Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Right to boycott should be protected

By Emma Johnson
Midland Daily News, 10 Apr 2018: 6A.
https://www.ourmidland.com/opinion/voices/article/Right-to-boycott-should-be-protected-12818625.php


A sign points to the Israeli settlement Pisgat Ze'ev located in East Jerusalem. Pisgat Ze'ev houses 50,000 of the 700,000 Israeli settlers illegally residing in the occupied Palestinian territories. Photograph by Emma Johnson.

FULL TEXT:

Do you think it should be illegal to compile public information? To participate in a boycott? U.S. Republicans and Democrats seem to think so.

In fact, they are currently trying to make it law. The bill currently has 269 co-sponsors; 225 in the House (H.R.1697) and 51 in the Senate (S.720). This includes our own Republican Rep. John Moolenaar and Democratic Sen. Gary Peters.

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act is a direct response to the BDS movement, which stands for “Boycott. Divestment. Sanctions.” The Israel Anti-Boycott Act would make it illegal for U.S. businesses to cease doing business with Israel, or companies that operate on illegal Israeli settlements, if it is — or is only perceived to be — for political reasons.

In May 2017, I went on a delegation to Palestine/Israel that met with the co-founder of the BDS movement, Omar Barghouti. A Palestinian human rights defender, Barghouti says when the international community sanctioned apartheid South Africa it ended segregationist laws. Barghouti would like to see this in Palestine/Israel.

Since 2005, people across the world, including Jews in the United States, have been boycotting products made on settlements. The goal is to put pressure on Israel to follow already existing international laws:

1. Granting Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel equal rights as other Israelis.

2. Allowing Palestinian families expelled from their homes by the Israeli military in 1948, the “right of return” to move back home, as stipulated by UN Resolution 194.

3. Ending Israel’s occupation of Palestine by withdrawing Israeli military and settlers from Palestinian territory.

On the delegation, I saw the effects of Israel’s human rights violations firsthand.

I stayed overnight at a refugee camp where I was told to keep the windows closed because the Israeli military frequently comes at night and shoots guns and releases tear gas. Our hosts showed us a room where we could go if the tear gas was intolerable. I also met a Palestinian farmer who said Israeli settlers poisoned 300 of her sheep and even tried to poison her family. I met a Palestinian man who was tortured as a youth in an Israeli prison built on Palestinian land. I met a woman who can no longer attend her place of worship because of the wall Israel built and we paid for.

These are just a few of the things Palestinians deal with every day.

These are the tactics Israel uses to coerce Palestinians to leave the homes they have lived in for generations to make way for Israeli settlers.

According to the Fourth Geneva Convention, it is illegal for an occupying power to use coercion to force a population to leave an occupied territory. It’s also illegal to move a population into an occupied territory. Yet, this is what Israel is doing in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt). In fact, the United Nations (UN) labels what Israel is doing to the Palestinians as “genocide.”

The power dynamic between Israel and the Palestinians is not an accident. While Israel receives $3.8 billion in military aid from the U.S. each year, Palestinians don’t have a military to protect them. So, Palestinians are using non-violent means to pressure Israel to end the illegal occupation: BDS.

Proponents of the Israel Anti-Boycott Act say that BDS is anti-Semitic and those who participate want to “destroy” Israel. However, BDS only seeks to pressure Israel to follow laws that already exist.

The bill would forbid U.S. businesses from providing information to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The UNHRC is creating a database of companies operating on Israeli settlements. The UNHRC found 206 companies doing business with settlements, including 22 companies in the U.S. The exclusion of U.S. companies would make it difficult for citizens who oppose settlements to know which companies to boycott.

In contrast, the European Union (EU) requires imports to specify on product labels if it is built on an Israeli settlement so that EU citizens can decide for themselves.

If the bill passes, U.S. companies following UN guidelines could be denied U.S. governmental loans, fined a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million, and employees could face 20 years in prison.

Companies not doing business with Israel could even face penalties if they are perceived to be politically motivated. But, how would a corporation’s intentions be monitored? Would companies continue unprofitable business relationships with Israel simply to avoid fines?

Besides being impractical, it would also conflict with existing U.S. foreign policy.

U.S. policy condemns Israeli settlements and our aid to Israel is even contingent on no settlement construction. So, why would we add a provision in the law to protect the settlements from financial pressure? We at least need to be consistent.

Many Jews — including Jews in the U.S. and Israel — are against Israeli settlements. There are now more members of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) than The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). While AIPAC lobbies for the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, JVP actively supports the BDS movement. This law wouldn’t protect the interests of a minority population; it would oppose their wishes.

Finally, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act is an assault on our First Amendment right to freedom of speech. U.S. consumers would be denied a voice via the right to vote with their dollars.

Rep. Moolenaar and Sen. Peters should withdraw their co-sponsorship for the Israel Anti-Boycott Act.

Moolenaar should take the conventional Republican stance: Get the government out of the way and let the free market decide. Peters should heed the Democratic slogan of serving the people rather than the powerful.

In February, Norwegian parliamentarian Bjornar Moxnes nominated BDS for the Nobel Peace Prize. Our U.S. Congress should be supporting — not obstructing — Nobel Peace Prize nominees’ efforts.

This bill opposes the values of the international community as well as our own. So, why would our politicians suggest that the government pick winners and losers in terms of where businesses source their products and services, making Adam Smith spin in his grave? Why would lawmakers seek to hinder the work of Nobel Peace Prize nominees?

One likely explanation is the large campaign contributions by the Israel lobby, the strongest lobby in Washington D.C. surpassing even the gun lobby. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) alone contributed $3.4 million dollars to Republicans and Democrats alike in 2017. Another factor could be that politicians receive more correspondence from constituents involved with the Israel lobby.

However, this shouldn’t dissuade politicians from doing what’s right.

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act is in opposition to freedom of speech, international law, human rights, and even capitalism. The Anti-Boycott Act is not about what is best for American democracy. It’s about placating lobbyists and hoping most citizens aren’t paying attention.

It takes a lot of moral and political courage for politicians to reverse positions in public, but we should expect no less from our elected officials.

Palestinians, on the other hand, don’t have the luxury of deciding to be brave. Every day Palestinians live under Israeli occupation and are denied basic human rights.

Should the risk of being primaried by AIPAC-funded candidates dissuade politicians from fighting for basic human rights? Should the risk of losing their seats compel Rep. Moolenaar and Sen. Peters to make it illegal for citizens to support freedom of speech, international law, human rights, Nobel Peace Prize nominees’ efforts, and capitalism?

I hope not, but our elected officials’ current positions indicate otherwise.

No comments:

Post a Comment