Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the BDS Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Law professor urges Massachusetts to consider anti‑BDS measures, cites economic ties to Israel
Summary
Professor David Weber described the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement's tactics, its impact on academic and business ties, and urged the commission to consider anti‑BDS statutes modeled in other states to protect economic relationships and deter targeted divestment.
David Weber, professor of law at Boston University, told the commission that the BDS movement targets universities, companies and cultural institutions and that Massachusetts — he said — currently lacks statutory countermeasures that 37 other states have adopted.
"This movement organizes boycotts, divestment from, and sanction of institutions that engage with Israel or Israeli businesses," Weber said. He described instances in which corporate and university actions were reversed after states used anti‑BDS provisions: he cited the 2021 reaction to Ben & Jerry’s announced boycott, and a 2022 episode in which multiple state attorneys general warned Brown University that divestment from Israel could trigger divestment from Brown by state pension funds under anti‑BDS laws.
Weber emphasized the economic ties between Massachusetts and Israel at the hearing, citing a New England Israel Business Council estimate that Israeli companies support about $18 billion in economic activity and some 27,000 jobs in the state. He argued that measures which target companies for doing business with Israel can therefore harm Massachusetts residents and businesses, including in health‑care startups and technology.
Weber outlined the typical form of anti‑BDS statutes that states have adopted: restrictions on procurement or investment when entities undertake or require boycotts of Israel, and declarations that state pension funds must divest from entities that choose to boycott Israel. He said the laws do not, in his view, suppress protected speech; rather, he framed them as a government choice about how to deploy procurement and investment resources.
Weber urged the commission to consider recommending either a state statute or an executive order that would align Massachusetts with the anti‑BDS approaches other states have used. He offered to provide the commission with sample statutory language and cited his participation in prior legal analyses on the topic.
