Crispin Blunt is MP for Reigate.
In 26 years as a Conservative MP, I have observed countless seismic political shifts. But for the Conservatives, the anti-BDS (Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions) Bill is a clear example of how precarious our values are. It is officially, and innocuously, named the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, but this banal and bland title obscures its implications.
With attacks on individual liberties, democratic principles and international law, this Bill is a full-scale assault on our own values. Many colleagues have already seen it for what it really is and will fight tooth-and-nail to oppose it as it continues to go through parliament. Michael Gove thought there might be a handful of rebels, but with 80 Conservatives breaking rank, the crescendo of opposition is palpable.
The Bill is a manifesto commitment to “ban local authorities from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries”. It seeks to target the BDS movement but has far-reaching implications, taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Worse still the ‘nut’ it cracks is a legitimate, Palestinian-led, anti-racist campaign that has been unfairly targeted as anti-semitic simply for criticising Israel’s 56 years of illegal military occupation and persecution of Palestinians. Despite the importance of the BDS movement, there was a baffling cross-party consensus in yesterday’s debate. Many were happy to debate civil liberties but refused to challenge the slanderous narratives against BDS.
The Bill would mean a local council that wanted to avoid spending public money, and their workers’ own pension funds, on procurement from a country they considered as abusing human rights, could not do so. They would be forced to engage with countries with policies incompatible with their values.
This undermines the principle of local democratic representation, in effect centralising power in Whitehall accountable to Westminster. This means our party, the party of a smaller state, will dictate that every public body, from local councils to universities, can only contemplate measures against any jurisdiction if it is on a central government list.
Appallingly, there is also a ‘gagging clause’. That not only prevents employees in public procurement from publicly supporting boycotts, but there is even a ‘double lock’, so employees won’t even be able to say they would theoretically support boycotts if they legally could.
The party I joined had the torch of liberty as its logo. Protection of individual liberty is one of the most quintessentially Conservative principles going. It was fundamental to our belief system that individuals be allowed to say what they think, without inciting hatred, spend their money how they want and simply get on with their lives. This gagging clause overrides these rights and responsibilities in favour of the view of central government.
The Israel-Palestine issue has engaged me since my first visit to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories (OPTs) in 1983, whilst studying the politics of the Middle East at university and during my military service. In 1994, I accompanied Malcolm Rifkind, as the first British Defence Secretary to officially visit Israel as his Special Adviser when Foreign Secretary.
I chaired the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee from 2015 to 2017. The incumbent, my successor-but-one, Alicia Kearns, made an excellent point during yesterday’s Second Reading, saying that country-specific legislation undermines our foreign policy.
She’s absolutely right. The Government has given itself the power to exempt certain countries from this legislation. However, a further clause grants Israel permanent protection from ever being exempted by this government or any future government, unless they obtain the specific approval of parliament by amending this bill. It is the only country in the world with this everlasting impunity.
The Bill Minister absurdly maintains this is a domestic measure only, with no implications for our foreign policy, but the threat of boycotts is an important foreign policy tool, and this Bill would effectively disarm us. For most countries, it removes a string from our foreign policy bow, but for Israel, we’re snapping the bow in half – removing the wider community from expressing any disapproval, not least when the Government, whilst carefully saying the right things, has done nothing to support law and justice.
The timing of this unique status for Israel is even more remarkable given the views of the current Israeli government. Since December 2022, an extremist far-right coalition, including ultranationalist settlers, have gained, and already abused, power. The appalling and inciteful rhetoric of extremist ministers like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who is not only Finance Minister but now responsible for the conduct of the occupation, has emboldened Israeli settlers to increase their violence against Palestinian people.
Speaking of timing, it was deeply unsettling to have to defend the rights of Palestinians to peacefully protest at a time when Israel was launching a large-scale aerial and ground assault on Jenin. On my way to Parliament yesterday, I saw videos of missile assaults on the refugee camp. Condemning this shouldn’t be controversial, nor should supporting BDS and Palestinian solidarity in general.
What a moment, when things have been so bad for so many years, and are getting worse rather than better, for the Government to shield Israel from criticism and seek to force public bodies to be complicit in Israel’s policy in illegally occupied territory.
Worst of all, the same clause that exempts Israel also exempts the Golan Heights and Occupied Palestinian territory. This contradicts decades of stated objectives of UK foreign policy, as addressed by members on both sides of the house.
It’s an unprecedented move that recklessly endorses annexation by stealth. At a time when settlers are already emboldened by their extremist government, we propose to fuel the fire with the encouragement of this statutory impunity.
The stated purpose of this bill is to address anti-semitism. Yet the specific exemption of Israel and its illegally occupied territories from any wider public engagement with sanctions in the face of truly shocking fundamental breaches of international law will only reinforce a sense of unfairness.
The Jewish community is deeply split on Israeli government policy, but the public’s association between Israel and the global Jewish community means this bill will serve to widen and deepen any anti-semitism present in our communities. We also haven’t listened to Jewish students and youth groups. The Government claim they know what’s best for Jewish people without listening to them.
Justice for Palestinians has always gone hand-in-hand with the British value of ‘fair play’, as well as the instinctive sympathy for the underdog, both of which are core to my Party and all its values and instincts. In short, this bill is an un-Conservative, unqualified catastrophe.
