The brief August flare up between Israel and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) produced a predictable but short spate of BDS activity. PIJ’s undeniable responsibility for Palestinian civilian casualties and rapid Israeli messaging campaigns blunted the impact — except for hardcore BDS supporters. The clash was overshadowed by Democratic primaries and upcoming midterm elections, in which a number of BDS supporting candidates were defeated.

The brief Gaza conflict caused a upsurge in unvarnished antisemitism from BDS groups, especially “Jewish” ones like IfNotNow. Predictably, Jewish Voice for Peace, IfNotNow, Code Pink, and other BDS groups blamed Israel for the conflict and the casualties. A number of anti-Israel protests were held, including in New York City where participants chanted “We don’t want no two states” and “Palestine in ours alone.” BDS groups also mourned terrorists killed in the conflict, going so far as to distribute fliers with terrorists in PIJ uniforms. Protests were also held at Ohio State, Concordia University, McGill University, and on other campuses.

With regards to the midterm elections, one surprising outcome was Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar’s unexpectedly narrow margin of victory in her Democratic primary. Some pro-Israel groups had declined to support her opponent under the mistaken impression that she would dominate the race. Mainstream media outlets such as The New York Times and The Washington Post predictably described her victory as a defeat for pro-Israel supporters, while failing to mention her antisemitism and support for BDS.

In Michigan, BDS supporter Rep. Rashida Tlaib easily won her Democratic primary. In New York City, noted Trump opponent and pro-Israel candidate Dan Goldman narrowly defeated BDS supporter Yuh-Line Niou. In a sign that BDS may be becoming toxic, at least in some districts, Niou initially stated explicit support for BDS, claiming it was not antisemitic, but later walked this back.

The overall success of Democratic candidates supported by AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups led to another round of bitter criticism that alleged the groups (especially AIPAC) were deliberately “dividing the American Jewish community.” IfNotNow promoted a typically antisemitic cartoon from Eli Valley, blaming AIPAC for progressive losses in the primaries.

The controversy over the covert support for BDS from the corporate ratings agency Morningstar also expanded. The issue revolves around the use of anti-Israel sources and “human rights” criteria to downgrade or exclude Israeli firms from investment ratings. It was revealed that a vice president at Morningstar subsidiary Sustainalytics, Heather Lang, had previously worked at the controversial Israeli “human rights” group B’Tselem, which has played a key role promoting the idea of Israel as an “apartheid state.” Lang stepped down from Sustainalytics for unclear reasons, and Morningstar reiterated that while it “does not support the anti-Israel BDS movement, matters related to an individual’s employment are confidential.”

A number of Jewish organizations have also urged the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to take action on a proposed rule on “Environmental, Social, and Governance Disclosures for Investment Advisers and Investment Companies.” The groups requested that the SEC ensure ratings agencies rethink methodologies, adopt transparent practices, and avoid inflammatory language regarding Israel.

Focus on the manipulation of investment ratings regarding Israel is a subset of the growing critique of “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) investing, regarding its neglect of fiduciary responsibility toward shareholders and overt promotion of political agendas.

In other news, media reports revealed that after being targeted by the BDS movement, General Mills appears to have removed its Pillsbury brand entirely from Israel. The firm then provided misleading information to investors, claiming it was ending refrigerated dough sales as part of a larger global restructuring. In reality, the firm appears to have only stopped sales in Israel. The JLens Investor Network has since added General Mills to its no invest list. In a statement, the firm denied the allegation and claimed it was planning to bring more brands to Israel.

Elsewhere. a report from Amnesty International criticized the Ukrainian military for operating in urban areas and “putting civilians in harm’s way,” and alleged that Western military aid was being diverted. The report was quickly excoriated for its absurdity, given the nature of urban combat against Russia. Amnesty then issued a “clarification” — but its leaders accused critics of being “Russian trolls.”

A number of Amnesty staffers and supporters have resigned in disgust at the organization’s obvious bias. Observers noted, however, that unrelenting criticism of Israel from Amnesty and other organizations proceeds on the same basis of taking anonymous or unverified accounts at face value, ignoring operational realities that provide necessary context, attacking critics, and using its reputation as a shield. Critics also noted that Amnesty and other human rights organizations were conspicuously silent regarding the attempted murder of author Salman Rushdie, as were American Islamist organizations.

In the academic sphere, the student union of the University of Melbourne passed a BDS resolution that “supports the self-determination of the Palestinian people and their right to engage in self-defense against their occupiers,” and “deems the use of Zionism to justify the illegal occupation of Palestine as racist and colonial.” In May, a similar resolution was withdrawn after drawing criticism from the university. Both resolutions called for “armed struggle” against Israel. A class action lawsuit against the student union filed by a student alleging the resolution violates Australia’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act was filed earlier this year. Jewish students at the university protested the student union’s decision, and reported feeling unsafe as a result of BDS activities on campus.

A Jewish student at McGill University filed a similar lawsuit against that school’s student union, the local pro-Palestinian student group, and the university itself, alleging that a proposed BDS resolution is “discriminatory, biased and antisemitic,” and “designed to create a climate of fear and intimidation against Jewish students attending McGill.” The resolution was tabled after the university threatened to withdraw a portion of its financial support for the student union.

Meanwhile, a student at the University of Leeds has sued that university, alleging that an instructor had marked down her paper specifically because it did not condemn Israel for Hamas war crimes. This caused her to fail and then retake a course. An external reader recommended the grade be changed. The lawsuit alleges that the student was penalized for support of Israel, and that she was the victim of overt discrimination. The university denied the allegations.

Continuing the theme of legal action, two Jewish students at SUNY New Paltz filed a complaint with the US Department of Education over their exclusion from a campus sexual assault awareness group on the basis of their support for Israel. The complaint recounted that the sexual assault awareness group stated to the Jewish students, “We, as a group focused on combating oppression, can only consist of members who stand against all forms of oppression. We believe that having a member that does not share this viewpoint is not conducive to ending all forms of oppression and thus is not the right fit.”

In a similar vein, the Department of Education has opened an investigation against the University of Southern California regarding the targeting of a Jewish member of the student government who was harassed because of her support for Israel.

At the City University of New York, a complaint was filed with the Department of Education alleging that the university had become a “pervasively hostile environment for Jewish students.” The lawsuit recounts a long series of abusive actions against Jewish students and faculty, to which the university responded either not at all or by defending those who attacked Jews, including physically. Two other Federal investigations of CUNY are underway. The complaint came as a group of professed Jewish students and faculty at CUNY released a letter accusing Israel of “genocide” and “funding Nazi groups” and alleging the school administration worked with “Zionist groups’ [to] silence anti-Zionist voices.”

In an indication of the fall campus environment, the UC Berkeley Law School’s SJP chapter reported that nine “affinity” groups had agreed to incorporate a by-law to support BDS, and “include a Palestine-centered and de-colonial approach to holding club activities.” The groups pledged not to invite “Zionist speakers” in order to protect “the safety and welfare of Palestinian students.” The statement suggests “publicly stipulating [each] organization’s position of anti-racism and anti-settler colonialism to speakers, ensuring that proposals for speakers emphasize the organization’s desire for equality and inclusion,” or “informing speakers of the event’s goals and mission values.” The UC Berkeley Law School dean condemned the measure.

Finally, in a related development, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) released its “legislative Threats to Academic Freedom,” which criticized the adoption of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. It stated that antisemitism was not a “special form of discrimination” in civil rights legislation, but rather should be addressed only “as religious or race discrimination.”

The author is a contributor to SPME, where a version of this article was first published.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.