U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–874 PDF 2015

IMPACT OF THE BOYCOTT, DIVESTMENT, AND 

SANCTIONS MOVEMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 28, 2015 

Serial No. 114–41 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DeSAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Staff Director 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

ART ARTHUR, Staff Director, Subcommittee on National Security 

SARAH VANCE, Clerk 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

RON DESANTIS, Florida, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma, Vice Chair 

WILL HUR, Texas 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts, 

Ranking Member 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 28, 2015 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Mark Dubowitz, Executive Director, Center on Sanctions and Illicit Finance, Foundation for Defense of Democracies 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Mr. Daniel Birnbaum, Chief Executive Officer, Sodastream International, 

School of Law 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Mr. Eugene Kontorovich,Professor of Law, Northwestern University, School 

of Law 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Mr. Matthew Duss, President, Foundation for Middle East Peace 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

APPENDIX 

Letter to Ron DeSantis and Stephen F. Lynch from Anti-Defamation League .. 24 

Statement submitted to the National Security from Josh Ruebner, Policy 

Director, US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation ..................................... 28 

Letter from Mr. Matthew Duss, President, Foundation for Middle East Peace . 32 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

IMPACT OF THE BOYCOTT, DIVESTMENT, AND 

SANCTIONS MOVEMENT 

Tuesday, July 28, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:20 p.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ron DeSantis [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives DeSantis, Hice, Russell, Hurd, and 

Lynch. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The Subcommittee on National Security will come 

to order. 

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at 

any time. 

The chair notes that he is responsible under the rules of the 

House and the rules of the committee to maintain order and preserve decorum in the committee room. And we will do that, and 

disruption of business will not be tolerated. Thank you very much. 

The chair now recognizes himself for an opening statement. 

BDS is the campaign for boycott, divestment, and sanctions 

against Israel. The BDS movement seeks to target the state of 

Israel for boycotts, divestments, and sanctions. The purported goal 

is to leverage negative treatment of Israel to procure peace in the 

region. However, it is clear that the ultimate goal of the BDS movement is not to simply exert pressure on Israel to alter domestic 

policies; they would like to isolate, delegitimize, and irrevocably 

cripple the Jewish state. 

BDS supporter and professor at Cal State University As’ad 

AbuKhalil has said, ‘‘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.’’ 

Another supporter of BDS, writer John Spritzler, stated, ‘‘BDS’ 

stated goals logically imply the end of Israel as a Jewish state.’’ 

The notion that BDS is simply a harmless political movement is 

not true. BDS is better understood as an attempt to single out the 

world’s only Jewish state for negative treatment through economic 

warfare. 

U.S. policy should actively oppose attempts to boycott, divest, 

and sanction Israel. As our most dependable ally in the Middle 

East, the region’s only democracy, and a country that shares our 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

values, Israel deserves our steadfast support. We need to nip BDS 

in the bud. 

This hearing is timely in light of recent comments by the State 

Department spokesman regarding anti-BDS language contained in 

the trade authority bill recently passed by Congress. While the bill 

specifically mandates that U.S. Negotiators pressure potential trading partners to reject BDS, the State Department indicated it 

would not enforce the language. 

Congress included the anti-BDS provision because it wanted to 

stymie efforts emanating particularly from European countries, 

where anti-Semitism unfortunately is at a post-World War II high, 

to target Israel. Congress needs to conduct oversight of the State 

Department to ensure compliance with the statutory law. 

Now, BDS is not a mainstream position in the United States, but 

it has gained traction on college campuses and in European capitals. 

The goals of BDS go beyond the idea of encouraging corporations 

and academic institutions to boycott and divest from businesses in 

Judea and Samaria. Support for BDS is curious in light of the fact 

that many advocates for BDS have no qualms with trading with 

rogue regimes, such as Iran. Indeed, these advocates seek to apply 

a completely separate standard to the world’s only Jewish state, 

while turning a blind eye to militant Islamic regimes that threaten 

both Israel and the United States. 

According to a recent study by the Israeli Finance Ministry, boycotts present a significant threat to Israel’s economy. Boycotts 

threaten inflation, layoffs, and a potential 20-percent drop in exports. If European companies and governments were to support 

BDS, Israeli officials maintain such action would constitute a dramatic blow to the Israeli economy. 

Israeli and American businesses have been impacted by BDS 

through divestment by major church groups in the United States, 

such as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the United Church 

of Christ. 

The bottom line is that support for BDS undermines Israel’s 

economy and national security. It is a direct threat to the continued vitality and success of the state of Israel. 

Today, we will hear from the CEO of SodaStream, Daniel 

Birnbaum, an Israeli company that has been the target of BDS. 

The BDS campaign has specifically targeted this company, which 

has since moved its factory out of Judea and Samaria, resulting in 

the loss of thousands—the loss of jobs for many of the Palestinians 

and Israelis alike. 

In the case of SodaStream’s factory in Judea and Samaria, which 

is now closed, an estimated 500 Palestinian Arabs were employed 

there, out of a total of 1,300 employees. While SodaStream is working to secure work permits from the Israeli Government for these 

Palestinians and other former employees at their new factory, the 

future employment opportunities for many of these workers remain 

uncertain. These are the very people who BDS claims it intends to 

help. 

We will also hear from Professor Eugene Kontorovich. He was a 

major force behind the South Carolina law prohibiting companies 

who want to contract with the State government from participating 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

in boycotts based on nationality, national origin, ethnicity, race, 

and other categories of discrimination. He will also discuss existing 

Federal law, international law, and the potential impact of BDS on 

the international trading system. 

Mr. Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of Foundation for Defense of Democracies, will also be joining us. He has written extensively on the topic of the BDS movement. 

Mr. Matthew Duss is the guest of my minority colleagues, and 

he is the president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. 

The bottom line is that, one, this hearing will be critical in informing Congress about the true nature of the goals and underlying motivations of the BDS movement and its impact on trade 

and economic growth. American policy must be designed to counteract BDS at every turn. 

And, with that, I now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, the ranking member, for his opening statement. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you 

for you holding this hearing to examine the boycott, divestment, 

and sanctions movement, also known as BDS. 

And I would also like to welcome today’s witnesses for helping 

the committee with its work. 

It is the foreign policy of the United States Government to oppose boycotts against the state of Israel. Israel is our strongest regional ally, and the economic isolation of Israeli goods and services 

will only frustrate our efforts aimed at achieving a lasting peace in 

the Middle East. 

The United States has consistently opposed the boycott of Israel 

declared by the Arab League in 1948. Most recently, Congress 

passed and President Obama signed an omnibus appropriations bill 

in December of 2014 that included language opposing the Arab 

League boycott as an impediment to peace in the region and called 

for its immediate termination. 

