‘Lawfare’ is the catchy new phrase used by activists who are facing belligerent policy-making against the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign both in UK and globally. Since 2010 a number of UK councils proposed divestment from contracts with organisations known to operate in illegal West Bank settlements. Swansea council the largest in Wales led the way passing a resolution to exclude Veolia from future contracts ending its association with the French-owned multinational water energy and waste management company responsible for rubbish collection in many British cities. In 2015 Veolia announced closure of its operations in Israel.

That’s not all. In 2014 Leicester City Council backed a motion boycotting the use of all goods produced in West Bank settlements. Birmingham City Council in the Midlands followed suit.It seemed the only thing which could halt the sudden tidal wave of ethical regional policy making would be a change in government legislation. That would be unlikely. Any such step could undermine local democracy in favour of another nation’s financial interests. What has happened instead has been a classic case of perceived threat followed by self-censorship:

On February 17th Cabinet Office Minister Matthew Hancock was in Jerusalem at a press conference given by Benjamin Netanyahuto launch “new guidance” aimed at preventing “town hall boycotts of Israel” in the UK. It was not made clearat the time that the document presented merely repeated pre-existing rules which already prohibit discrimination based on national origin in public authority procurement.

It is putting pressure on financially hard pressed institutions. Ministers have issued a procurement policy note telling public authorities they would face “severe penalties” if they dare to continue procurement boycotts on ethical grounds. This ‘new guidance’ does not translate (so far) into an actual “ban” on boycotts as reported. It is a more subtle gambit with the same effect. The UK government is seeking to intimidate local authorities into thinking that it has changed the law.Labour MP Richard Burden said the “danger” will be that “Councils and other public sector institutions could be deterred from taking ethical investment and procurement decisions in general” that they are in fact entitled to take.

There is a formula to this kind of subtle dark-ops policy making.Firstly MP’s are selected to make public their strong ‘views’ against words or deeds which call into account Israeli actions which may contravene international law. The MP should speak in a ‘safe’ political environment- usually abroad and before a suitably supportive pro-Zionist audience. As with Hancock’s faux ‘announcement’ Israel is the best option for this sort of thing both for reasons of impact and its potential as a good business platform.Back in the UK officials then wait for a backlash by media or lobby groups to the comments. Should nothing significant show up the Prime Minister’s office backs the calls for said reforms (whether actual or intimated).

Let’s use this equationto see what is on the political skyline. Recently two government ministers have spoken on an identical subject. Both speeches were made abroad. By (surely) coincidence both speeches could impact positively on Israeli financial and political interests in the future.

On 28 April UK Secretary of State for Justice Michael Gove addressed the annual ‘Jewish 100 Gala’ in New York. In his keynote speech he referred to the rise of antisemitism in Europe as a “virus which mutates.”Gove was at great pains to link opposition to Israeli policy in occupied Palestine to fascism and hate speech. Gove stated “In the late 19th and early 20th centuries antisemitism under the perverted guise of scientific racism led to eliminationist politics in Austria in Germany and the greatest crime that mankind has ever witnessed.”He went on to say “Antisemitism has changed. And now it finds its expression in opposition to the Jewish people’s collective identity and the existence of the state of Israel.”

Just to be clear: the UK Secretary of State for Justice believes that mentioning that Israel still refuses to declare its borders thus rendering it a ‘non-state’ (oops ‘de-legitimisation’) comes from the same thinking which led Nazi eugenicists to seek the creation of an “Übermenschen” master race.

The Israeli news site‘Ynet’ is delighted with the political sea change against BDS across Europe and in the US. An article on the site boasts:“In cooperation with Jewish and pro-Israeli organizations the ministry (Israel Foreign Ministry) convinced several American states to pass legislation against the boycott of Israel.Ynet also asserted that“The Israeli Embassy in London succeeded through quiet and effective work to convince the British government to pass a directive prohibiting municipalities and public bodies from taking decisions to boycott Israel” it said.

Perhaps this is why Gove’s speech closely resembles Netanyahu’s February 17 press conference in which he said “In modern times modern anti-Semitism not only attacks individual Jews but attacks them collectively and the slanders that were hurled over centuries against the Jewish people are now hurled against the Jewish state.”

Is it a crime to ask if the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs dictates UK policy?

In the same week as Gove’s New York speech an article was posted on the UK government’s website by the UK Special Envoy for post-Holocaust issues and Chairman of the Conservative Friends of Israel. Eric Pickles MP backs the catch-all definition of ‘anti-semitism’ followed by the UK’s College of Policing. He went on to clarify some examples of neo anti-semitism: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

Meanwhile according to the UN Office for the Coordinator of Humanitarian Affairs in the first three months of 2016 Israel’s civil administration has demolished more Palestinian structures in Area C of the West Bank than it did in all of the previous year. On the 13 March an Israeli air strike on the Gaza strip killed 10-year-old Yassin Abu Khoussa and his sister Issra.

It may not be ‘illegal’ to highlight this kind of information. But then as the pressure on UK councils has shown self-censorship can do the bullies’ work for them. And it starts with just a few well-placed speeches and articles by high ranking politicians.