The Israeli-American Coalition for Action
Very interesting profile in the Jerusalem Post on Shawn Evenhaim. He’s a real estate mogul and head of the the Israeli-American Coalition for Action. The group has been pushing for states to adopt the controversial IHRA definition of antisemitism, which considers some criticisms of Israel to be antisemitic.
Supporters of the definition often insist that it has nothing to do with stifling dissent or even shutting down criticism of Israel, but Evenhaim is very explicit about his vision. He believes people should be punished for dissing the country.
“In the US you can attack Israel and not be called an antisemite, which we know is not the case,” he explains. “If we want to define if this person is an antisemite or not, it is now very simple: we can go to the IHRA definition for antisemitism. It’s been used by many governments across the world and in the US, and now we need to make sure that it becomes part of the law in many states, as many states as possible, so they can use it to enforce the law and to prosecute people that violate it.”
These sentiments echo a 2021 Newsweek op-ed from Ellie Cohanim, who was Trump’s Deputy Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism. Cohanim says we need to adopt the IHRA definition across the country and have an Antisemitism czar. She envisions McCarthyism reigning across our schools.
“Anti-Zionism also permeates on university campuses in the United States, where Jewish and pro-Israel students are intimidated, harassed and even violently attacked by anti-Semitic campus groups like Students for Justice in Palestine,” she tells readers. “Too often, many campus administrators take little action or even justify the hostile anti-Israel environment as something protected under the First Amendment. Additionally, too many university campuses receive money from anti-Israel sources, leading to academic departments spreading anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda. The czar can bring the moral authority of the White House and the resources of the federal government to bear on battling the anti-Semitism plaguing these segments of American society.”
Evenhaim says the IAC for Action is looking to push the definition in seven states and that the group is already on the ground lobbying in four of them. How many local lawmakers know about the true intent of people like Evanhaim? Probably very few. This week at the site Steve France writes about Maryland activists who just stopped the the IHRA working definition from being adopted in Montgomery County. Local chapters of the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and the Jewish Community Relations Council lobbied council members on the issue, but didn’t mention Israel at all.
“It didn’t appear that the council members were aware of the issues raised by the definition,” Maryland 2 Palestine Alexandra Melinchok told France. “The only thing they had seen was IHRA’s 38-word general introduction to antisemitism, which is conventional enough – and doesn’t mention Israel. They hadn’t seen the illustrative examples that are attached to the definition which equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, which is how the definition shuts down the Palestinian viewpoint.”
This reminded me of a scene from Julia Bacha’s 2021 documentary Boycott, in which Arkansas Democratic State Senator Greg Leding openly admits that he voted in favor of an anti-BDS law despite not understanding its impact. “I regret not knowing more about the issue when I voted and now,” he told the filmmaker. “After hearing from my constituents, I probably would have voted against it.”
“The success of Israel and its lobby in promoting the IHRA around the country is impressive proof of its clout, but it carries risks of overreach,” concludes France. “The continued spread of the definition opens opportunities for activists to advocate in support of Palestinians’ human rights, and Americans’ freedom of speech.”
However, he also quotes American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Legislative and Policy Coordinator Chris Habiby who says that it’s hard to keep up with all these efforts from lobbying groups. The ability to mobilize is predicated on the fact that activists “hear about these moves, in time, from people on the ground. Without that, none of us has the resources to monitor the action.”
Ben & Jerry’s Trial
In the same Jerusalem Post profile Evenhaim talks about his group’s involvement in the Ben & Jerry’s saga. IAC for Action helped convince the state of Arizona to sell its bonds with Unilever (Ben & Jerry’s parent company) after the ice cream manufacturer announced that it would pull its product out of the illegally occupied West Bank.
Arizona wasn’t the only state to sever economic ties with the company and it was facing calls for stiffer penalties from lawmakers in the United States and Israel. Despite the view of the Ben & Jerry’s board and its former owners, Unilever sold its Israeli business to local licensee Avi Zinger, who openly brags that the purchase is a victory against the BDS movement and says he can change the name of “Chunky Monkey” to “Judea and Samaria” if he wants.
IAC for Action put out a celebratory statement after the sale: “The decision by Unilever to allow the sale of its Ben & Jerry’s ice cream to all Israelis represents a major victory over the anti-Israel, antisemitic BDS movement that seeks to destroy the Jewish state. We thank the state governors and treasurers across the US who have boldly enforced local laws against boycotting Israel, helping convince Unilever to reverse the Ben & Jerry’s board action targeting Israel.”
As a result of court filings we know this story is pretty straightforward: Unilever caved because this kind of stuff frightened them. The company had “initially hoped to be able to respect the board’s politically charged decision without having to step in.” However, the Ben & Jerry’s decision had resulted in “multiple lawsuits, claims that they are in violation of Israeli law and the laws or policies of several US states and significant shareholder divestitures.” Faced with this situation Unilever “concluded that a limited sale of Ben & Jerry’s business in Israel” was “the best way for it to balance the competing concerns at play.”
It’s difficult to know where Ben & Jerry’s perspective fits into that balance, which is why they’re currently suing Unilever in an effort to block the sale. This week a judge heard arguments from sides. The whole thing only took about half an hour and he says he will release a decision soon.
