The senate began the year not by dealing with any bill that might have ended the shutdown, get people back to work for pay, or dealing with the question of back pay for furloughed government employees or whether contracted workers would get any, but, instead, debated whether or not states should be allowed to punish companies that choose not to do business with Israel or Israeli-owned enterprises because they do not agree with that countries present politics or its shameful treatment of Palestinians.
You know, the way this was done by businesses and universities when it came to apartheid South Africa.
While the governors of all 50 US states have signed a declaration condemning boycotts of Israel as being against American Values, Montana, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Michigan, Texas, Nevada, Kansas and Wisconsin have already passed bills against the boycotts.
The first Amendment rights of U.S. citizens end when it comes to Israel.
An anti-boycott bill was proposed by Marco Rubio, but lost an initial vote on the Senate floor with 43 Democrats filibustering it to block the bill from moving forward. Republicans seem to have an almost unanimous devotion to Israel, powered, no doubt, by its evangelical base believing in the imminent second coming of Christ that depends on the strength of Israel, while the Democrat support is uneven.
Dianne Feinstein has stated,
“This Israel anti-boycott legislation would give states a free pass to restrict First Amendment protections for millions of Americans. Despite my strong support for Israel, I oppose this legislation because it clearly violates the Constitution.”
Anti-Israel boycott bills can apply to individuals working as independent contractors.
This would mean government sponsored repression of free speech rights as people are forced to choose between participating in boycotts or losing business with state governments that ban them.
Just as with the past boycotts of South Africa were aimed at ending immoral practices, these boycotts aim to force Israel to change its approach to the Palestinians through external pressure.
The boycotts want consumers to stop buying Israeli products, have companies not do business in Israel, and support universities’ and cultural figures’ who decide to stop collaborating with Israeli colleagues.
Supporters of the anti-boycott bills claim the boycotts are an anti-Semitic campaign aimed at the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, whereas those who oppose them point out that as Palestinians, whose rights they support, are Semites, and whereas the opposition to Israel’s treatment is directed toward the political policies of its leaders and is not directed toward its people, saying the boycotts of Israel, and claiming any criticism of the actions of the Israeli government is being anti-Semitic is an attempt at misdirection.
The Israel Anti-Boycott Act seeks to amend a 1970s law known as the Export Administration Act that was passed because the Arab League sought to require U.S. businesses to boycott Israel as a condition of doing business with Arab League countries, and this was seen as an attempt by a foreign country to bully U.S. businesses into boycotting friendly countries. The EAA was meant to protect U.S. companies from compulsory boycotts, while the new Israel Anti-Boycott Act seeks to dictate the political activities in which Americans can and can’t engage.
There is one major lobbying group who is pushing for a federal law banning boycotts of Israel, and that is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) which advocates for pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive Branch, has more than 100,000 members and a large donor base, and is considered one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States. Money raised does not go directly to individual political candidate, but to candidates through PACS.
There is big money involved.
President Barack Obama had his differences with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who actually schemed with Republicans to deliver a speech to Congress against the Iran nuclear deal, making an end run around the president by acting like he did not exist. This amounted to Israel’s prime minister working with Republicans to whip up opposition to Obama, and allowing a foreign leader to speak against the president and influence domestic policy.
Israel’s occupation of the West Bank has continued with construction of settlements. The leadership of Israel has made that country a military giant that is occupying Palestinian territory and breaking up any peaceful Palestinian protests by using excessive force.
It is no longer an embattled Middle Eastern democracy and a haven for the oppressed Jewish people.
When Trump moved the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem without any consultation with the Palestinians, the U.S. officially shut down the Jerusalem Consulate General cutting the direct link between the Palestinians and Washington, and, instead, established a Palestinian Affairs Unit in the new embassy.
The U.S. says this will be more efficient since the Palestinian and Israeli offices will be in one location, but the consolidation moves the U.S. presence from East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, and to the Palestinians it appears that the U.S. is going to be dealing primarily with Israel, and a sure sign of the end of a two state solution in the area.
Palestinians will now have to deal with Ambassador to Israel David Friedman who supports Israel’s West Bank settlement movement and will now be making decision on all matters dealing with diplomatic relations between the Palestinians and the Israelis. His does not to appear to be a position of neutrality.
Obama had issued an executive order that any company seeking a government contract had to show that they did not discriminate against U.S. citizens who were GLBT, but Trump rescinded that. Now states are requiring that if any company wants a contract with the state that company would have to sign a pledge that they will not boycott Israel. The Israel Anti-Boycott Act wold extend tyat requirement to federal contracts
A foreign company has more rights than GLBT citizens of this country.