As with the Arab League boycott, the United States Government 

opposes the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement that commenced in 2005 under the organization of Palestinian civil society 

groups. As recently stated by State Department spokesman John 

Kirby, the United States has, ‘‘strongly opposed boycotts, divestments, campaigns, and sanctions targeting the state of Israel and 

will continue to do so.’’ 

Some Members of Congress have questioned the administration’s 

willingness to enforce an anti-boycott provision included in the fasttrack trade bill passed last month. The provision seeks to discourage foreign partners from implementing economic sanctions against 

the state of Israel and also makes reference to, ‘‘Israeli-controlled 

territories.’’ 

In response to this language, the State Department has reiterated strong U.S. opposition to boycotts against Israel, while also reaffirming similarly longstanding U.S. Policy on Israeli settlement 

activity. As noted by the State Department, ‘‘Every U.S. administration since 1967, Republican and Democrat, has opposed Israeli 

settlement activity beyond the 1967 lines. This administration is no 

different, and our policy remains firm and unchanged.’’ This policy 

is in complete harmony with the desire for a two-state solution. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

Contrary to the criticism that has been voiced by some of our colleagues, I believe that the administration has been very clear in 

consistently applying the longstanding policy of the United States 

to oppose boycotts against the state of Israel. 

I would also note that the bipartisan sponsors of the anti-boycott 

language included in the trade bill, Senator Cardin and Senator 

Portman, have been equally clear in stating that they never intended their amendment to legislate on settlements or contravene 

U.S. policy on the settlements. Rather, the language seeks to further discourage boycotts against Israel in accordance with longstanding policy. 

I am aware that the BDS movement has become effective in 

some degree; it has had some impact. The bipartisan Congressional 

Research Service notes that divestment from Israel and boycotts of 

Israeli products and services have occurred to a certain extent. Mr. 

Birnbaum will testify, I am sure, on the economic impact of boycotts against his company, SodaStream, an Israeli manufacturer 

that had a manufacturing facility in the West Bank. 

In December of 2013, the National Council of the American Studies Association, a nationwide academic organization, voted to boycott Israeli academic institutions. In recognition of the value of academic freedom and cooperation to foster peace in the Middle East, 

134 Members of Congress, including myself, Members from both 

parties, sent a letter to the association in strong opposition to their 

decision. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to discussing these and other 

issues relating to the BDS movement. And I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. DESANTIS. I thank the ranking member. 

I will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any members 

who would like to submit a written statement. 

Mr. DESANTIS. We will now proceed to the witness testimony. 

Welcome to the witnesses. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify, so if you could please rise and raise your right 

hands. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give 

will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you God? 

Thank you. Please be seated. 

All witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your testimony 

to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be made part of 

the record. 

Mr. Dubowitz, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF MARK DUBOWITZ 

Mr. DUBOWITZ. Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch, 

members of the subcommittee, on behalf of FDD and its Center on 

Sanctions and Illicit Finance, thank you very much for inviting me 

to testify today. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

I want to step back and take a broader look at this. The BDS 

movement is a tool of political, economic, and financial warfare 

against Israel. Those waging this war seek to, first, isolate and 

delegitimize Israel and to turn it into an international pariah. 

From there, by threatening reputational consequences against 

Israeli business partners, imposing economic damages on Israel becomes an easier task. 

Our research has determined that the economic and financial 

warfare campaign currently targeting Israel’s relationship with Europe is the real goal. That relationship in trade terms is valued at 

about $30 billion. 

My written testimony details the international organizations, religious institutions, private businesses, sovereign wealth funds, and 

universities that have joined in support of BDS in recent years. 

Most of them are European. They should all be identified publicly 

as having joined the economic and financial war against Israel. 

Notably, several were pressured by BDS activists and the Palestinian Authority to terminate their business ties with Israel. They 

have targeted major Israeli financial institutions providing services 

to the West Bank and East Jerusalem through local branches. 

They have targeted international companies building the light-rail 

train system in Jerusalem. They have targeted Israeli academics 

and international entertainers with no connection to the West 

Bank or East Jerusalem. This is not just about the West Bank or 

East Jerusalem. It is about Israel. 

For those well acquainted with economic and financial warfare, 

this is a familiar playbook, as pressure is ratcheted up on the target country to inflict increasing pain. 

What is even more striking is that these entities have gone out 

of their way to single out Israel, the only democracy in the Middle 

East, for alleged injustices, while ignoring China, Russia, Iran, 

Syria, Sudan for their massive violations of human rights. This 

smacks of discrimination. 

It is also a bad omen for the United States and our other allies, 

against whom many people around the world have grievances. Mr. 

Chairman, America and its allies must prepare for an increasingly 

dangerous era of political, economic, and financial warfare targeting the United States and our allies. This type of warfare is 

America’s default instrument of coercive statecraft. It is also the 

new normal in the international arena. As always, Israel is the canary in the coal mine. 

Many of our allies are involved in territorial disputes around the 

world. We may agree or disagree with their positions, but our ability and will to defend them from military, missile, cyber, WMD, 

and terrorist threats, amongst others, must never be dependent on 

our policies with respect to these territorial disputes. The same 

should be said about defending them against economic and financial threats. 

Make no mistake: After watching the U.S. Treasury Department 

target Iran, Russia, and Syria with sophisticated sanctions and 

other advanced economic strategies, America’s adversaries have 

been developing their own economic weapons. 

Having witnessed the powerful impact of having Iran removed 

from the SWIFT banking system, last year pro-Palestinian organiVerDate Sep 11 2014 15:02 Oct 29, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\96874.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

zations petitioned SWIFT to disconnect Israeli financial institutions. SWIFT explained that it would not take action without direction from EU regulators, who for now have refused this request. 

This could change. 

Meanwhile, China has used economic and other coercive measures to challenge Japan, the Philippines, and our other Asian allies 

over the South China Sea and frequently has used economic and 

diplomatic pressure to challenge international recognition of Taiwan. 

Russia has used political and energy warfare to threaten Eastern 

and Central European allies in order to try and reestablish what 

it considers its sphere of influence. Both China and Russia have 

used cyber warfare against the United States and our allies. 

For now, America and its allies are vulnerable but buttressed by 

the fact that the U.S. dominates the global economy because of the 

power of the U.S. Dollar. This will not last forever. China, Russia, 

and others are already looking at creating a parallel financial system free from American influence. 

Make no mistake: An economic war is undeniably underway, and 

that war is now expanding to America’s allies too. As the BDS 

movement has made clear, Israel is among them. 

