JCRC Omaha Statement – excellently written by Sharon Brodkey
In the swirling debates about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, no tactic has captured attention, controversy, and misunderstanding quite like the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Originating nearly two decades ago, BDS presents itself as a peaceful, moral movement aimed at challenging Israel’s policies toward Palestinians through economic pressure. Yet beneath the surface of noble language and human rights appeals lies a complex—and deeply troubling—story.
Understanding BDS: Origins and Objectives
The modern BDS movement was officially launched in 2005 by Palestinian activists, ostensibly in response to stalled peace negotiations and growing Palestinian frustration. The strategy was simple yet profound: replicate the international economic boycott that many credit with helping dismantle apartheid in South Africa. The official BDS narrative calls for Israel to end its occupation of Arab lands, recognize Palestinian refugees’ rights to return, and guarantee full equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel.
Yet, BDS proponents obscure the movement’s darker undercurrents and historical context. After decades of failing to achieve political victories through violence—suicide bombings, hijackings, and terror attacks that drew widespread condemnation—Palestinian advocates shifted tactics. If blowing up buses and cafes was off-limits, economic warfare seemed a more palatable alternative. Yet this peaceful veneer often masks a broader, deeply unsettling objective: delegitimizing the very existence of Israel.
Indeed, if BDS’s true aim were merely to challenge policies or occupation, why do its supporters consistently reject peace initiatives, negotiations, and two-state solutions? Because BDS isn’t fundamentally about Israel’s actions; it’s about Israel’s existence.
Selective Outrage: Why Only Israel?
Perhaps the most baffling aspect of the BDS movement is its peculiar selectivity. Across the globe, from Xinjiang to Syria, Burma to North Korea, grotesque human rights violations occur with numbing regularity. Millions suffer under oppressive regimes. Yet, strangely, these atrocities rarely inspire international divestment campaigns or passionate student resolutions. Only Israel, the singular Jewish state, routinely finds itself on trial, accused of uniquely egregious behavior.
The irony deepens when one considers campuses that have passed divestment resolutions. Rarely, if ever, do such resolutions emerge at universities without a significant Jewish presence. Schools devoid of Jewish communities seldom find themselves grappling with BDS campaigns. Thus, despite protestations to the contrary, the obsession isn’t Israel; it’s Jews.
Students for Justice in Palestine: Activism or Extremism?
One of the primary vehicles for campus-based BDS activism is Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). At face value, SJP markets itself as a grassroots student initiative advocating for Palestinian rights and justice. Beneath this laudable mission statement, however, lies a troubling legacy and disturbing affiliations.
SJP was founded in 1993, initially appearing as a genuinely independent student advocacy group. Over time, however, it became increasingly clear that SJP often serves as a front for extremist positions. Investigations and exposés have documented troubling ties between SJP chapters and groups with direct connections to terrorist organizations like Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). These groups, classified as terrorist entities by the United States and others, have historically advocated for the violent eradication of Israel.
Thus, campus activism that appears progressive and justice-oriented can mask more sinister affiliations. Even when local SJP members are unaware of these connections, their activities inadvertently amplify extremist voices and agendas.
The UNO Resolution: Short-Sighted and Dangerous
Recently, at the University of Nebraska-Omaha (UNO), the student senate unanimously passed a divestment resolution driven by SJP. This resolution might seem inconsequential or symbolic, yet it represents a dangerous blind spot—one that could have profound implications for both Jewish students and the institution itself.
Nebraska law (§85-2005, the Nebraska Anti-BDS statute) prohibits state institutions from engaging with or investing in companies that participate in boycotts of Israel. Even if student government actions are symbolic, this resolution promotes a movement that stands in clear violation of Nebraska law. Beyond the legal issue, it promotes division, hostility, and an erosion of the values that should define a university: critical inquiry, respect for complexity, and a commitment to truth over ideology.
Further, UNO is now placed in an increasingly precarious position with federal authorities. In the current climate—shaped by Executive Order 13899 and an expanding number of Title VI investigations—the federal government is closely scrutinizing universities for tolerating antisemitic environments. By permitting groups like SJP to proceed unchecked, the university may inadvertently be inviting consequences that will harm not only Jewish students but the broader international and academic communities that UNO has worked so hard to nurture.
The Omaha Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) has thoughtfully articulated the gravity of the situation. They advocate firmly against antisemitism and delegitimization efforts, emphasizing the necessity of promoting a just, pluralistic society. JCRC’s comprehensive approach includes education, coalition-building, and proactive community engagement, clearly identifying BDS as harmful not only to Jewish students but also to the broader campus community.
The Real Victims: Students and Academic Integrity
The most immediate harm from BDS campaigns isn’t felt thousands of miles away in Tel Aviv or Ramallah, but locally, by Jewish students forced into defensive postures, made to feel alienated, isolated, and targeted on their own campuses. Universities, once bastions of free thought and academic rigor, now find themselves reduced to ideological battlegrounds, where nuance is discarded in favor of dogmatic zeal.
Moreover, these resolutions do nothing tangible to improve Palestinian lives. Not one Palestinian has benefited economically, politically, or socially from BDS campaigns on American campuses. Instead, Palestinian aspirations are cynically weaponized for ideological ends, ignoring the complexities of the conflict and damaging opportunities for genuine dialogue, coexistence, and peace.
Confronting Reality: Challenging BDS Honestly
We may disagree profoundly on the plight and the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians, but this strategy does their cause no good. Holding Israel accountable through discriminatory campaigns that ignore broader global injustices and realities is neither ethical nor effective. BDS thrives not on truth or justice, but on simplistic narratives, selective outrage, and emotional manipulation.
Jewish communities, university administrators, and ethical observers must recognize BDS campaigns for what they are: attacks not just on Israeli policies, but fundamentally on the legitimacy of Jewish identity and Jewish presence in academia.
In standing against BDS and its manifestations, we affirm not only Jewish dignity but the universal values of fairness, honesty, and genuine dialogue—values truly deserving of our commitment and defense. BDS must be stopped at its roots before it becomes the disease it truly is, undermining the integrity and values of academic institutions and the broader society. So, what do we do next?
We must actively educate and engage campus administrators, student leaders, faculty, and the broader community about the true nature and harmful impacts of BDS. Vigilance, thoughtful dialogue, and clear policy enforcement are essential. By promoting transparency and informed discussions, we can prevent misinformation and extremism from taking root. Above all, we must continue to build strong, principled coalitions across diverse communities, reaffirming our collective commitment to coexistence, academic freedom, and genuine human rights advocacy.
Leave a Reply