Crispin Blunt is MP for Reigate.
In 26 years as a Conservative MP, I have observed countless seismic political shifts. But for the Conservatives, the anti-BDS (Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions) Bill is a clear example of how precarious our values are. It is officially, and innocuously, named the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, but this banal and bland title obscures its implications.
With attacks on individual liberties, democratic principles and international law, this Bill is a full-scale assault on our own values. Many colleagues have already seen it for what it really is and will fight tooth-and-nail to oppose it as it continues to go through parliament. Michael Gove thought there might be a handful of rebels, but with 80 Conservatives breaking rank, the crescendo of opposition is palpable.
The Bill is a manifesto commitment to “ban local authorities from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries”. It seeks to target the BDS movement but has far-reaching implications, taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Worse still the ‘nut’ it cracks is a legitimate, Palestinian-led, anti-racist campaign that has been unfairly targeted as anti-semitic simply for criticising Israel’s 56 years of illegal military occupation and persecution of Palestinians. Despite the importance of the BDS movement, there was a baffling cross-party consensus in yesterday’s debate. Many were happy to debate civil liberties but refused to challenge the slanderous narratives against BDS.
The Bill would mean a local council that wanted to avoid spending public money, and their workers’ own pension funds, on procurement from a country they considered as abusing human rights, could not do so. They would be forced to engage with countries with policies incompatible with their values.
This undermines the principle of local democratic representation, in effect centralising power in Whitehall accountable to Westminster. This means our party, the party of a smaller state, will dictate that every public body, from local councils to universities, can only contemplate measures against any jurisdiction if it is on a central government list.
Appallingly, there is also a ‘gagging clause’. That not only prevents employees in public procurement from publicly supporting boycotts, but there is even a ‘double lock’, so employees won’t even be able to say they would theoretically support boycotts if they legally could.
The party I joined had the torch of liberty as its logo. Protection of individual liberty is one of the most quintessentially Conservative principles going. It was fundamental to our belief system that individuals be allowed to say what they think, without inciting hatred, spend their money how they want and simply get on with their lives. This gagging clause overrides these rights and responsibilities in favour of the view of central government.
The Israel-Palestine issue has engaged me since my first visit to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories (OPTs) in 1983, whilst studying the politics of the Middle East at university and during my military service. In 1994, I accompanied Malcolm Rifkind, as the first British Defence Secretary to officially visit Israel as his Special Adviser when Foreign Secretary.
I chaired the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee from 2015 to 2017. The incumbent, my successor-but-one, Alicia Kearns, made an excellent point during yesterday’s Second Reading, saying that country-specific legislation undermines our foreign policy.
She’s absolutely right. The Government has given itself the power to exempt certain countries from this legislation. However, a further clause grants Israel permanent protection from ever being exempted by this government or any future government, unless they obtain the specific approval of parliament by amending this bill. It is the only country in the world with this everlasting impunity.
The Bill Minister absurdly maintains this is a domestic measure only, with no implications for our foreign policy, but the threat of boycotts is an important foreign policy tool, and this Bill would effectively disarm us. For most countries, it removes a string from our foreign policy bow, but for Israel, we’re snapping the bow in half – removing the wider community from expressing any disapproval, not least when the Government, whilst carefully saying the right things, has done nothing to support law and justice.
The timing of this unique status for Israel is even more remarkable given the views of the current Israeli government. Since December 2022, an extremist far-right coalition, including ultranationalist settlers, have gained, and already abused, power. The appalling and inciteful rhetoric of extremist ministers like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who is not only Finance Minister but now responsible for the conduct of the occupation, has emboldened Israeli settlers to increase their violence against Palestinian people.
Speaking of timing, it was deeply unsettling to have to defend the rights of Palestinians to peacefully protest at a time when Israel was launching a large-scale aerial and ground assault on Jenin. On my way to Parliament yesterday, I saw videos of missile assaults on the refugee camp. Condemning this shouldn’t be controversial, nor should supporting BDS and Palestinian solidarity in general.
What a moment, when things have been so bad for so many years, and are getting worse rather than better, for the Government to shield Israel from criticism and seek to force public bodies to be complicit in Israel’s policy in illegally occupied territory.
Worst of all, the same clause that exempts Israel also exempts the Golan Heights and Occupied Palestinian territory. This contradicts decades of stated objectives of UK foreign policy, as addressed by members on both sides of the house.
It’s an unprecedented move that recklessly endorses annexation by stealth. At a time when settlers are already emboldened by their extremist government, we propose to fuel the fire with the encouragement of this statutory impunity.
The stated purpose of this bill is to address anti-semitism. Yet the specific exemption of Israel and its illegally occupied territories from any wider public engagement with sanctions in the face of truly shocking fundamental breaches of international law will only reinforce a sense of unfairness.
The Jewish community is deeply split on Israeli government policy, but the public’s association between Israel and the global Jewish community means this bill will serve to widen and deepen any anti-semitism present in our communities. We also haven’t listened to Jewish students and youth groups. The Government claim they know what’s best for Jewish people without listening to them.
Justice for Palestinians has always gone hand-in-hand with the British value of ‘fair play’, as well as the instinctive sympathy for the underdog, both of which are core to my Party and all its values and instincts. In short, this bill is an un-Conservative, unqualified catastrophe.