U.S.
Lawmakers Seek to Criminally Outlaw Support for
Boycott Campaign Against Israel
By Glenn
Greenwald
July
19, 2017 "Information
Clearing House"
- The
criminalization of political speech and activism
against Israel has become one of the
gravest threats to free speech
in the west. In France, activists have been
arrested and prosecuted
for wearing t-shirts
advocating a boycott
of Israel. The U.K. has
enacted a series of measures
designed to outlaw such activism. In the U.S.,
governors
compete with one another
over who can implement the most extreme
regulations to bar businesses from participating
in any boycotts aimed even at Israeli
settlements, which the
world regards as illegal.
On U.S. campuses, punishment of pro-Palestinian
students for expressing criticisms of Israel is
so commonplace
that the Center for Constitutional Rights refers
to it as “the
Palestine Exception” to free speech.
But now, a group of 45 Senators – 30 Republicans
and 15 Democrats – want to implement a law that
would make it a felony for Americans to
support the international boycott against
Israel, which was launched in protest of that
country’s decades-old occupation of Palestine.
The two primary sponsors
of the bill are
Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Rob Portman
of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the
punishment: anyone guilty of violating its
prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty
of $250,000, and a maximum criminal penalty of
$1 million and 20 years in prison.
The proposed measure, called the Israel
Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), was introduced by
Cardin on March 23. The Jewish Telegraphic
Agency
reports that
the bill “was drafted with the assistance of
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC].”
Indeed, AIPAC, in its
2017 Lobbying Agenda,
identified passage of this bill as one of its
top lobbying priorities for the year:
The bill’s co-sponsors
include the
senior Democrat in Washington, Minority Leader
Chuck Schumer, his New York colleague Kirsten
Gillibrand, and several of the Senate’s more
liberal members, such as Ron Wyden of Oregon,
Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Maria
Cantwell of Washington. Illustrating the
bipartisanship that AIPAC typically summons, it
also includes several of the most right-wing
Senators such as Ted Cruz of Texas, Ben Sasse of
Nebraska, and Marco Rubio of Florida.
A
similar measure
was introduced in the House on the same date by
two Republicans and one Democrat. It already has
amassed
234 co-sponsors:
63 Democrats and 174 Republicans. As in the
Senate, AIPAC has assembled an impressive
ideological diversity among supporters,
predictably including many of the most
right-wing House members – Jason Chaffetz, “Dutch” Ruppersberger,
Liz Cheney, Peter King – along with the
second-ranking Democrat in the House, Steny
Hoyer.
Among
the co-sponsors of the bill are several of the
politicians who have become political
celebrities by positioning themselves as media
leaders of the anti-Trump #Resistance, including
three California House members who have become
heroes to Democrats and staples of the cable
news circuit: Ted Lieu, Adam Schiff and Eric
Swalwell. These politicians, who have built a
wide public following by posturing as opponents
of authoritarianism, are sponsoring one of the
most oppressive and authoritarian bills that has
pended before Congress in quite some time.
Last night,
the ACLU
posted a letter
it sent to all members of the Senate urging them
to oppose this bill. Warning that “proponents of
the bill are seeking additional co-sponsors,”
the civil liberties group explained that “it
would punish individuals for no reason other
than their political beliefs.” The letter
detailed what makes this bill so particularly
threatening to basic civic freedoms:
It is no small thing for the ACLU to insert
itself into this controversy. One of the
most traumatic events
in the organization’s history was when it lost
large numbers of donors and supporters in the
late 1970s after they defended the free speech
rights of neo-Nazis to march through Skokie,
Illinois, a town with a large community of
Holocaust survivors.
Even
the bravest of organizations often steadfastly
avoid any controversies relating to Israel. Yet
here, while appropriately pointing out that the
ACLU “takes no position for or against the
effort to boycott Israel or any foreign
country,” they categorically denounce this AIPAC-sponsored
proposal for what it is: a bill that “seeks only
to punish the exercise of constitutional
rights.”
The ACLU has
similarly opposed bipartisan
efforts at the state level to punish businesses
who participate in the boycott, pointing out
that “boycotts to achieve political goals are a
form of expression that the Supreme Court has
ruled are protected by the First Amendment’s
protections of freedom of speech, assembly, and
petition,” and that such bills “place
unconstitutional conditions on the exercise of
constitutional rights.” The bill now
co-sponsored in the Congress by more than half
of the House and close to half of the Senate is
far more extreme than those.
Thus far,
not a single member of Congress has joined the
ACLU in denouncing this bill. The Intercept this
morning sent inquiries to numerous non-committed
members of the Senate and House who have yet to
speak on this bill. We also sent inquiries to
several co-sponsors of the bill – such as
Congressman Lieu – who have
positioned themselves
as
civil liberties champions
and opponents of authoritarianism, asking:
Congressman Lieu: Last night, the ACLU
vehemently denounced a bill that you are
cosponsoring – to criminalize support for a
boycott of Israel – as a grave attack on
free speech. Do you have any comment on the
ACLU’s denunciation? You’ve been an
outspoken champion for civil liberties; how
can you reconcile that record with an effort
to make it a felony for Americans to engage
in activism that protests a foreign
government’s actions? We’re writing about
this today; any statement would be
appreciated.