Mr. Chairman, my written testimony outlines the important legislative efforts underway at the State and Federal level to protect 

Israel and our other allies from this economic and financial war. 

Congress must encourage this, but more can be done. 

The United States needs to create an economic defensive shield 

to protect us and our allies against economic and financial coercion. 

Congress is well placed to lead that effort. 

In my written testimony, I outline a number of recommendations, including: establishing a policy planning function at the U.S. 

Treasury Department; standing up an economic warfare directorate 

at the NSC; developing a doctrine on the use of economic warfare; 

and establishing an economic warfare command. 

We have entered a new era, and new structures are needed to 

defend the U.S. and its allies from this type of warfare. I recommend that this subcommittee work with other relevant congressional committees and the administration to institute these government reforms. 

In conclusion, BDS is a form of economic and financial coercion 

that should be viewed within a broader problem set. To counter it 

properly, this challenge must be addressed at a more strategic 

level. Failure to do so will leave the United States and our allies 

vulnerable to attack from economic and financial warfare. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify. I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Dubowitz follows:] 

[For complete submitted testimony, please see the following 

website: http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/impact-of-the-boycottdivestment-and-sanctions-movement/] 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Birnbaum for 5 minutes. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL BIRNBAUM 

Mr. BIRNBAUM. Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch, 

members of the subcommittee, good afternoon, and thank you for 

the opportunity to testify on the BDS today. 

For the past 8 years, I have been the CEO of SodaStream International, a company publicly traded on the NASDAQ and 

headquartered in Israel. SodaStream is the world’s leading manufacturer and distributor of home carbonation systems. Our products 

are available in 45 countries around the world and sold at 70,000 

stores, including 13,500 here in the United States. The products 

are manufactured at 12 facilities around the world, including 1 in 

New Jersey. However, our largest facility is in the Mishor Adumim 

industrial zone of the West Bank. 

I am speaking to you today because SodaStream has been a primary target of the BDS and its affiliates since my early days with 

the company 8 years ago. Here is the story in a nutshell. 

In all the craziness of the Middle East, in the midst of all the 

distrust, separation, hate, and violence, there is one factory that 

proves that things can be different, one factory that is an island of 

peace, where Palestinians and Israeli Jews work side-by-side— 

equal wages, equal benefits, and equal opportunity. In total, this 

factory employs 1,300 people, of whom 400 are Israeli Jews, 400 

are Israeli Arabs, and 500 are Palestinians from the West Bank. 

We eat together in the same dining hall, and we celebrate each other’s festivals. 

The wages we pay in this factory are according to Israeli law— 

wages which are three to four times higher than what our Palestinian workers could earn if they had a job in the PA. We provide 

a healthcare package for all our workers and their families that includes physician home visits, prescription drugs, overseas treatments, and even organ transplants—all that at zero copay. 

More broadly speaking, this factory, which may be the largest 

private employer in the West Bank, could also very well be the 

seeds of the budding economy of the future Palestinian state. 

This factory is, or should I say was, a true gem in many ways, 

but the BDS thought otherwise. They have been attacking this factory in various campaigns and schemes all over the world, calling 

for its closure and effectively calling for the termination of its 1,300 

employees. 

The BDS have thrown all possible war crimes at us, accusing us 

of ethnic cleansing, stealing land, perpetuating the so-called occupation and profiting from it, exploiting our Palestinian workers, 

acting against international law, representing apartheid. Such a 

long and horrible list of infractions make it almost futile to defend. 

BDS tactics include intimidating, harassing, and threatening of 

our retail partners around the world. BDS activities have been vandalizing our products in stores, stickering them with hate images, 

throwing product on the floor, stickering, picketing, chaining themselves to the entrances to the stores, conducting violent demonstrations and flash mob events, circulating pamphlets and utilizing social media to spread vile videos on YouTube, mobilizing mainstream media—all to manipulate our retailers to drop our product. 

To provide the appearance of ‘‘moral grounding and substantiation of international law,’’ the BDS garnered support from 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 

churches, including churches here in the United States, from wellknown NGOs, and support from European governments. 

The BDS are in the business of manipulation, violence, and destruction, but, instead of using bullets and bombs, they use vicious 

lies and half-truths. 

I would like to share with you just one example of a grotesque 

image broadly distributed in Europe and which is also featured at 

this very moment on a BDS Web site. On page 13 of my written 

submission, you will see this image that shows SodaStream product smeared with blood, and it reads in French, ‘‘SodaStream: A 

product that kills. One product bought equals one family massacred.’’ 

Are these not libelous statements that cross a line? A French 

court ruled in January 2014 that this conduct, specifically this 

image, is abusive and illegal, and the BDS was issued a cease-anddesist order and a punitive fine. 

Last October, we took a business decision to relocate this facility 

to a much larger facility inside the 1967 international borders of 

Israel—a business decision. And how did the BDS respond? Well, 

as expected, they celebrated a big victory. They did not care that 

5,000 Palestinians will lose their sustenance. 

But what is really revealing is that the attacks are continuing 

even after we announced our departure from the West Bank. This 

shows the true agenda of the BDS. 

To our amazement, we are now being accused of stealing land for 

our new factory from the adjacent Bedouin town of Rahat within 

Israel. This is simply preposterous. The reality is that we were invited here. In my written statement, you will see a letter by the 

mayor of Rahat, Talal El-Garnawi, stating that these claims are 

not only false but that are our factory is a blessing, bringing economic prosperity to his town. 

Finally, the story of the 8-year hate campaign against 

SodaStream really exposes the true face of the BDS. It is evident 

that the BDS and its affiliates use the Palestinian people as a 

proxy to advance their political agenda grounded in the hate of 

Israel. Indeed, the BDS leaders have said many times that their 

true agenda is not to liberate the West Bank but, rather, to end 

the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. We shall not let that 

happen. 

Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch, subcommittee 

members, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to 

answer any questions you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Birnbaum follows:] 

[For complete submitted testimony, please see the following 

website: http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/impact-of-the-boycottdivestment-and-sanctions-movement/] 

Mr. DESANTIS. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Kontorovich for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF EUGENE KONTOROVICH 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch, 

honorable members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to 

testify today about the continued campaign of economic warfare 

against Israel. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
9 

The campaign of economic warfare against Israel dates back to 

the birth of the Jewish state. Starting in 1948, the Arab League 

organized a notorious campaign to isolate Israel. Not only did they 

block any economic ties between themselves and Israel, they pressured companies in third countries to also boycott Israel. 

