Loading ...Anti-BDS Bill Will Be Amended Following Public Outcry Of Its Unconstitutionality
By Daniel Gil/ Contributing Writer
A controversial bill aimed at criminalizing boycott and divestment practices against Israel introduced to the Senate in March by Sen. Ben Cardin will be amended following public outcry that the bill violated the first amendment.
The bill (S. 720) seeks to amend the Export Administration Act of 1979 by making it U.S.policy to oppose boycotts and restrictive trade practices directed at Israel while also prohibiting individuals in the U.S. from seeking to impose or further boycotts placed on a U.S. allied country by a foreign country or foreign organization.
On Monday, July the 18th, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sent a letter to Congress asking senators to oppose bill S. 720, also known as the Israel Anti-Boycott Act. The organization believed the bill would place unconstitutional limits on free speech and “would punish individuals for no other reason than their political belief,” the letter reads.
The ACLU claimed that the legislation, if passed by Congress, would allow the U.S. government to imprison and fine someone who participates in boycotting and divesting from Israel. The ACLU also claims the government could punish individuals for boycotts which impact Israel’s ability to create settlements in the West Bank as well as penalize those who simply request information on the boycotts themselves.
“In short…” the letter reads, “the bill would punish businesses and individuals based solely on their point of view. Such a penalty is in direct violation of the first amendment.”
Following the issuance of the letter and subsequent press coverage for both the bill and the letter received, Cardin, along with co-sponsors of the bill have told the press they are open to amending and reevaluating its language. However, Cardin believes that the ACLU had misinterpreted the language of the bill in its letter to Congress which heavily emphasized restrictions placed by the government on US citizens and their right to free speech.
In an article by The Intercept, Cardin is quoted saying, “I respect greatly the ACLU. I think that many of their points are just not correct. We don’t want to do anything to infringe freedom of speech.”
However, a Washington Post op-ed published Monday evening written by two officials at the ACLU stood by their organization’s letter’s legal interpretation, saying that the bill would “would make it a crime to support or even furnish information about a boycott directed at Israel or its businesses called by the United Nations, the European Union or any other ‘international governmental organization.’”
The bill was introduced to congress a week before the United Nations Human Rights Council convened and where, according to the language of the bill, the council “targeted Israel with a commercial boycott.” This was an apparent reference to a list compiled by the UNHRC of companies which have had business relations with “entities” that work beyond the borders established in the 1949 armistice, the treaty which ended the Arab-Israeli War and created the green line.
The bill also comes amidst growing tensions between Israel and Palestine over issues of security. The past few weeks have seen daily demonstrations in the streets of Jerusalem and larger confrontations between Israelis and Palestinians following the Israeli closure of a mosque in East Jerusalem. The closure came after a deadly gun battle left two Israeli police officers dead, prompting security forces to install cameras, and metal detectors at the compound’s entrances.
The bill currently has 45 co-sponsors on both sides of the political aisle; however, public pressure is mounting. Arab and Palestinian organizations in the United States, which could be targeted by the legislation, are outraged with the advent of the bill as they see it as a thinly veiled attempt at protecting Israel’s assets through the implementation of U.S. policy.
Dr. Khalil Jahshan, the executive director of the Arab Center-DC, believes that the bill has been politicized.
“This whole issue, the anti BDS initiative is, being rushed without looking at the implications, particularly, for civil rights. Even though some people are beginning to take a look at it, the issue has still not been studied thoroughly, and not enough time has been taken to look at the long term implications.”
Jahshan went on to say that, “the issue here is not protecting Israel from boycotts, but it’s protecting people from free speech infringements. For those of us involved in defending civil liberties in this country, it is the chilling effect that the language has on the psychology of the people that is most damaging.”