White House gives moral support to boycotting Jews in Judea/Samaria

The State Department spokesman released this statement after President Obama signed the anti-BDS bill:

The United States has worked in the three decades since signing the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement - our first such agreement with any country - to grow trade and investment ties exponentially with Israel. The United States government has also strongly opposed boycotts, divestment campaigns, and sanctions targeting the State of Israel, and will continue to do so.

However, by conflating Israel and “Israeli-controlled territories,“ a provision of the Trade Promotion Authority legislation runs counter to longstanding US policy towards the occupied territories, including with regard to settlement activity. Every US. administration since 1967 Democrat and Republican alike - has opposed Israeli settlement activity beyond the 1967 lines. This Administration is no different. The US. government has never defended or supported Israeli settlements and activity associated with them and, by extension, does not pursue policies or activities that would legitimize them.

Administrations of both parties have long recognized that settlement activity and efforts to change facts on the ground undermine the goal of a two-state solution to the conflict and only make it harder to negotiate a sustainable and equitable peace deal in good faith. As we advance our trade agenda, we will continue to strengthen our economic ties with partners globally, including Israel. We will also continue to uphold policies integral to preserving the prospect ofa two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This description of historic US policy plays fast and loose with the facts. While it is true that US administrations have discouraged Jews from living in Judea and Samaria, President Reagan said "As to the West Bank, I believe the settlements there - I disagreed when the previous Administration referred to them as illegal - they're not illegal." And President Clinton's administration tended to often refer to the territories as "disputed" and said to the UN it is "unproductive to debate the legalities of the issue." And, of course, George W. Bush wrote a letter acknowledging that there are areas of Judea and Samaria that would inevitably end up in Israel in any agreement, a fact acknowledged by the PLO as well.

After Oslo, before the sui generis arguments against Israel became thought of as settled international law, the legal advisor to the International Red Cross, Dr. Hans-Peter Gasser, concluded that his organization remained in the territories not because of occupation but because of an agreement with the PLO:

There are bigger issues, however, with this State Department statement. as has been pointed out before, there is a huge double standard between how the world regards Arab Israelis living in the territories versus Israeli Jews. There is no uproar when Arabs move from east across the Green Line or when Israel announces building projects in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem.



Similarly, there are no calls to sanction Israeli Arabs who open up businesses in the territories.

So when the US declares its opposition to "settlement activity" it really means "Jews," not Israelis.

The same hypocrisy can be seen when this statement says it is against "efforts to change facts on the ground." The EU and Arabs daily build houses and plant olive trees in territories whose status are up for negotiations but no one calls these  "efforts to change facts on the ground."

Yes, one can say that the US has always opposed Jews moving into the territories even if it has not always been consistent in explaining why. But the Obama White House has gone way beyond this by giving a green light for organizations and even other nations to boycott Jews, and only Jews, who want to live in their ancestral homes, even if those Jews would be willing to live under Arab rule.

How exactly is this not antisemitism?