In the 1970s, at the height of the Arab League’s boycott campaign, the U.S. passed laws making it a crime for U.S. entities to 

participate in the boycott. Since then, the Arab League boycott has 

fallen into decline and under-enforcement. Part of this has been 

due to these U.S. laws and U.S. pressure in trade negotiations. 

Partly, it has been due to changing Arab attitudes towards Israel. 

As Arab states were increasing their trade with Israel, the old 

boycott campaign developed a new face. At the Durban Forum in 

2001, anti-Israel groups, coordinated by U.N. Agencies, adopted 

boycotts and sanctions as a policy tool to isolate Israel. Thus, private actors appear today at the forefront of boycott campaigns 

today, but the strategy is the same as the Arab League pursued: 

to choke off and delegitimize Israel. 

Several legislative initiatives in Congress seek to update U.S. 

Laws to deal with the new face of the boycott movement. Part of 

this legislation has passed in the TPA, and another important part, 

contained in H.R. 1907, is currently in conference. These laws are 

merely mild updatings of the traditional U.S. Approach to Israel 

boycotts. They have received across-the-board, unanimous support 

in Congress. 

Nonetheless, some object to the anti-boycott laws because they 

would also apply to boycotts that also are directed at entities in, 

‘‘territories under Israel jurisdiction,’’ which means West Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and other parts of the West Bank. Contrary to the entirely unsupported claims of these critics, this is also 

entirely consistent with U.S. Law and policy. 

The existing anti-boycott laws also apply to boycotts of any 

Israeli nationals or companies, regardless of their location. No one 

has ever objected to this or sought to limit the application. In signing the 1977 anti-Arab-League-boycott law, President Carter observed that the issue goes to the very heart of free trade amongst 

nations and that boycotts were, in fact, divisive measures aimed 

particularly at Jews. President Carter and no one else has ever 

suggested that the anti-boycott laws be limited to Israeli companies 

in any particular location. 

Moreover, the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement, passed in 1985 

and expanded in 1996, expressly allows Israeli products from the 

West Bank to receive the same status for U.S. trade purposes as 

any other Israeli products. As reflected in the U.S.-Israel Free 

Trade Agreement Implementation Act, this was immediately put 

into effect by President Clinton. 

Indeed, there is no basis in U.S. law for disallowing Congress to 

apply particular laws, trade laws, or other lawful measures to the 

West Bank or any other territories. Nor does this contradict U.S. 

foreign policy. While the Executive has indeed at times opposed 

settlement expansion or settlement construction—that is to say, 

adding homes for Jews in the disputed territory—no administration 

has ever opposed business activity there. Indeed, the U.S. Has long 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
10 

recognized that peace depends on increased prosperity and economic integration. 

Moreover, boycotts do not seek to prevent settlement growth. 

Rather, their express goal is to choke off and eliminate all Jewish 

presence, even mere business activity, in the disputed areas, including ones that would surely come under Israeli sovereignty in 

any peace deal. This fundamentally contradicts U.S. policy, dating 

back to 1967, that any ultimate parameters must be negotiated. 

Finally, this language, this now-controversial language, is necessary to prevent anti-boycott laws from becoming indeterminate 

and incoherent. For example, language referring to territories controlled by Israel is necessary simply to have such laws applies to 

western Jerusalem. As is well known, the position of the administration and several administrations is that western Jerusalem is 

not part of the state of Israel. Thus, if Congress wishes to ensure 

that its trade measures and laws concerning Israel apply to western Jerusalem, language like ‘‘territories under Israeli jurisdiction’’ 

is needed. And that is based on the administration’s own view in 

the Zivotofsky case. 

Moreover, boycotts of settlements are not self-limiting, because 

settlements are not businesses. Business is one thing; settlements 

are another. What about the Tel Aviv tour operator that goes to the 

Old City, organizes a tour? That could fall within the boycott movement in European sanctions. On the other hand, we know that 

even the President of the United States has visited the Old City. 

This is not what people mean by ‘‘settlements.’’ 

There is nothing internationally illegal about doing business in 

the territories. One does not need to be a supporter of settlements 

to understand this. Just last year, a prestigious French appeals 

court ruled that French and international law allows French companies and businesses to do business with the Israeli Government 

in these areas. 

Finally, as I elaborate in my written testimony, the planned EU 

trade restrictions, which some of these measures go to, would violate multiple provisions of the General Agreement on Trade and 

Tariffs. 

Let me conclude with some brief recommendations. Congress 

should quickly pass H.R. 1907 to make clear that these measures 

are violations of the GATT, to encourage States to continue to pass 

laws dealing with boycotts, and to protect United States companies 

from discriminatory and baseless foreign judgments based on perversions of international law. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Kontorovich follows:] 

[For complete submitted testimony, please see the following 

website: http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/impact-of-the-boycottdivestment-and-sanctions-movement/] 

Mr. DESANTIS. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Duss for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW DUSS 

Mr. DUSS. Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch, members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for inviting me 

here to speak to you on this timely issue. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
11 

In the 10 years since it commenced, the BDS movement has 

slowly but steadily risen in visibility. I would like to focus today 

on the role that this movement has been playing recently in the 

United States, particularly with regard to recent congressional legislation. 

In order to do that, I want to first take a moment to identify just 

what we are talking about when we discuss BDS. 

This movement has three main demands. The first is an end to 

the occupation that began in 1967. The second is equal rights for 

Palestinian citizens within Israel. The third is protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes 

in what is today Israel. 

This movement is distinct from many peace activists in Israel, 

Palestine, the United States, Europe, and elsewhere who support 

boycotts of settlement products and divestment of businesses profiting from the 48-year-old occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and 

East Jerusalem as part of an effort to preserve the possibility of a 

two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

Crucially, the BDS movement is also distinct from the recent 

moves by the European Union to more aggressively distinguish between Israel within the pre-1967 lines, known as the Green Line, 

and the occupied territories. 

This is where we come to the recent trade legislation by Congress 

and the response from the State Department. With the stated intention of protecting Israel from BDS, the recently passed Trade 

Promotion Authority contained a provision that implied a significant shift in the policy of the United States since 1967. The provision requires the U.S. Trade Representative to discourage European Union countries from boycotting, ‘‘Israel or persons doing 

business in Israel or Israeli-controlled territories.’’ 

This is why I think it was important and appropriate for the 

State Department to offer a clarification, as it did upon passage of 

the trade bill, stating that the U.S. will continue to make the distinction between Israel and the occupied territories, as the United 

States has done since 1967. 

Now, I can talk more about this in the Q&A, and my written 

statement contains more detailed analysis, but, to the extent that 

one sees BDS actions as part of an effort to delegitimize Israel— 

and I think that’s clearly the case with regard to a number of the 

leaders of the movement—they should certainly be addressed but, 

I would advise, not through legislation. Israel has protections it 

needs and deserves under existing U.S. Law. The arguments raised 

by the BDS movement in academic and other civil society institutions should be addressed in the American tradition, with thoughtful, considered, and ethical counter-arguments. 

