before the rotting corpse is given a proper burial and we can all move on and explore the more just, moral and therefore enduring alternative for peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs in Mandate Palestine: the one-state solution.” 1

With their zero-sum approach to everything Israeli, they make no attempt to address issues of reconciliation and coexistence. Moreover, they do not acknowledge any Palestinian responsibility or accountability.

The boycott advocates have targeted stores that sell Israeli products, entertainers who plan performances in Israel, Israeli artists performing abroad, unions, professional associations and any other individual or group with some tie to Israel that they believe they can intimidate. These efforts have had minimal impact in the United States, but have been more successful in Europe and a few other countries such as South Africa whose ruling African National Congress Party (ANC) has declared their full and unequivocal support for the BDS movement. The ANC adopted BDS as it's official policy in October 2012, approving a resolution which included a specific call to the South African people to, “support the programmes and campaigns of the Palestinian civil society which seek to put pressure on Israel to engage with the Palestinian people to reach a just solution.” 21


A group of anti-Israel activists have led repeated campaigns to convince the Presbyterian Church (USA) to divest from corporations operating in Israel. In July 2004, the church approved targeted divestment directed at “businesses that it believes bear particular responsibility for the suffering of Palestinians,” but before selling their shares, the companies were to be given “a chance to change their behavior”. 2

The American Jewish community opposed the Church’s decision and, ever since, has made an effort to prevent a further deterioration in relations between the community, the Church and Israel. Partly in response to the furor, the Church adopted a new resolution in June 2006 to supersede the previous one. Instead of calling for divestment, the resolution called for the Church to invest only in companies who are involved in “peaceful pursuits” in Israel and Palestinian territories. 3 Divestment was raised again in 2012, but was voted down. The BDS activists were more successful two years later when the Church agreed to divest from Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard and Motorola Solutions because of their involvement with “demolition and surveillance activities against Palestinians in the West Bank.”4

In June 2015, the United Church of Christ, one of the largest Protestant denominations in the United States, voted to divest from companies that profit from Israel’s “occupation” or control of Palestinian territories, and to boycott of products from Israeli settlements.5

In January 2016, the General Board of Pension and Health Benefits, the United Methodist Church's investment agency, announced that it would no longer invest in Israel's five main banks under the pretext that they did not meet their standards for sustainable investment. A spokeswoman denied the decision had anything to do with the BDS campaign and pointed out that funds remained invested in “approximately 18 Israeli companies that meet our investment criteria.”6

Other mainline churches have debated the subject of divestment, but most have not succumbed to pressure from BDS activists and either voted down divestment proposals or approved positive resolutions calling for peace. The Episcopal Church, for example, rejected divestment when it was raised in 2015. The vast majority of Christians, such as evangelicals, not only object to the BDS campaign, they are active supporters of Israel.

Palestinians Oppose BDS

BDS proponents want to convey the impression that their actions are endorsed by all Palestinians, but this is not true. In fact, Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority, told South African journalists, “We do not ask anyone to boycott Israel itself.…We have relations with Israel, we have mutual recognition of Israel.”7
Despite the tensions between Palestinian Arabs and Israelis, there has been a parallel story of dialogue and cooperation. For example, in 2008 the Histadrut (Israeli labor union) and the Palestine General Federation of Trades Unions (PGFTU) signed an agreement to base future relations on negotiation, dialogue and joint initiatives to advance “fraternity and co-existence”.  Palestinian Arab Universities – despite being hotbeds of anti-Israel activity – maintained links with their Israeli counterparts. Artist, doctors and businesspeople were amongst those who – despite the very real divisions between Palestinian and Israeli society – formed bonds of mutual benefit, cooperation and even occasional friendship across the divide of war. The severing of these ties were not an objective that Israelis or Palestinian Arabs sought and the move to isolate the two sides did not spring from popular opinion on the Palestinian Arab side. Rather it was a strategy of a self-appointed vanguard that expressed itself through a network of NGOs who put pressure on other elements in Palestinian Arab society to fall in behind the “Durban strategy.”

The BDS movement, which is run largely by non-Palestinians outside of the disputed territories, has also done real harm to Palestinians. The most notable example is the case of the company SodaStream, which was targeted because of its factory in Mishor Adumim, adjacent to the “settlement” of Ma’ale Adumim. The company was the largest employer of Palestinians in the territories with nearly 600 workers who received the same salary, medical insurance and conditions as the other workers. BDS activists protested outside stores, intimidated shoppers and vandalized SodaStream products. As a result of financial losses, partly due to the BDS attacks, but mostly a result of the U.S. market moving away from sugary drinks, the company closed the West Bank factory and replaced it with one in the Negev Desert.