There were some interesting moments in the hearing. Ben & Jerry’s lawyer brought up a hypothetical situation where the company released an ice cream flavor to promote Palestinian rights. Technically, Zinger would be able to release the same flavor but called it “Support Judea and Samaria.” After all, he’s basically said as much already. “Instead of ‘peace pops,’ they could make ‘hate pops’,” the attorney explained.
Unilever’s attorney argued that this was a done deal and there wasn’t anything Ben & Jerry’s could do. He also questioned whether any sale could threaten their social mission, which is an argument I’m not really understanding. “Perceptions of unidentified third parties are not irreparable harm,” he claimed.
Another tidbit from the hearing is that Unilever CEO Alan Jope reportedly said that “Ben & Jerry’s should stay out of geopolitics” during a failed mediation between the two sides.
After Ben & Jerry’s made its announcement Jope reached out to multiple pro-Israel groups to assure them that Unilever opposed the BDS movement. He also spoke with then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett about the situation. He admits that they sold the business in response to political pressure. So, when Unilever does all this it is somehow staying out of geopolitics and when Ben & Jerry’s says they might stop selling ice cream in illegal settlements it is inserting itself in geopolitics. Of course this makes no sense, but it’s important to keep in mind.
The Ben & Jerry’s fiasco is an amazing case study on the power of pro-Israel groups and the limits of “progressive capitalism.” We will continue to monitor it closely.
More AIPAC Primaries
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) barely survived a primary challenge from centrist Don Samuels this week, ultimately prevailing by just a few points. It was an unexpected result and the closest election that a Squad member has ever faced. In contrast, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) won her recent primary by over 40 points.
There’s always dozens of factors in an election and analysis has focused on Omar’s lack of television ads, some last minute spending in favor of Samuels, and voter fatigue toward an incumbent. There’s also the fact that Omar is smeared more than probably anyone in Congress. Not just by Republicans, but also often by members of her own party.
Whatever the reason, it seems pretty obvious that groups like AIPAC and DMFI missed an opportunity here. AIPAC helped defeat Andy Levin, a guy hopelessly devoted to the two-state solution. The group says that one of Levin’s main problems was that he collaborated with and defended House members like Tlaib and Omar. That is to say, the few U.S. politicians with the temerity to criticize Israel’s brutality on a regular basis.
So AIPAC is willing to spend almost $5 million on a race because someone defends Omar, but sits out her actual race? Small chance they admit it publicly, but again, they are presumably kicking themselves about their strategy on this one.
Staying on AIPAC for a minute. This week David Weigel interviewed the group’s CEO Howard Kohr in the Washington Post. The whole thing is worth checking out, but a couple quotes stand out. First, Kohr brings up DSA’s criticisms of Israel unprovoked:
I remember the days when the Democratic Socialists of America, led by Michael Harrington, was actually pro-Israel. Now, the DSA is among the loudest detractors of the relationship. It’s become part of the matrix of the far left to be anti-Israel. The majority of progressives, and particularly progressives in Congress, are pro-Israel. There’s a battle going on between that group and a far-left group that wants to change that and says, you can’t be progressive and be pro-Israel. We believe you can do both. Where’s one of the largest gay pride parades in the world? It’s in Israel.
His response to a question about why AIPAC doesn’t mention Israel in its ads is pretty funny:
Like other super PACs, it’s focused on the issues that are important to the voters in that district. The objective here is to ensure that your candidate emerges victorious and that the anti-Israel candidate is defeated. So in that sense, like other super PACs, we focused on the issues that matter in the district. UDP itself says proudly who it is. If you go to its website, it is clear. Everybody understands what the motivation is, even though the issues that it may be talking about in the race are about the issues of that district.
If you want to hear more about AIPAC’s involvement in the Democratic primaries, check out the latest episode of the Mondoweiss podcast where Dave Reed and I speak with JVP Action’s Beth Miller and campaign consultant Peter Feld about the issue. It was an illuminating conversation.
Odds & Ends
?? Palestinian poet Mosab Abu Toha says he’s being denied entry to Israel to interview for a U.S. visa so he can return to his graduate program at Syracuse University.
? On the site Phil Weiss looked at U.S. lawmakers reacting to the Gaza attack and noticed that the usual vocal support for Israel didn’t materialize. This post uses an picture of Pennsylvania Senate candidate John Fetterman as its image, which caught the attention of his opponent, the millionaire snake oil salesman Dr. Oz. “It’s no surprise that a radical left anti-Israel website is praising John Fetterman for not standing up for Israel,” Oz tweeted. “This comes after far-left J Street endorses him. John Fetterman is no friend of Israel. I will stand up and fight for Israel.”
The post doesn’t actually praise him and it’s pretty funny to classify a liberal Zionist group as “far-left,” but I digress. Fetterman is actually pretty bad on our issue.
? The liberal Zionist group J Street put out a statement in support of the Gaza attack. “Israel has the same right as any other country to defend itself from the threats posed by such an entity,” it reads.
?? No surprise that pro-Israel groups have praised Biden’s response to the Gaza attacks.
? Eli Clifton in Responsible Statecraft writing about AIPAC and the Democratic primaries.
?? A new article in the Journal of Conflict Resolution by scholars Sidita Kushi and Monica Duffy Toft finds that the United States has carried out almost 400 military interventions since 1776.
?️ Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) ran away with her primary in Minnesota, netting over 83% of the vote.
Stay safe out there,
Michael