I would also take a moment here to suggest that it is a mistake 

to focus on the BDS movement while ignoring the main reason for 

its continued growth, which is the failure to end the occupation 

that began in 1967 and achieve Palestinian freedom and sovereignty. If one is genuinely concerned about the impact of the BDS 

movement, the surest way to take the wind out of its sails and arrest its growth would be to work to achieve those goals and act 

against efforts which prevent or foreclose them. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
12 

Moreover, it would be counterproductive to give BDS an unearned victory here by cooperating in any way with the conflation 

of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. We can and must 

support Israel in defending herself against actions that genuinely 

threaten her security and legitimacy. This has been a consistent 

American position since Israel’s birth. 

Another consistent American position, however, has been in opposing the creation of Israeli settlements, which have been deemed 

illegitimate and an obstacle to peace by every U.S. President since 

1967. Efforts to blur that distinction are just as dangerous to 

Israel’s existence as a Jewish and democratic state as attacks on 

Israel’s legitimacy itself. It is entirely consistent with longstanding 

U.S. policy, and, indeed, necessary to preserve the ultimate goal of 

a two-state solution, to continue to make that distinction in U.S. 

Policy and law. 

I thank you, gentlemen, for your time and attention and look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Duss follows:] 

[for complete submitted testimony, please see the following 

website: http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/impact-of-the-boycottdivestment-and-sanctions-movement/] 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

The chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes of questioning. 

Mr. Dubowitz, a lot of Americans may not know what BDS is. 

Is there any doubt in your mind that BDS is more than just trying 

to boycott certain policies, that BDS is aimed really at the legitimacy of Israel itself? 

Mr. DUBOWITZ. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind. I mean, 

this is a familiar playbook for people who have worked in the area 

of sanctions. I’ve spent over a decade working on sanctions, and it 

is a very familiar playbook. As I said, it is about delegitimization 

at the political level. it is about establishing the country as an 

international pariah. And then it is about using a combination of 

state actions and private actions in an economic and financial warfare campaign against that country. 

And I would make another point, and that is that many of our 

allies, actually, are involved in territorial disputes around the 

world. I mean, in the South China Sea right now, there are huge 

disputes going on between China and Vietnam and the Philippines 

and Japan and other countries. The United States shouldn’t be taking a position on territorial disputes in the context of economic and 

financial warfare. We don’t, for example, when supporting our allies against cyber threats, conventional military threats, terrorist 

threats, or missile threats. 

We have a firm policy of defending our allies, when we actually 

fund and sell missile defense systems or cyber defense systems to 

Israel, we expect the Israeli Government to use those systems protecting everybody in the region, including in the West Bank and 

West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. There should be no distinction with respect to economic and financial warfare. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Now, Mr. Birnbaum, you know, you have this 

company. You are employing all these Palestinian Arabs. You get 

targeted by BDS, so then you move operations. But yet they still 

target you. And so I think that that, to me, is very revealing. And 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
13 

I really appreciate your testimony, because I think that really educates the American people about what is really at the heart of this 

movement. 

But is there any doubt in your mind that this BDS movement is 

targeted beyond just territorial issues but about the legitimacy of 

Israel itself? 

Mr. BIRNBAUM. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind at 

all. And if I had any doubt, it was quenched the moment we announced that we were moving away from our West Bank factory on 

October 29, 2014, and a day later there were celebrations and new 

attacks on SodaStream for supposedly occupying the land of Bedouins within the state of Israel. And you can see those attacks at 

this very moment on certain BDS Web sites. 

And, for me, that is evidence that the BDS is not after freeing 

the supposed occupied West Bank, but the BDS is after the destruction of the state of Israel. They are not going to leave us 

alone. But we are going to continue doing what we are doing, because we are doing the right thing for our employees and for consumers around the world. They will not stop us. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So, because of the movement in response to BDS, 

how many fewer Palestinian Arabs are now employed? 

Mr. BIRNBAUM. That’s a situation that we are discussing right 

now with the Israeli Government. 

At this moment, there are about 400 Palestinians still on our 

payroll in both of the factories. One is in the process of being 

closed, the one in the West Bank. We expect that will close around 

October of this year. And another couple of hundred are already 

working in the new facility under temporary work permits. If the 

Israeli Government is gracious enough to grant us work permits for 

these Palestinians, we can continue to employ them. 

And, by the way, each one of them sustain 10 people, 10 dependents, on average. So right now we are impacting about 4,000 Palestinian people. 

I am hoping the Israeli Government will come through, but it is 

been a struggle and a debate that we’ve had with them for over 10 

months now. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So it is possible that there would be less jobs for 

Palestinian Arabs as a result of the—— 

Mr. BIRNBAUM. Absolutely. As it stands right now, Mr. Chairman, the work permits we have for the Israeli employees—I am 

sorry—for the Palestinian employees that are working in Israel 

right now are to expire at the end of this month, in just a few days. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Professor Kontorovich, I think that you and Mr. 

Duss have a disagreement about longstanding U.S. policy, particularly this TPA provision. As he characterized it, this was a significant change. The State Department was right to, kind of, make the 

statements that they did. Your position, I think, is that this has 

been pretty consistent, that we have not discriminated about particular commerce. 

So would you care to respond to Mr. Duss? 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. Thank you. 

So the United States position is articulated in laws and policies 

that the United States has adopted. I did not hear Mr. Duss cite 

laws to the contrary. On the other hand, the existing anti-boycott 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
14 

legislation applies to companies organized under Israeli law, regardless of where they would operate. 

Similarly, the U.S.-Israeli Free Trade Agreement Implementation 

Act gives the President the authority, which every President since 

Bill Clinton has exercised, to give Israeli treatment to products 

from areas under Israeli jurisdiction. Thus, every existing U.S. law 

on the subject has extended Israeli national treatment to these 

areas. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Now, Mr. Duss, I mean, regardless of, kind of, 

your views of the situation, I mean, Congress passed a specific provision in the trade authority bill. I mean, is not the appropriate response for if the State Department does not want that to come to 

Congress and ask them to change it, to just try to say you are not 

going to instruct your trade negotiators when they are negotiating 

deals, particularly with the European countries where this is a bigger issue, to simply not abide by it? 

Mr. DUSS. Thank you for the question. 