Ali Jafar, a shift manager from a West Bank village who had worked for SodaStream for two years, said: “All the people who wanted to close [SodaStream’s West Bank factory] are mistaken... They didn’t take into consideration the families.”8

Only 36 Palestinians who worked at the SodaStream plant in the West Bank were rehired to work in the new facility in Israel. Bassam Eid, a Palestinian human rights activist, met with some of the people who were fired because of the move. “They told me they were earning an average of NIS 5,000 a month there, and that today they are being offered salaries of just NIS 1,400 in the PA.” He added that “people there are deep in debt because they have taken on long-term commitments based on the understanding that their work at the plant would continue; but reality has slapped them in the face because of the pressure created by BDS movement. Today, they are running between the courts and the bailiff offices and is anyone taking any notice of them? Do you think the boycott movement cares about them at all?”9

Cultural Boycott

One aspect of the BDS campaign that has attracted publicity has been the effort to persuade, and often intimidate, prominent artists not to perform in Israel. A few high profile cancellations have occurred, such as Roger Waters, Elvis Costello, The Pixies, Coldplay, Pete Seeger and Gil Scott-Heron. On the other hand, the artists who have defied the boycott are a far more impressive lineup, which includes Paul McCartney, Madonna, Lady Gaga, Elton John, the Rolling Stones and many more.

The Academic Boycott

One component of the BDS campaign has focused on boycotting Israeli academic institutions. One of the first instances occurred in April 2005 when the Association of University Teachers (AUT) Council in the UK voted to boycott the University of Haifa and Bar-Ilan University. This decision caused an uproar and a special meeting was called a month later that led to a decision by the AUT to cancel the boycott because of the damage to academic freedom, the hampering of dialogue and peace efforts between Israelis and Palestinians, and the lack of justification for only boycotting Israel.

In 2007, the UK National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) voted to boycott Israeli academic institutions. NAFTHE, however, merged shortly thereafter with another academic union to form the University and College Union (UCU). The UCU announced that a “boycott call would be unlawful and cannot be implemented.”10 Nevertheless, two years, later the UCU passed a boycott resolution. This was subsequently annulled when the union’s legal advisors warned that “a boycott of that kind could trigger legal action against the union.”

Local governments and publicly funded institutions in the United Kingdom have been banned by the British government from participating in Israel boycotts. Publicly funded bodies affected by this ban include universities, councils, and National Health Service trusts.

In 2015, the Graduate Student Union of the University of California vote to boycott Israel, but that decision was overturned by the United Auto Workers International, with which the graduate student union is affiliated, “on the grounds that it inevitably implicates the international union, hurts members and violates elements of the UAW constitution. The decision reinforced the UAW’s 2007 policy of opposing sanctions against Israel.11

Professors in the United States have also begun to try to convince their professional associations to boycott Israeli universities. In December 2013, the American Studies Association (ASA) voted to boycott all Israeli academic institutions, making Israel the first nation ever boycotted by the ASA in its 52-year history. The same month, the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association adopted a similar boycott resolution.

In November 2015, the National Women’s Studies Association (NWSA) went beyond boycotting Israeli universities and called for the “boycott, divestment and sanctions of economic, military and cultural entities and projects sponsored by the state of Israel.” By condemning Israel for “sexual and gender-based violence” Palestinians and other Arabs, NWSA “not only created a fictional claim about the only Middle Eastern country with relatively full gender equality, roughly comparable to that of America…but also ignored the real violence against women and repression of women’s rights throughout much of the Arab world.”12

In 2016, the American Anthropological Association is also scheduled to hold a vote on boycotting Israel. These votes have little practical effect since the associations cannot tell their members what to do, and the associations themselves have no direct contact with Israeli institutions, but they do tarnish Israel’s image.

