Wielding Antidiscrimination Law to Suppress the Movement for Palestinian Rights - Harvard Law Review

This looks worth a look.  I am not a student of the Israel-Palestinian conflict.  I'm not even sure there is an Arab-Israeli conflict because it seems to me that there is no real commitment by the Arab countries to deal with it, except in a sort of ritualistic way. 
The dilemma for me is that I strongly sympathize with the Jewish need to have a sanctuary after the horror of the Holocaust.  But the Europeans were perfectly happy to shift the burden of reparations to the Palestinians, without recompense to them.  Sixty years later the Palestinians are unreconciled and the Israelis unwilling to cede the vote if it would cost them their majority.  After waging futile war the West Bank Palestinians turned to mass protests - with no effect.  The Gazans - trapped in a mini-state - periodically wage attacks on their Israeli tormentors who retaliate with greater force, sometimes making significant but indecisive concessions.
For fifty years I expected that retreat to the pre-1967 lines would be the inevitable solution.  But Israeli land seizures continue - with absurd tribal rationales - and the U.S. has abandoned any pretense of support for UN Resolution 242, etc.  So BDS makes sense to me as it did for the struggle against Apartheid in South Africa.  What I don't know is whether those who lead it accept the necessity - either practical or moral of security for the Jewish homeland.   - gwc
Wielding Antidiscrimination Law to Suppress the Movement for Palestinian Rights - Harvard Law Review

The United States is seeing a cultural shift toward increased concern over Israel’s human rights record. Over the past decade, groups from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to the United Methodist Church to dozens of university student governments have taken steps that challenge the status quo of abuses of Palestinian rights.^1× Meanwhile, opponents have long argued that Palestinian rights work is anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli.^2× In recent years, these accusations have escalated from a merely political or rhetorical argument to a claim of legally cognizable discrimination. Since 2014, twenty-seven states have adopted laws penalizing businesses’ participation in the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, and such laws are pending in another fourteen states.^3× Facing First Amendment challenges, states have justified anti-BDS measures as standard antidiscrimination laws, combatting religious discrimination against Jewish people and national-origin discrimination against Israelis. Similar discrimination claims have been raised in other contexts, including: lawsuits against Airbnb under the Fair Housing Act^4× (FHA) for withdrawing from West Bank settlements; Title VI^5× complaints against universities for pro-Palestine student activism; and a new legal definition of anti-Semitism that includes criticism of Israel that is deemed disproportionate.^6× Across these contexts, civil rights law has been leveraged to defend Israel against the movement for Palestinian rights. This Note focuses on anti-BDS laws as the most significant manifestation of the claim that anti-Zionist movement work unlawfully discriminates.

Much has been written arguing that anti-BDS laws violate the First Amendment.^7× However, there has been far less focus on the discrimination claim itself. This Note debunks the claim that BDS constitutes legally cognizable discrimination. It argues that antidiscrimination doctrines do not support this claim. While BDS has grown into a diffuse, multistakeholder movement, this analysis focuses on BDS as led by the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC).^8× Part I explains the background of BDS and anti-BDS laws. Part II explores how the discrimination claim has gained legal force through anti-BDS laws and other legal tools. Part III summarizes the implications of the anti-discrimination argument for First Amendment challenges to anti-BDS bills. A strong antidiscrimination justification for these laws would constitute a compelling state interest that could trump countervailing First Amendment interests. However, as Part IV explains, anti-BDS laws are not backed by a valid antidiscrimination interest.

I. THE BDS MOVEMENT AND ANTI-BDS LAWS