We Say:

A truly pro-Israel position is one that recognizes that criticism of Israeli policies and actions must be judged on its content. It is both true and deeply troubling that anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiment is sometimes cloaked in criticism of Israeli government policies and actions. At the same time, it is both true and deeply troubling that some Israeli policies and actions legitimately merit criticism.

The notion that being pro-Israel leaves no room for any criticism of Israel, on the grounds that such criticism "delegitimizes" Israel, should trouble anyone who cares about Israel's future and Israel's democratic character.

It is foolish, as well as reckless and irresponsible, for anyone to deny Israel's right to exist, call for Israel's destruction, or deny Jewish ties to the land of Israel. At the same time, criticizing and challenging Israeli policies and actions - like its continued settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, its harsh treatment of non-violent protestors in Israel and the West Bank, its continued closure of Gaza, or the ongoing attacks inside Israel on democracy and democratic institutions - is entirely legitimate and, indeed, appropriate.

A vibrant debate over these issues, both in Israel and the U.S., is sorely needed. Efforts to quash all criticism/protest - whether in Israel or outside Israel - by labeling it "delegitimization" are inconsistent with the core democratic values of both Israel and the U.S. - like freedom of speech, freedom to organize, and freedom to peacefully protest.

We Say:

There is a growing movement seeking to focus boycott and divestment efforts on settlements and the occupation, supported by activists who are neither anti-Israel nor anti-Semitic. This effort is gaining traction as a direct consequence of Israeli policies that are deepening the occupation to the point of potential irreversibility in the near term, in tandem with the apparent inability or unwillingness of governments around the world to in any meaningful way challenge these policies.

We believe that activists who seek to focus boycott and divestment efforts squarely on the occupation and settlements deserve credit. Indeed, APN long ago suggested that activists focus on opportunities for people to "invest for peace" - supporting companies and projects whose work is consistent with peace, coexistence, and the two-state solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict - and on raising awareness about companies based in or operating in settlements, to permit people to make informed choices about their investment options. We recognize, too, that some companies play a role in enabling the occupation and supporting settlements. Some do so directly, for example by investing in settlements; others do so indirectly and perhaps unknowingly - for example through the sale of equipment used both in Israel and in settlements.

We believe it is legitimate for activists to press companies to adopt practices that deny support to settlements and the occupation, including through targeted boycotts and divestment. Narrowly targeting such activism presents serious challenges: absent a peace agreement, Israel has undeniable security needs related to the occupied territories, for example, securing its border with Jordan and preventing terrorism emanating from the West Bank into Israel. In many cases, like these, the line between contributing to the occupation and permitting Israel to address legitimate security concerns is not clear. Nonetheless, if careful enough distinctions are drawn, such activism can advance the goals of ending the occupation and promoting peace and a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In short, the legitimacy and effectiveness of settlement- and occupation-focused activism will be a function of how its proponents address these challenges. To the extent that such efforts can be portrayed by critics as ignoring or dismissing Israel's legitimate security needs, or as blurring the line between Israel and the occupied territories, they have the potential to be as problematic and counterproductive as efforts directly targeting Israel. Moreover, they risk playing into the hands of settlers and their supporters who gladly blur this same line and who are eager to denounce all anti-settlement and anti-occupation activism as anti-Israel and anti-Semitic.

We Say:

The window is closing on the two-state solution. All of us who believe peace is possible and believe it is only possible through an end to the occupation and the achievement of a credible, viable two-state solution, must vote with our feet by insisting, adamantly, on the line that separates Israel and the occupied territories. Activism, even if well-intentioned, that blurs this line is misguided and counterproductive. Clearly and unequivocally focusing activism on the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 sends a powerful and unmistakable message to Israelis living on both sides of the Green Line and helps Israelis understand how great a liability the settlements are for their country and their future.

We Say:

We weigh all activism in light of our primary mission and concern: preserving Israel's future and its security and viability as a democracy and a Jewish state. From this mission, we, as a Jewish, Zionist organization, derive our conviction that settlement expansion must stop, the settlement enterprise must be rolled back, and the occupation must end - for the sake of Israel's own security and its own future. Consistent with this mission, we have always opposed boycott, divestment, and sanctions efforts targeting Israel itself. We believe such campaigns are misguided and counterproductive. They target the average, innocent Israeli citizen -- who may well support an end to the occupation and a two-state solution -- rather than the Israeli government policies that are ostensibly the target of the campaigns. They have caused many Israelis and supporters of Israel -- people whose voices are vitally needed to oppose the policies that such campaigns target -- to feel compelled to defend Israel, regardless of the policies in question.

We also categorically oppose the efforts of organizations and activists whose goal, explicit or implicit, is to undermine Israel's existence. Historically, much of the pressure for BDS campaigns originated with anti-Israel sources not interested in Israeli security concerns or Palestinian behavior, giving rise to concerns about global anti-Semitism and the perception that the campaigns are not truly (or only) about Israeli policies but rather reflect a deep-seated hatred for and rejection of Israel.

Consistent with our mission and our convictions, APN has long argued that activism should be targeted across the Green Line separating Israel and the occupied territories. We believe that for activism to be both effective and morally defensible, activists must make clear, emphatically and unambiguously, that their target is the occupation and its manifestations - like settlements and acts of collective punishment - and not Israel proper, innocent Israeli civilians, or legitimate Israeli security practices. Doing so underscores the fact that such activism is not anti-Israel, but rather is opposed to specific policies and practices related to Israeli behavior in the occupied territories.

We Say:

The Israeli right's reaction to settlement boycott efforts demonstrates that settlement supporters, at least, fear boycotts can have a real impact. Indeed, the pro-settler lobby and its Knesset partisans appear terrified of settlement boycotts - so much so that they pushed through a flagrantly undemocratic law against them.

The settlers and their supporters know that boycotting settlements is a big deal. They've spent decades trying to erase the Green Line. They want you to enjoy your wine and your homemade orange soda courtesy of that nifty gizmo that lets you carbonate water in your own kitchen. Pay no attention to the fact that in doing so, you're supporting an ideologically rooted political enterprise with an explicit goal to block a two-state solution. Drink up, and for the love of Greater Israel, don't worry about where it came from.

We Say:

The U.S. has long opposed settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, recognizing settlements as a political and security liability for Israel and an impediment to achieving a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The policy dates back to the birth of the settlement movement and has remained consistent across administrations led by both political parties. This is entirely the correct position for the U.S. and it is unfortunate that successive U.S. administrations have failed to translate this longstanding official opposition to settlements into a coherent policy that has convinced Israel to stop settlement expansion.

For decades U.S. presidents have pressed Israel to stop building settlements. The administration of George W. Bush put settlements under the spotlight with the Mitchell Report and the Roadmap, both of which called for a complete settlement freeze (the latter of which also called for the removal of illegal outposts). The Obama Administration early on sought a settlement freeze. Both of these administrations focused on settlements because settlements are a central obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace. It should be emphasized that a settlement freeze is not and has never been an end unto itself: the goal of any peace policy is to achieve a conflict-ending agreement that renders the settlement issue moot. That said, while a settlement freeze need not be a precondition for peace negotiations, continued settlement growth cannot be dismissed or ignored.

For the sake of Israeli-Palestinian peace, the U.S. - regardless of who is in the White House - must convince Israel's leaders that American opposition to settlements can no longer be dismissed. Continued settlement expansion undermines Palestinian moderates, feeds extremism, exacerbates tensions on the ground, and diminishes the chances of achieving a negotiated agreement that could end the conflict. Likewise, Israel's failure to rein in settler renegades threatens the viability of peace efforts.