Olympia, WA. On behalf of the Olympia Food Co-op, lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and Davis Wright Tremaine LLP filed a motion to strike the lawsuit that has been filed against the Co-op in response to its boycott of Israeli products. The motion asserts that the lawsuit is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), a form of legal and financial intimidation, popularly dubbed “lawfare,” which has long been used to undermine social and environmental justice movements by penalizing political participation and free speech.
“We hope the court will strike down this effort to silence the Co-op’s principled stand on Israel’s human rights violations,” said Maria LaHood, Senior Staff Attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. “Allegations that the Co-op Board acted beyond its power are a thinly-veiled attempt to stop concerned citizens from using a nonviolent and historical tool for social change.”
“This lawsuit, which seeks to penalize local citizens for exercising their rights as Board members to express views on Israel and the problems in the Middle East, presents a fundamental First Amendment issue,” says Bruce Johnson, author of Washington’s Anti-SLAPP Law, a member of the Co-op’s legal team. In the past, Johnson has represented organizations such as The Yes Men, and successfully motioned to dismiss invasion of privacy and misappropriation claims relating to the documentary film Sicko by Michael Moore.
The lawsuit is part of a fierce response to the growing global movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) of Israel until it ends its occupation of Palestine, respects the right of return of Palestinian refugees, and gives equal rights to Palestinians living inside of Israel. This backlash is coming from pro-Israel groups as well as directly from the Israeli Government, which recently passed a law that criminalizes advocating for boycotts of Israel.
In meeting minutes, the lawsuit is referred to as a “project” of the Executive Committee of StandWithUs Northwest, an international pro-Israel and anti-boycott lobby group. In Israel, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon confirmed the Israeli government’s involvement in anti-boycott efforts outside of Israel:
“It is very important to make use of all the means at our disposal, primarily judicial means…We are certainly moving here to a policy that is much more pro-active and not only reactive, and it is true – we are using…StandWithUs for leverage. There are also other organizations that we cooperate with…[and] this is certainly a trend that will get stronger.”
Cezanne Murphy-Levesque says generally about boycotts that “I have an inherent desire to protect the human rights of all people, so I choose to participate. I believe I share this desire with most folks and this is why boycotts work.” Also, specifically about the current boycott: “I would like to see the Co-op do more to educate members and the greater community about past and current boycott participation. There is still a significant rift in the community regarding the Israeli product boycott. I think that the Co-op should consider another round of public meetings to keep the conversation going.”
Joshua Simpson has come out in strong support of the boycott, saying “I cannot think of a more peaceful way to oppose the occupation and oppression of the people of Palestine than continuing the current boycott” as an answer to our question.
Joseph Webster said in response to our question that “Any political entity guilty of injustice and oppression should be boycotted. In regard to the boycott of Israeli goods, I think the Co-op’s stand is correct because I do not think that any sane person on this planet would want to be treated as the Palestinians are, not even Israelis.”
Rob Richards was one of the board members who initially consented to institute the boycott, 
Allyson Ruppenthal has not made any statements on the boycott that we are aware of.
Keith M. Dublanica says in his statement in the Co-op newsletter that “I maintain concerns from issues with the boycott. I thought due process and appropriate communication to the membership was not visible.” Also, in a 
