The Danger of Defining Your Own Terms: Responding to the Harvard Law Review on Antidiscrimination Law and the Movement for Palestinian Rights

Abstract

The Harvard Law Review has recently published an article arguing that the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement is not antisemitic, and States therefore do not have a “compelling interest” under the law to combat BDS with anti-discrimination bills. The analysis is mistaken for several reasons, many of which revolve around the use of faulty definitions, and an unfortunate willingness to allow aggressors to define their victims’ rights. This short response piece focuses on these specific aspects of the Harvard article and argues that even when charitably taken on its own terms, the main premise of the anonymous author’s position is seriously flawed.