Clarification of Gabbard's vote on H.Res.246 on BDS
I have read Tulsi Gabbard's response to criticism of her Yes vote on H.Res.246, which opposes BDS but which also affirms the right of Americans to support BDS. She is quoted here in making that point:
https://mondoweiss.net › 2019/08 › gabbard-condemn-cosponsor
Tulsi Gabbard voted to condemn BDS, but she's become a co-sponsor of Ilhan Omar's boycott bill
Congresswoman and presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) has become the fifteenth House member to cosponsor H.Res.496, a resolution affirming that Americans have the right to boycott foreign countries to advance the cause of human rights...
The article then quotes Gabbard on her vote in support of the anti-BDS resolution, H.Res.246:
https://mondoweiss.net › 2019/08 › gabbard-condemn-cosponsor
... H.Res.246 does not in any way limit or hinder our First Amendment rights. In fact, it affirms every American’s right to exercise free speech for or against U.S. foreign policy, as well as the right of Israeli and Palestinian people to live in safe and sovereign states free from fear and violence and with mutual recognition. The right to protest the actions of our government is essential if America is to truly be a free society.
I support BDS as far as I understand it. And I disagree strongly with the parts of 246 that establish support for Israel's right to exist because I question the whole premise. But I understand Gabbard's position.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/246/text
H.Res.246 - Opposing efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel and the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement targeting Israel.
116th Congress (2019-2020)
… Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) opposes the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement (BDS Movement) targeting Israel, including efforts to target United States companies that are engaged in commercial activities that are legal under United States law, and all efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel;
(2) urges Israelis and Palestinians to return to direct negotiations as the only way to achieve an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict;
(3) affirms the Constitutional right of United States citizens to free speech, including the right to protest or criticize the policies of the United States or foreign governments;
(4) supports the full implementation of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–296; 128 Stat. 4075) and new efforts to enhance government-wide, coordinated United States-Israel scientific and technological cooperation in civilian areas, such as with respect to energy, water, agriculture, alternative fuel technology, civilian space technology, and security, in order to counter the effects of actions to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel; and
(5) reaffirms its strong support for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states—a democratic Jewish State of Israel, and a viable, democratic Palestinian state—living side-by-side in peace, security, and mutual recognition.
Comments
I still think it's a slippery slope
Right now it's a non biding resolution. But who's to say that it won't get more teeth some time in the future. Besides lots of states are passing legislation against BDS which keeps people from being hired or doing business with the states. Too slippery.
“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil.”
~ Hannah Arendt
The key is to protect free speech
not to prohibit those speaking out against Israel's government but not enabling governmental authority to regulate private actions.
If a business or individual seeks to not do business with Israel or Israeli companies, they are legally free to do so. But mandating a law stating that BDS must be obeyed by all is blatantly unconstitutional. Hence, the supporting vote on House Resolution 246 is the correct thing to do.
I find this House resolution,
H.Res.246, to be questionable, although I'm the person who posted this piece in order to clarify Tulsi Gabbard's position. I support Gabbard, and I think her explanation is clear, but I think the resolution is not only unnecessary but wrongful.
We have a government that sanctions other countries and causes great suffering, even death, especially among children and the poor. We've admitted it. But in the case of Israel, the House of Representatives is making a statement that they oppose sanctioning Israel, even though it is clearly legal for individual Americans to cooperatively agree to sanction Israel.
Are they saying they will never sanction Israel, no matter what Israel does under international law? What is that supposed to mean?
But Corporations are People, so . . .
. . . how's that supposed to work?
We're talking about businesses with contracts with the US govt, right? (Not actual humans, even though corporations are people according to SCOTUS.)
1. Boycott. How could it be proven that a contracted company boycotted anything, unless they announced it publicly?
2. Divest. So, any company who has money invested in any Israeli company is forced to never pull their money out, or must continue to give money to said Israeli company or else they're in violation of federal law? Shouldn't capitalists' heads be exploding over this one? Or do I not understand the definition of "divest"?
3. Sanction. Since when has any entity, other than the government, been able to sanction a country?
Lawyers of c99, can you help me understand how this could possibly be legal, constitutional? And since corporations are people, doesn't everything become null and void, except for the part that says citizens are allowed to participate in BDS? Or can it be binding because people and citizens have different definitions?
This
Every time a country tries to hold Israel accountable for what its doing to the Palestinians the USA is right there to stand in their way. That was why Flynn first called Russia. Kushner was told by Bibi to get Flynn to get Russia to back off its vote against Israel for its illegal settlements. And yes this is exactly what this country is saying. No matter what Israel does it's okay with us. Israel keeps attacking Iran in Syria and might have attacked them in Iraq, but the media does not tell us about it. As ByeDone said, "if Israel wasn't there we'd have to invent it." And the Christian Right only defends them so they can be used as pawns in the Great Holy war for when Jesus comes back to smite Israelis and lead us all into salvation....