Al-Quds University President Sari Nusseibeh has opposed the campaign to boycott Israeli universities: “If we are to look at Israeli society,” he said, “it is within the academic community that we’ve had the most progressive pro-peace views and views that have come out in favor of seeing us as equals. . . . If you want to punish any sector, this is the last one to approach.”13

Earlier Al-Quds University and Hebrew University issued the following joint statement opposing the BDS campaign:

Our position is based upon the belief that it is through cooperation based on mutual respect, rather than through boycotts or discrimination, that our common goals can be achieved. Bridging political gulfs—rather than widening them further apart—between nations and individuals thus becomes an educational duty as well as a functional necessity, requiring exchange and dialogue rather than confrontation and antagonism. Our disaffection with, and condemnation of acts of academic boycotts and discrimination against scholars and institutions, is predicated on the principles of academic freedom, human rights, and equality between nations and among individuals.14

Students have also joined in the campaign to boycott Israel. For example, in March 2014, in the NUI Galway Students' Union in Ireland endorsed the boycott. A few months later, the UK's National Union of Students Black Students conference did the same.

In the United States, a divestment campaign was launched on college campuses in 2001 by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a student group at the University of California, Berkeley, in conjunction with the San Francisco chapter of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. A year later, following the Palestine Solidarity Movement’s first conference, which was held in Berkeley, the movement began to spread to other universities, including the University of Michigan, Yale, Princeton, Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Since then, student governments are typically lobbied to adopt resolutions calling on their universities to divest their holdings in Israeli companies or companies doing business with Israel. The first divestment vote ever taken in the United States took place in 2002 at Wayne State University. Although the vote was successful, nothing resulted from it and the only people who remember that it happened at all are the boycotters themselves. The Wayne State administration immediately responded to the vote by telling the students that they would not be boycotting Israel and the issue was not discussed again for another decade.

Campus divestment has failed miserably since then. A huge blow came in 2002, when Harvard University President and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers spoke out against divestment, declaring, “Profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities... Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect, if not their intent.” Soon after, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger echoed this view, saying, “I want to state clearly that I will not lend any support to this proposal. The petition alleges human rights abuses and compares Israel to South Africa... an analogy I believe is both grotesque and offensive.”

Some students believe that pressure must be applied to stimulate the parties to make concessions that will make a peace agreement possible. While this is a debatable tactic, students genuinely interested in peace recognize that any pressure would have to be directed at both parties. BDS proponents, however, are interested only in pressuring Israel and hold the Palestinians blameless for the conflict.

The BDS movement has grown on campus, but it is not sweeping the nation, and it definitely is not winning. Student government resolutions have no impact on university financial decisions and officials have consistently said they have no intention of divesting from Israel. In fact, many of the schools where resolutions were adopted dramatically increased cooperation with Israel after the votes.

BDS activists are not bothered by their failures because they are publicizing the plight of the Palestinians through these measures. In the short-term, they hope to confuse students about Israel’s policies and cause them to question whether it is a true democracy that is interested in peace and respects human rights.

Most students have no idea what BDS means and oppose it once they are informed. In a student survey conducted by AICE and The Israel Project in 2011, for example, opposition to BDS increased from 34% to 49% once respondents received a description of the campaign’s objectives; only 13% voiced support. The same poll found that while Israel’s image may be tarnished, there is no increase in support for the Palestinians.


Overall, Israeli exports have grown from around $5 million in 1948, to more than $47 billion in 2014. Israel’s largest single trade partner remains the United States, despite tensions between the political leaders. The total volume of trade in 2014 was $36 billion. In addition, each of the 50 states benefit from their ties with Israel. In 2014 alone, 21 states exported more than $100 million worth of goods to Israel, led by New York with exports of more than $5 billion.

Israel’s political relations have been even more strained with the European Union and yet trade with the EU exceeds that of the U.S. Roughly one-third of Israel’s imports and exports are a result of trade with the EU. Moreover, total trade with the EU has grown from approximately $21 billion in 2003 to $34 billion in 2013.

Countries outside of the EU, the EFTA-bloc countries such as Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, have taken, or seriously considered economic sanctions against Israel. Still, Israel enjoys a free trade agreement with EFTA-bloc countries and business with these nations remains robust.

The central hub of the BDS movement is in England, but the various votes by academic and trade associations for boycotts have had virtually no tangible impact. In fact, total bilateral trade amounted to a record $6 billion in 2014, an increase of more than 7 per cent from the previous year.15 Universities and other public institutions are barred from participating in boycotts of any country, as the UK is a signatory to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement which mandates that all member countries treat trading partners equally. Any discrimination against Israeli suppliers of products would therefore be a violation of this agreement. The UK released a new set of guidelines for procurement of items by public authorities on February 16, 2016, which made it clear that “boycotts in public procurement are inappropriate, outside where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the UK Government... Public procurement should never be used as a tool to boycott tenders from suppliers based in other countries.” To read “Procurement Policy Note: Ensuring compliance with wider international obligations when letting public contracts,” please click here.