I think the principle was that the State Department was insisting on continuing consistency in U.S. policy, which is one of distinction between Israel, the state of Israel, and the occupied territories—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. But it might not be consistent with what was actually passed by the Congress. And I think that what the Congress, 

I think, intended is similar to what Professor Kontorovich laid out, 

was that boycotting Israel, we want to target that, we want our 

trade negotiators to negotiate specifically with the European countries, that, you know what, you are not going to boycott Israel. And 

the fact that there may be a company located somewhere else, that 

is not been a distinction that the Congress has wanted to draw. 

Let me ask all of you, but, Mr. Dubowitz, the growth of BDS in 

colleges and in Europe, can you give us a sense of—I think I was 

in law school when I first heard about it. It was, like, a really 

fringe thing. I mean, I know it is not mainstream in American society, but it seems to have picked up steam on college campuses and 

in European capitals. 

Mr. DUBOWITZ. I think that’s exactly right. And, obviously, the 

goal is—the college campaign is a goal of political delegitimization. 

it is to turn Israel into an international pariah. Then it makes it 

much easier for the BDS movement and their supporters to specifically launch an economic and financial warfare campaign against 

Israeli companies with a fundamental choice, you either do business with Israel or you do business with Europe but you can’t 

choose between—you can’t have both. 

And so it is very much—the BDS movement at an activist level 

is about political delegitimization. They also, then, have now 

turned their sights not only on Israeli companies but international 

companies that are actually working in Israel. And the fundamental goal is to undermine the Israeli economy, inflict severe economic damage on Israel, and try to change their policies. 

Again, from a U.S. national security point of view, there are 

many people in the world that have grievances against the United 

States. They will turn to economic and financial warfare against us 

and against all our allies. And I think it is incumbent upon the 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
15 

U.S. Congress to help create an economic defensive shield to protect all of our allies against the use of this new weapon. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Professor, do you agree that BDS has picked up 

steam on American college campuses over the last decade? 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. It does seem to be attracting more press attention. But one needs to also differentiate between college activity 

and the activity in the European Union, which is actually probably 

the most threatening. In college, there is often lots of tumult that 

does not amount to much. 

Mr. DESANTIS. There has been an increase of attention in the 

European capitals, correct? 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. Yes. 

I would like to offer one clarification about the State Department 

statement about the TPA. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Sure. 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. At least in the public statement—and I think 

it is important to note this and hold them to this—the State Department did not say that they would not enforce the provisions of 

the TPA. They did say they didn’t like them, but they did not come 

out and say they would not enforce them. 

There has been no Presidential signing statement. So the natural 

assumption, absent such a statement, would be that they would 

continue to enforce and apply it despite not liking it. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Spend some time here; that might not be a good 

assumption. But I take your point. 

All right, my time is up. I will now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Lynch, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I do want to revisit the idea about congressional intent, though, 

and I think you raise an important point. But in determining what 

congressional intent is in a bill, I think it is entirely appropriate 

to ask those legislators what they intended. And we did ask. We 

did ask Senator Cardin and we did ask Senator Portman what they 

intended by their amendment. And they intended that there be no 

change in the State Department policy. 

So that is probably why you don’t have a clarification on what 

State Department policy is, because they intended no change, and 

the administration saw no change. And the amendment passed 

unanimously, with no controversy whatsoever. And it was a consistent continuation of U.S. policy. 

I think one thing we can agree on is the importance of reaching 

a sustainable, peaceful solution between the Israelis and Palestinians. The two-state solution offers a vision of two secure, coexisting 

democratic nations. It has been a longstanding foreign policy objective of the United States and is supported by the vast majority of 

Congress. 

Mr. Duss, how long has the United States supported the twostate solution as a matter of official policy? 

Mr. DUSS. As a matter of official policy, I believe it was President 

George W. Bush who first articulated specifically and explicitly 

that the two-state solution was the policy of the United States. 

Mr. LYNCH. Now, I am not as—I know the outward manifestations of the BDS movement, but does the BDS movement generally 

support or oppose the two-state solution? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
16 

Mr. DUSS. The BDS movement does not make claims about outcomes. It claims to be a rights-based movement. I think, looking at 

the statements of a number of BDS leaders, it is clear that quite 

a few of them do not support the existence of Israel. They support 

other solutions. 

This is why I think it was very important, and it is very important, as I said in my opening statement, to distinguish between 

those who support economic action against Israel as a whole, such 

as the BDS movement, and those who support targeted action 

against the settlements, such as people in Israel, people in the 

United States, people in Europe, including the EU. 

This is exactly what the EU measures being discussed now focus 

on. This is not boycott. This is the EU just enforcing its own laws, 

focusing on its own economic activities with Israel. This is the EU 

saying to Israel, we want to do business with you, we want you to 

continue to be a favored trading partner; however, our own laws 

prevent us from engaging with these entities across the Green 

Line. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. 

Now, there has already been some discussion of the provision in 

the trade promotion authority bill, and specifically the phrase, 

‘‘Israel or persons doing business in Israel or Israeli-controlled territories.’’ 

Mr. Duss, your written testimony states, ‘‘Conflating Israel and 

the settlements represents a clear threat to the two-state solution 

itself, undermining our country’s ability to effectively broker a 

peace agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis. This is 

why it is important and appropriate for State Department to offer 

a clarification.’’ 

Can you elaborate or clarify on that? 

Mr. DUSS. I think what the State Department was saying—and 

this is a view that we share very closely with our European allies— 

is that, for the U.S. And its partners to be able to broker a peace 

in which the disposition of these territories will be decided bilaterally between negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, we 

cannot acquiesce due to the conflation of these territories in advance. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. 

Let me ask you this. Your testimony also indicates that blurring 

the distinction between Israel and its settlements is, ‘‘precisely 

what most radical elements in the BDS movement strive to 

achieve. And it would be hugely counterproductive to give BDS an 

unearned win by cooperating in any way with that conflation.’’ 

Can you elaborate on that and clarify? 

Mr. DUSS. Yes. Thank you. 

I think for many in the more extreme elements of BDS—and, 

again, this is why I think the distinction between those who focus 

on the settlements in the occupied territories and who recognize 

the legitimacy of Israel, the security, and the continued existence 

of Israel and whose goal is the two-state solution—you need to 

make a distinction between those and the BDS, who do not recognize Israel’s legitimacy, and they see all of Israel and the occupied 

territories as illegitimate. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
17 

And I think by conflating those things, by treating all boycotts 

and all economic pressure as just another part of BDS, you make 

the BDS movement out to be much stronger and much larger than 

it is. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. 

I have 12 seconds left. I will yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. DESANTIS. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair now recognizes the vice chair of the committee, Mr. 