“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil.”
~ Hannah Arendt
Is an Amen called for your comment?
It is spot on.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
The part of HR 246
that I have a problem with is Section 4, which affirms that the US House:
I think this section is the heart and guts of HR 246. It could have been written by AIPAC. In fact, it probably was.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Kim Iverson had an excellent Youtube post on this.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5CRh7I7vNc) What it comes down to is that the BDS _movement_ has as one of its goals to invoke the "right of return" for Palestinians. That would turn Israel into a Muslim-majority state.
I have no problem with boycott-divest-sanction to push Israel toward ceasing its settlements construction, or other atrocious behavior, but the right of return is a hammer to shatter Israel.
If we want to be even-handed,
then BOTH sides have to give up their "right of return". That means Israeli aliyah as well as the Palestinian equivalent.
To continue to allow unlimited Jewish immigration while denying Palestinian immigration is a fast track to a one-state "solution" that is no solution at all.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
In the 21st century, annual immigration to Israel has been
under 30,000 annually for all but 3 years (or 4, if you count 2000). I've seen estimates of between 5 and 10 million Palestinians who could take advantage of a Right of Return. If it became necessary, I expect Israelis would accept the end of Aliyah before accepting the Right of Return. In any case, I don't think the Aliyah, and the Right of Return, are equivalent.
That resolution is a hash bag of contradictions.
17 members of the House managed to see that, including Kentucky's Rep. Massie (which was a big surprise).
I'm sorry Tulsi didn't recognize that and her explanation on video was just as convoluted as the language of this resolution.
This is why Omar had to put our her resolution. She saw 246 for what it was.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
It's a matter of Tulsi's campaign survival
Support for Israel is a widely accepted notion in this country, even though the notion is wrong. To have Tulsi out on the campaign trail bad mouthing Israel would be the kiss of death to her campaign. There is no sense at this point to ruin a campaign by giving opposition camps ammunition to use against her at any future debate stage. Harris is looking for one good opportunity to get back at Tulsi, all she has is the Assad smear; adding an anti semitic smear on top of that would be.. well would not be good. Anything negative about Israel is touching the "third rail" - you can't change the perception that support for Israel is "good" overnight. If she spoke harshly about Israel it would be 10 times worse than the Assad smear. No sense in giving anyone debate ammunition to use against Tulsi.
Peace - and i MEAN IT!!
FN
"Democracy is technique and the ability of power not to be understood as oppressor. Capitalism is the boss and democracy is its spokesperson." Peace - FN
Bernie Sanders
has no problem calling out the right-wing government of Israel.
Except that Bernie voted to move the embassy
He voted to move the embassy, but then said this? Oh Bernie . . .
He was absolutely right in his statement, which directly contradicts his vote in favor of moving it. Blech.
IIRC congress voted to move the embassy in 1995
during Clinton's tenure, but each president since has punted on it until Trump.
“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil.”
~ Hannah Arendt
Read about it here [edit adding link]
But I'll go try to find it.
This is when I read about it. Where did Amanda go, anyway?
(Damn fools): Bernie Sanders along with 90 other Senators unanimously voted to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem in June
Thanks for the clarification, Deja
So while the main bill to move the embassy was passed in 1995,
congress did a more recent vote to move it now. And thanks for the TD article. I too thought that the fraudulent tax bill would be the last straw for people, but no it wasn't. To this day people are defending it because it gave them more money in their paychecks and because corporations pay the most in taxes. Grr.
Pelosi is not going to impeach Trump until he screws up so bad that she gets ordered to. I recently read her opinion on why she took impeachment off the table during Bush's tenure and she said that she would fight him through the congress and funding instead. And then she went on to give him and the GOP everything she wanted. Oh yeah, she said that the democrats will be working along with the GOP because that is who the democrats are. Now that was being honest. Of course dems work with the GOP whilst the GOP block everything they want. One party in congress and it's the oligarch's one.
“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil.”
~ Hannah Arendt
Another talking head telling the dems what they need to do
IF they want to win back congress and the presidency. Do people really think that democrats are that dumb and don't know what they should be doing to do that? Of course they do and the fact that they haven't since the Clintons slimmed into DC should tell people that they are not ever going to do that. This is not rocket science. I got poor grades in science, but even I can figure out the scam.
“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil.”
~ Hannah Arendt
It's a matter of "cover" here
Sanders can criticize Israel because he is Jewish, Tulsi can criticize the regime wars because she has served in the Mid-East. No one yet on the democrat side can cover themselves for their stances because of their "bona fides". It's even hard to get some "shade" for "medicare for all" because there are no examples other than foreign programs, such as Sweden that appear successful. You can criticize anything I suppose as long as you have that "cloak of invisibility"...
Peace
FN
"Democracy is technique and the ability of power not to be understood as oppressor. Capitalism is the boss and democracy is its spokesperson." Peace - FN