This
morning, Lieu responded: “Thank you for sharing
the letter. The bill has been around since March
and this is the first time I have seen this
issue raised. We will look into it” (the
Intercept will post any response from Rep. Lieu,
or any late responses from others, as soon as
they are received).
Senator Cantwell told The Intercept she is “a
strong supporter of free speech rights” and will
be reviewing the bill for First Amendment
concerns in light of the ACLU statement.
Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, when
asked by the Intercept about the ACLU’s warning
that the bill he is co-sponsoring criminalizes
free speech, affirmed his support for the bill
by responding: “I continue to support a strong
U.S./Israel relationship.”
|
No
Advertising
- No
Government
Grants
-
This
Is
Independent
Media
|
Meanwhile, some co-sponsors seemed not to have
any idea what they co-sponsored – almost as
though they reflexively sign whatever comes from
AIPAC without having any idea what’s in it.
Democratic Senator Gary Peters of Michigan, for
instance, seemed genuinely bewildered when told
of the ACLU’s letter, saying “what’s the Act?
You’ll have to get back to me on that.”:
And
there is this similar exchange with another
co-sponsor, one of AIPAC’s most reliable allies,
Democratic Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey,
who said: “I’d want to read it . . . . I’d
really have to look at it.”
Perhaps
most stunning is our interview with the primary
sponsor of the bill, Democratic Senator Benjamin
Cardin, who seemed to have no idea what was in
his bill, particularly insisting that it
contains no criminal penalties. Cardin either
has no idea how draconian his own bill is, or is
purposely feigning ignorance. Either way, there
is no question that, as the ACLU put it,
“violations would be subject to a minimum civil
penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal
penalty o f $ 1 million and 20 years in prison.”
That’s because, as Josh Ruebner
expertly detailed
when the bill was first unveiled, “the bill
seeks to amend two laws – the Export
Administration Act of 1979 and the Export-Import
Bank Act of 1945,” and “the potential penalties
for violating this bill are steep: a minimum
$250,000 civil penalty and a maximum criminal
penalty of $1 million and 20 years imprisonment,
as stipulated in the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act.”
Indeed, to see how serious the penalties are,
one can just compare the
bill’s text in Section 8(a),
which provides that violators will be
punished”in accordance with section 206 of the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1705),”
to the
penalty provisions of that law,
which state:
The
bill is designed to extend the current
prohibition on participating in boycotts
sponsored by foreign governments to cover
boycotts from international organizations such
as the U.N and the European Union. It also
explicitly extends the boycott ban from Israel
generally to any parts of Israel, including the
settlements. For that reason, Ruebner explains,
the bill – by design – would outlaw “campaigns
by the Palestine solidarity movement to pressure
corporations to cut ties to Israel or even with
Israeli settlements.”
This pernicious bill
highlights many vital yet typically ignored
dynamics in Washington. First, journalists love
to lament the lack of bipartisanship in
Washington, yet the very mention of the word
“Israel” causes most members of both parties to
quickly snap into line in a
show of unanimity
that would make the regime of North Korea blush
with envy. Even when virtually the entire world
condemns Israeli aggression, or declares
settlements illegal, the U.S. Congress – across
party and ideological lines – finds virtually
complete harmony in uniting against the world
consensus and in defense of the Israeli
government.
Second,
the free speech debate in the U.S. is incredibly
selective and warped. Pundits and political
officials love to crusade as free speech
champions – when doing so involves defending
mainstream ideas or attacking marginalized,
powerless groups such as minority college
students. But when it comes to one of the most
systemic, powerful, and dangerous assaults on
free speech in the U.S. and the west generally –
the growing attempt to literally criminalize
speech and activism aimed at the Israeli
Government’s occupation – these free speech
warriors typically fall silent.
Third, AIPAC continues to be one of the most
powerful, and pernicious, lobbying forces in the
country. In what conceivable sense is it of
benefit of Americans to turn them into felons
for the crime of engaging in political activism
in protest of a foreign nation’s government? And
this is hardly the first time they have
attempted to do this through their most devoted
Congressional loyalists; Cardin, for instance,
had
previously succeeded
in inserting into trade bills provisions that
would disfavor anyone who supports a boycott of
Israel.
Finally, it is hard to put into words the irony
of watching many of the most celebrated and
beloved Congressional leaders of the
anti-authoritarian Resistance – Gillibrand,
Schiff, Swalwell and Lieu – sponsor one of the
most oppressive and authoritarian bills to
appear in Congress in many years. How can one
credibly inveigh against “authoritarianism”
while sponsoring a bill that dictates to
American citizens what political views they are
and are not allowed to espouse under threat of
criminal prosecution? Whatever labels one might
want to apply to the sponsors of this bill,
“anti-authoritarianism” should be not be among
them.
This article was first published by
The Intercept
-
The
views expressed in this article are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of Information Clearing House.
See also -
Neoconservatism Is An
Omnicidal Death Cult, And It Must Be Stopped
Palestinians clash with
Israeli forces near al-Aqsa
Israel wants US to cut
funding to Palestinians over armed resistance to
occupation.
On hot mic, Israeli PM
admits to Syria strikes on Hezbollah
Watch: Anti-Black Racism
Reveals Israel’s White Supremacy