This bothers many people, and acting and speaking against actions like this and those against the Palestinian people is being considered, somehow, attacking all Jewish people.
It isn’t.
The leadership of Israel is, like the leadership in this country, not the same as its people, and objecting to the former is not objecting to the latter.
Who comprises Semitic people?
Arabs, Akkadians, Canaanites, some Ethiopians, and including, but not limited to, those of Hebrew descent. That includes the Palestinians.
So why is it anti-Semitic to oppose what the Israel government is doing to the Palestinians, while what they are doing is not seen as anti-Semitic action?
My husband made me dinner for my viagra sales online raindogscine.com birthday. The website lets you get involve with some of the famous website of the famous newspaper. tadalafil 20mg cipla These medical conditions can also sometimes prove to be harmful for the commander viagra health so they should be treated by an experienced medical professional. So Intagra was developed and is now considered as the safer and more effective cialis in kanada alternative for the drug to be effective.
Opposing actions that displace people, destroy their homes, beat their children, shoot protesters, take away their land, and build walls to keep the original occupiers of the land from free passage on that land isn’t anti-Semitic unless the true meaning of Semite is supplanted with a use that is conveniently selective.
When Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota said she fears everything she and Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan say about Israel is construed as anti-Semitic because they’re Muslim, and added that supporters are pushing U.S. lawmakers to take a pledge of “allegiance to a foreign country”, self-righteous and misdirecting outrage ensued.
The Democratic led House is all upset with fellow Democrat Ilhan Omar because she tweeted against AIPAC saying that lobbyists at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee are funding her critics.
The Democrat leadership has stated,
“Anti-Semitism must be called out, confronted and condemned whenever it is encountered, without exception.”
I would think that would also apply to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians as it says “without exception”.
Trump joined in saying,
“I think she should be ashamed of herself. I think it was a terrible statement. And I don’t think her apology was adequate.”
Omar has since offered an apology,
“Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. That is why I unequivocally apologize.”
But while people are getting the vapors claiming she attacked all Jewish people, Forward columnist Batya Ungar-Sargon tweeted that she “would love to know who @IlhanMN thinks is paying American politicians to be pro-Israel, though I think I can guess,”
and Omar responded succinctly,
“AIPAC!”
And followed that by tweeting
“Accurately describing how the Israel lobby works is not anti-semitism.”
How is a statement against a Political Action Committee an attack on the Jewish people in the United States, especially when AIPAC claims a membership of 100,000, not all of them Jewish, while there were 6,925,475 Jews in the U.S. in 2018 which mathematically means that Omar was not talking about 6,825,475 Jews, but at most 2% of that group’s population.
How is the person who clearly spoke against AIPAC now being accused by conservatives and some desperate Democrats as attacking all American Jews?
The attackers are the ones promoting a subtle form of anti-Semitism, as they are the ones who seem to feel that a political action committee is the representative of all American Jews and to claim that one political organization with a specific agenda, influencing congress to favor pro-Israel legislation, is all American Jews, while they ignore they are proposing legislation that curtail U.S. citizens’ rights in favor of the country for which that PAC lobbies.
They are not defending all American Jews, but protecting their chance at PAC money by competing in who can express the greatest outrage.
Meanwhile, Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, he who likes to look macho by never wearing a jacket when the cameras are on, tweeted a criticism of Democrat Jerry Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who announced that he will be requesting documents from over 60 different people, including Donald Trump Jr. in which he substituted a dollar sign for the S in the name of Thomas Steyer, an American billionaire hedge fund manager and Democratic donor who is running a private campaign to impeach Trump and whose mother was Jewish. Making him Jewish as well. Wouldn’t implying that a Jewish person’s money has political power be an anti-Semitic trope equal to the overuse of the name George Soros?
“Nadler feeling the heat big time. Jumps to Tom $teyer’s conclusion—impeaching our President—before first document request. What a Kangaroo court.”
Direct an attack on an individual Jew as someone whose money means political power and not a PAC, and silence ensued.
Jordan: white, Christian, male.
Omar: Brown, Muslim, woman.
Why all the broo-ha-ha against Omar, nothing against Jordan?
The outrage against Omar is the real “fake news”.
Congress is planing to pass a resolution to condemn anti-Semitic talk on the House floor.
Why stop there?
Add race, color, national origin, Muslims, GLBT, and women, and it might be more than just a competitive and ostentatious exercise in faux outrage,