Russell, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, in his submitted remarks, Mr. Duss notes that 

arguments by the BDS should be addressed in the American tradition, with thoughtful, considered, and ethical counter-arguments. 

I would like to note for the record that Mr. Duss’ father has accused Israel of war crimes and claimed that modern Israelis are 

not descended from Biblical Jews. 

I would also like to note for the record that Mr. Duss’ brother 

is infamous for his tweet, ‘‘Why are so many Israeli politicians rapists?’’ 

I would also like to note that Mr. Duss’ work with the Center for 

American Progress reacted in the height of offensive anti-Semitic 

rhetoric when he attempted to build his views with Nazi-era posters on their ThinkProgress Web site. This drew an extremely rare 

rebuke of the Center for American Progress writers from the White 

House—a very rare thing, indeed—that these views and tactics 

were troubling. 

In fact, this rebuke also further notes that the Simon Wiesenthal 

Center, the Anti-Defamation League, and the American Jewish 

Committee have all termed the anti-Israeli rhetoric of a Mr. Jilani 

and fellow Center for American Progress writers Eli Clifton, Ali 

Gharib, Matt Duss, and Ben Armbruster to be infected with Jew 

hatred and discriminatory policy positions towards Israel. 

And so my question would be: Mr. Dubowitz, do you think that 

these types of arguments that are coming from this key witness 

that has been elevated to testify before Congress, are these 

thoughtful, considered, and ethical ways to approach the issue? Yes 

or no? 

Mr. DUBOWITZ. So, Congressman, I think that it is absolutely 

critical to examine the backgrounds and the writings and the research of people who appear before your subcommittee. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, sir. 

And, Mr. Birnbaum, do you believe such tactics to be thoughtful, 

considered, and ethical counter-arguments? 

Mr. BIRNBAUM. No. 

And I would take it one step further, and I would like to correct 

for the record something that Mr. Duss said. Now, I am not an 

international scholar, and I am not a lawyer. But Mr. Duss said 

that the BDS does not have a position on the two-state solution, 

and they do. 

I do know how to read. And I am reading some quotes from Mr. 

Omar Barghouti, the co-chair of the BDS. And he said, ‘‘Good riddance. The two-state solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is 

finally dead. But someone has to issue an official death certificate 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 

before the rotting corpse is given a proper burial and we can all 

move on.’’ And there are many other such quotes. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Kontorovich, do you believe that these are thoughtful, considered, and ethical approaches for argument? 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. Well, there is a contradiction in this perspective. Mr. Duss, on the one hand, claims that we should have discussions and arguments about BDS rather than having legislation. On 

the other hand, he acknowledges that Israel has much-deserved 

protections against boycotts, in the form of the anti-Arab League 

boycott laws, et cetera. That demonstrates that the American tradition is not simply to discuss trade and strategic problems but to 

take action about them. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, sir. 

And so, Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat troubled that we have before us today someone elevated to come and testify before Congress 

that might have such a closet to be examined. And I find these 

types of approaches to the BDS problem to be unthoughtful, ill-considered, and of questionable tactics. And, as a result, I really don’t 

want to hear any more that he might have to say in this hearing. 

Thank you, and I yield back my time. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Dubowitz, do you believe that the BDS is going to positively 

or negatively impact the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians? 

Mr. DUBOWITZ. Congressman, the short answer is negatively. I 

mean, if you are launching an economic and financial warfare campaign against Israel, it is likely to only harden positions, it is likely 

to only exacerbate tensions. And I think, as Mr. Birnbaum has eloquently put it, it has a significant cost, not just to Israelis but to 

Palestinians as well. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. Well, would you go so far as to say, again, in 

your opinion, that BDS really is a threat to Israel as a Jewish 

state? 

Mr. DUBOWITZ. I would certainly go that far. And I would say 

that BDS, again—I want to just sort of broaden the lens here. Economic and financial warfare against a close American ally is a 

threat to America, and it is a threat to our other allies. 

You know, as I said, there are territorial disputes happening all 

over the world that our allies are involved in. it is one thing for 

the U.S. Government to have a political view on those territorial 

disputes. it is another thing for the U.S. Government not to support a close ally that is the target of economic and financial warfare or cyber warfare or military warfare or any other kind of warfare. 

And we need to defend our allies, or this problem will come to 

our shores. We learnt that problem with terrorism. Terrorism was 

directed against Israelis. They are the canary in the coal mine, and 

eventually these threats come to us. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
19 

Mr. HICE. All right. You mention a couple things. Defending our 

allies is one thing, but you said this is a threat to America, as well. 

In one or two sentences, what is the threat to America? 

Mr. DUBOWITZ. Well, the threat is that there are many people in 

the world that have grievances against the United States, and the 

international order is changing, with the rise of China and Russia 

and the attempt to establish an alternative financial order. I can 

talk a little bit more about what that looks like. But, clearly, these 

rising powers are interested in using economic coercion, financial 

coercion directly against the United States. 

So we need to harden our defenses. In my testimony, I outline 

exactly how Congress and the executive branch should begin to 

think about this. We need to create an economic defensive shield 

to protect American national and economic interests. 

Mr. HICE. Mr. Kontorovich, let me ask you, how much of a threat 

do you believe that this poses to Israel’s economy as well as their 

overall security? 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. The larger threat to Israel’s economy and security comes from the planned measures, the discussed measures 

of the European Commission, which are being encouraged by BDS 

groups. In the long run, I think they pose a real threat to both 

Israel and the viability of a two-state solution. 

Like Mr. Dubowitz, I would like to echo that this has a particularly strong impact on the United States. What the European 

Union is trying to do is to use trade, trade restrictions, and discriminatory trade restrictions, as a tool of foreign relations. The 

central pillar of the GATT and World Trade Organization Trading 

System, which the U.S. is the biggest proponent of, is to separate 

trade policy from foreign policy disputes. By allowing for discriminatory, targeted, non-most-favored-nation treatment of Israel, it 

would set a precedent that would have significant impacts for a 

major trading country like the United States. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. Thank you. 

Let me go back, Mr. Dubowitz, to you, then. Does Congress, in 

your opinion, do we have any options? Is there anything legislatively that we can or should do towards or against private organizations that are funding the BDS movement? 

Mr. DUBOWITZ. Well, Congressman, I do think so. 

And I want to just echo the comments of Mr. Kontorovich. And 

that is that the European Union, again, is attempting to use economic and financial warfare, in this case against Israel. And Mr. 

Kontorovich is right that the European Union may use this against 

other American allies. 