The biggest economic story is the exponential expansion of Israel’s trade with Asia, which will overtake the U.S. as Israel’s second biggest export destination this year. China is already Israel's third-largest trading partner; in fact, since formally establishing diplomatic relations with China in 1992, trade has increased 220-fold from $50 million in 1992 to $11 billion in 2014. In addition, total trade between Israel and Japan reached $2.3 billion in 2014.

Israel’s relations with India have been steadily improving, as evidenced by the 2015 visit of Narendra Modi, the first Indian prime minister to go to Israel. Since the establishment of diplomatic relations between India and Israel in 1992, bilateral trade and economic relations have grown from $200 million in 1992 to $6 billion in 2013. Between Modi's election in May 2014 and November 2014, Israel exported $662 million worth of Israeli weapons and defense items to India. This export number is greater than the total Israeli exports to India during the previous three years combined.

Israel is also expanding ties with Latin America and has been granted observer status in the Pacific Alliance, an economic trade organization of several major Latin and Central American countries. One country that Israel has had testy relations with because of the bombing of the Israeli embassy in 1992, and the government’s failure to bring the perpetrators to justice, is Argentina. Still, economic relations are growing as evidenced by the Argentine army’s $111 million contract with Israel in 2015 to upgrade 74 tanks made in Argentina.

Israel’s discovery of a large reserve of natural gas off its Mediterranean coast has also opened new opportunities for expanding trade with its neighbors. Jordan, for example, signed a $15 billion deal for Israeli natural gas, and a $1.2 billion agreement was struck with Egypt.16

While the anti-Semitic BDS movement has worked to promote a boycott of Israel, U.S.-Israel economic relations have been unaffected and remain robust with imports and exports totaling over $38 billion. In addition, each of the 50 states benefit from their ties with Israel. In 2015, 22 states exported more than $100 million worth of goods to Israel, led by New York with exports of more than $5.3 billion. More than 10,000 U.S. companies do business in Israel, including all major high-tech companies. Eighty-six Israeli companies are listed on U.S. stock exchanges as of March 2016.

Legal Responses

Due to free speech guarantees, it is very difficult to take any legal action against BDS proponents in most countries. One exception is France, where boycotts of Israel have been made expressly illegal. High courts in France have found BDS activists guilty of inciting hate and/or discrimination against Jews and Israelis on multiple occasions, and the Paris City Council has adopted two resolutions against the BDS movement specifically.

Nevertheless, the BDS movement has created a backlash in the United States. In February 2016, Congress passed the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, which contained a provision requiring the United States to oppose efforts by the European Union to engage in any form of BDS against Israel. In addition, within 180 days after the bill becomes the law, the administration is required to provide a report to Congress on global BDS activities, including the participation of foreign companies in political boycotts of Israel. The law also calls on the administration “to prevent investigations or prosecutions by governments or international organizations of United States persons on the sole basis of such persons doing business with Israel, with Israeli entities, or in Israeli-controlled territories.” The president has indicated he would not enforce this provision because it implies recognition of Israeli settlements.17

Anti-BDS legislation is also being adopted by state legislatures, with South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, and Illinois in the vanguard. Each state has slightly different language in their bills, but they resemble the law adopted in South Carolina, which bars public entities from contracting with businesses engaging in the “boycott of a person or an entity based in or doing business with a jurisdiction with whom South Carolina can enjoy open trade.” Though Israel is not mentioned, the impetus for the law was the belief that BDS discriminates against the people of Israel and weakens the economy of South Carolina. Alabama Senate Joint Resolution 6 (SJR6), stating staunch opposition to the BDS movement as well as support for the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland, was signed into law by Alabama's governor on February 16, 2016.

Following the legislative actions in the United States, Great Britain is now also planning legislation that will allow the government to prosecute universities, local government, councils, and student unions that back the BDS movement.18 In addition, the EU announced that it is opposed to the BDS movement.19


Adam Shay summarized many of the key points related to BDS:

Under the guise of advancing the cause of human rights, humanitarian law, peace, and justice, the BDS movement is, in effect, advocating the delegitimization of the State of Israel, with the support and leadership of elements within the Palestinian leadership, including elements connected with terror organizations.