If the Philippines has a major dispute with the Chinese in the 

South China Sea and the European Union decides that, given the 

huge EU–Sino trade and economic relationship, that they are going 

to side with China over the Philippines, they may actually be persuaded by the Chinese to use their economic and financial leverage 

against the Philippines. And we would have to defend the Philippines, as a close ally economically and financially. 

And Congress can do that. We certainly—there is a huge amount 

of expertise in Congress on the issue of sanctions and creating not 

only an offensive sanctions instrument that has been the focus of 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
20 

the U.S. Government and Congress for years, but creating a defensive architecture, a defensive shield. 

Legislative initiatives that are occurring in Congress today at the 

State level in Illinois, in South Carolina, I think are an important 

first step. But the U.S. Government needs to be restructured and 

reoriented in the way that it thinks about this economic warfare 

doctrine. And the institutions within the U.S. Treasury Department and elsewhere—I have done a lot of research into this topic, 

and they are ill-prepared to defend the United States and our allies 

against this new threat of economic and financial coercion. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Maybe Professor Kontorovich, the BDS, are they 

trying to boycott regimes like Iran or the Castro brothers or North 

Korea, as well? 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. Not only are there not such measures against 

countries with massive human rights violations and breaches of 

international law, I think what is important to note is, even at the 

level of the European Union—forget the NGOs of the BDS movement for a second—even at the European level, the rules that they 

are seeking to impose against Israel they are not imposing even on 

other areas and situations where they believe there are settlements 

and a military occupation. 

Take Western Sahara, for example. The European Union, like 

the west of the world, recognizes that it is occupied by Morocco. 

The majority of the population there are settlers. On the other 

hand, under European law, Moroccan produce from Western Sahara is labeled ‘‘Made in Morocco’’ when imported into the European. When asked about this, European officials have said that’s 

completely consistent with European law. 

Labeling products is one thing. Sovereign status of territories is 

another thing. Indeed, Europe has been entering into more and 

more treaties with Morocco, allowing them access to Western Sahara. European parliamentary documents themselves concede that 

Europe’s treatment of Israel is inconsistent with its treatment of 

other situations they view as similar, in a way which is even problematic under European notions of uniformity. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Mr. Birnbaum, what about in your experience, 

when BDS was targeting SodaStream, did you notice them also targeting soda companies in Iran or North Korea or anything like 

that? 

Mr. BIRNBAUM. No, never. From my perspective, it appears they 

are blind to any other infractions in the world—assuming we are 

an infraction. We are not. 

But an important case would be, on the contrary, in the Nordics, 

the BDS caused the Nordic retailers, all of them, all of the Nordic 

states, to stop sourcing SodaStream product from the West Bank 

and sourcing it from the mother of human rights, China. 

So that’s not a problem for the Nordic markets, to import product 

from China. And we had to terminate, at that point in time, a few 

hundred Palestinian workers that could have enjoyed employment 

had we been able to continue to source for the Nordic markets from 

the West Bank. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So why the double standard? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
21 

Well, I guess we will let people draw their own conclusions. I 

mean, I think it is odd that Israel, with this one country, would 

have to live under a totally separate standard than any other country in the rest of the world, in the eyes of some of these people, 

and I wonder what motivates that. 

I am done. Mr. Lynch, do you have any more questions? 

Mr. LYNCH. I do. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. I will now yield 5 minutes to the ranking 

member, Mr. Lynch. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. 

Mr. Duss, there were some very serious accusations made by the 

gentleman from Oklahoma earlier in the hearing. While he asked 

everybody else their opinion of his accusations of you, he did not 

give you an opportunity to address those. So what I am going to 

do is I am going to yield my 5 minutes to you. I also know that 

he made accusations about stuff that your brother said. I am not 

sure how you are going to handle that, but take whatever time you 

would like. 

I think it is fairness. This is Congress. This is an open hearing, 

and we should hear from our witnesses. So I am going to yield you 

the balance of my time for you to address the accusations made 

against you. Proceed. 

Mr. DUSS. Thank you, Ranking Member. 

I don’t want to waste too much time on those. I would—you 

know, with regard to my father and my brother, they have both 

dedicated their lives to doing humanitarian work around the world, 

and I am very proud of them. So I think there have been statements they may have said in the past that have been taken out of 

context. 

And with my own work, as well, I stand behind everything I 

have ever written. And as I have said earlier here in this hearing 

and will continue to say, I stand for a two-state solution. The security and the continued existence of the state of Israel and the 

rights and self-determination of the Palestinian people—that’s the 

focus of my work, and that’s the reason I am here today. 

I would like to address the point about the BDS movement and 

is it focusing on any other countries. I think it is quite fair to bring 

up other abusive regimes and are they focused. I think Iran, for 

one, is the focus of a major international sanctions campaign on a 

whole range of issues. Those sanctions related to its nuclear program, if the deal goes through, will slowly be taken off. But it 

would still be focused, it will still be pressured on human rights 

issues and terrorism issues. 

But I think the key point to keep in mind here is that the BDS 

movement, agree or disagree with it, is driven by Palestinian civil 

society and a call by Palestinian civil society groups from 2005 to 

focus economic pressure on Israel. In that way, I think it is quite 

easy to understand why the Palestinians—they are not being occupied by other countries. They are being occupied, in their view, by 

Israel. That’s why Israelis the focus of their campaign. 

One other quick response to my colleague Mr. Kontorovich’s comment about boycotts in law. I think it is important, again, that we 

keep coming back to this point about distinction. I would distinguish between civil society actions and law and, for example, the 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
22 

Arab boycott. These are countries that are boycotting Israel as a 

state. Those are countries; these are not civil society actors. 

And, again, here is the distinction with the EU. The way that the 

EU is defining and enforcing its own laws is with regard to making 

a distinction between the occupied territories and with Israel. They 

are happy and want to increase trade with the state of Israel, but 

they want to be careful to make a distinction between Israel and 

the occupied territories. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. I thank the gentleman. 

And I thank the witnesses for coming here and your testimony. 

I think that this trade is going to be something that Congress, 

we are going to need to conduct oversight over to make sure that 

the law is being applied. I just think it would be a complete disaster to be negotiating trade agreements with these European 

countries, violate this provision, allow them to do economic boycotts 

of Israel. 

I mean, we are the one that provides the Europeans with their 

security, with our defense. I mean, they do not defend themselves; 

it is really us. And so I think it is something that we need to keep 

an eye on. And I think that this committee, as negotiations go forward, we are going to look to conduct the appropriate oversight. 

So I thank everybody, and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(23) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
24 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 96874.001
25 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 96874.002
26 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 96874.003
27 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 96874.004
28 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 96874.005
29 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 96874.006
30 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 96874.007
31 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 96874.008
32 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 96874.009
33 

Æ 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 96874.010