The nature of the campaign is not the freedom of association and freedom of speech. It is the denial of the basic and inherent liberties of members of the general public to freely choose the products that they wish to purchase, the stores in which they choose to enter, the performances to which they choose to attend, and the companies with which they wish to trade….
It is aimed at manipulating members of the general public, people of conscience who have a bona fide, innocent, and genuine inclination to help the more unfortunate elements in international society, into supporting a cause of which they are generally ignorant and thus reliant on the propaganda disseminated by the BDS people.20

As the Palestinian issue has faded from the headlines as a result of the Arab Spring and the shooting wars around the region, the BDS campaign has managed to focus some attention on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, especially on college campuses. Activists’ success in generating publicity has been inadvertently aided by some BDS opponents who have overreacted to BDS campaigns and exaggerated their influence.

BDS activists have had success in using the “Big Lie” technique, that is, saying something that is untrue, but ultimately comes to be accepted through sheer repetition. The reiteration of specious accusations against Israel have taken some toll on Israel’s image as a democracy that cares about human rights, but has not generated greater sympathy for the Palestinians – at least in the United States.

In terms of accomplishing its principal objective of turning Israel into a pariah and mobilizing international sanctions against Israel in the hope of destroying the Jewish State, the BDS movement has been a complete failure. It has had no impact on Israel’s policies and an insignificant effect on Israel’s economy and political relations. Moreover, the boycott campaign has generated a backlash with large amounts of money being invested into fighting BDS and various legal measures being adopted to discourage and prevent boycotts against Israel.

Today, a consensus exists that the end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will require face-to-face negotiations to reach an agreement that results in two states for the two people. The BDS campaign undermines this goal and seeks an alternative one-state solution in which Palestine replaces Israel.

Source: 1 Barghouti, Omar. “Relative Humanity: The Essential Obstacle to a Just Peace in Palestine,”, (December 13–14, 2003);
2 Cooperman, Alan. “Israel Divestiture Spurs Clash,” Washington Post, (September 29, 2004);
3 Guttman, Nathan. “Church adopts compromise resolution on Israel,” Jerusalem Post, (June 19, 2006);
4 “'We cannot profit from the destruction of homes and lives,’ Presbyterians say,'” Times of Israel, (June 21, 2014);
5 Gladstone, Rick. “United Church of Christ Approves Divestment to Aid Palestinians,” New York Times, (June 30, 2015);
6 Gladstone, Rick. “U.S. Church Puts 5 Banks From Israel on a Blacklist,” New York Times, (January 12, 2016);
7 Goldman, Yoel. “Abbas: Don't boycott Israel,” Times of Israel, (December 13, 2013);
8 “SodaStream leaves West Bank as CEO says boycott anti-Semitic and pointless,” Guardian, (September 2, 2015);
9 “CEO calls BDS boycott ‘hateful’ and ‘anti-Semitic’; Affecting hundreds of its Palestinian workers,” i24News, (September 3, 2015);
10 “Israel boycott illegal and cannot be implemented, UCU tells members,” University and College Union, (September 28, 2007);
11 “UAW Nullifies California Grad Students' BDS Vote,” Inside Higher Ed, (December 18, 2015);
12 Nelson, Cary. “The Intersectionality Muddle,” Inside Higher Ed, (February 15, 2016);
13Associated Press, (June 18, 2006);
14 Statement on Academic Cooperation, signed in London, (May 22, 2005);
15 Rashty, Sandy. “UK-Israel trade hit record high in 2014,” Jewish Chronicle, (March 26, 2015);
16 Newman, Marissa. “Israel signs $15 billion gas deal with Jordan,” Times of Israel, (September 3, 2014);
17 Lifson, Thomas. “White House opposes bipartisan trade bill because it is anti-BDS,” The American Thinker, (February 12, 2016);
18 “UK to advance legislation to block Israel boycotts,” Times Of Israel, (February 14, 2016);
19 “EU backs down from product-labeling bid,” Israel Hayom, (February 14, 2016);
20 Shay, Adam. “Manipulation and Deception: The Anti-Israel ‘BDS’ Campaign,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, (March 19, 2012)
21 Abunimah, Ali. “In historic decision, South Africa's ANC makes support for Israel boycott its official policy,” Electronic Intifada, (December 20, 2012)