Congressional Resolutions Are Not Law But They Are Not Harmless

 

Ilhan Omar, a supporter of the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement, has decided that the government needs to protect its citizens—from our government. House Resolution 496, passed last week, claimed that the government was going to stop citizens from boycotting! In fact, it states as much:

Whereas despite this tradition, governments and nongovernmental organizations alike have sought to criminalize, stigmatize, and delegitimize the use of boycotts in an attempt to stifle constitutionally protected political expression . . .

The language is quite odd, since I know of no government organization that has tried to “criminalize” boycotts, although there has been much promotion of stigmatizing and delegitimizing boycotts, specifically against Israel. The last I heard, those actions all fall under the free speech amendment.

The resolution also states that the House–

(1) affirms that all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution;

(2) opposes unconstitutional legislative efforts to limit the use of boycotts to further civil rights at home and abroad; and

(3) urges Congress, States, and civil rights leaders from all communities to endeavor to preserve the freedom of advocacy for all by opposing antiboycott resolutions and legislation.

Let’s parse these statements to clarify their meaning. First, Americans don’t need a resolution to be able to boycott anything, anywhere, as long as they aren’t breaking the law. There are no efforts to limit boycotts, although the government and many agencies are discouraging them; the degree to which universities may want to limit BDS activities is up to the universities, not the government. In reality, Omar was trying to stop resolutions that would discourage boycotts against Israel.

Ironically (maybe) The House Foreign Affairs Committee passed an anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) resolution unanimously on July 17 (two days before Omar’s resolution).

House Resolution 246

(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) affirms that the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement undermines the possibility for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by demanding concessions of one party alone and encouraging the Palestinians to reject negotiations in favor of international pressure;

(3) urges Israelis and Palestinians to return to direct negotiations as the only way to achieve an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict;

(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.

So the Resolution for the anti-BDS Movement discourages not only boycotting Israel, but it states that resolutions to the Palestinian-Israeli problem might be hampered by this movement. Clearly Omar objects to it because it supports Israel, and her goal is to do whatever is in her power to harm Israel and the Jewish people.

Omar’s positions are disingenuous and misleading. The government is not delegitimizing boycotts—it is discouraging boycotts against Israel. The government is not threatening to take away the right to boycott anyone; it is not threatening to limit boycotting, although there was discussion about making it difficult for companies to boycott Israel, but it wasn’t pursued; the government isn’t threatening to take away the right to advocacy.

To back up Omar’s point that the U.S. has boycotted in the past, the resolution listed other times when the government boycotted governments, such as Germany or Japan. I don’t think I would equate boycotting Germany and Japan (a legitimate strategy in a time of war) with boycotting Israel (which is done to destroy a peaceful country).

So at best, Ilhan Omar is making up false arguments; at worst, she is simply lying to continue to pursue her anti-Semitic actions and rhetoric. If you need a reminder of all the comments she has made against Israel and the Jews, go here .

Omar’s actions and words are dangerous on multiple levels. First, she is trying to de-legitimize the actions of our government and accusing it of taking “unconstitutional” actions against our citizens. Second, she continues to try to damage the U.S. relationship with Israel; I’ve no doubt that she would like to sever the relationship completely and for the U.S. to treat the Palestinians differently. Third, she is trying to legitimize the BDS Movement as another way to harm Israel and the Jews.

Ultimately my concern is that Ilhan Omar continues to promote the perception that Israel is not legitimate and by association, neither are the Jews; there are plenty of other countries that agree with her. In these times, I don’t take our support for Israel for granted.

It’s also clear that her fellow Representatives aren’t going to stop her.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 47 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Well I wonder if the “Squad” will support HR246 then. Seem rather straight forward and in keeping with general American policy of “everyone play nice” with respect to the the Israeli-Palestinian issue. 

    • #31
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Well I wonder if the “Squad” will support HR246 then. Seem rather straight forward and in keeping with general American policy of “everyone play nice” with respect to the the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

    I doubt it. Mostly because they don’t want to play nice. They want Israel and the Jewish people to disappear.

    • #32
  3. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    The pro-Israel resolution has 349 co-sponsors.   Omar’s bill has six:  Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-13], Rep. Lewis, John [D-GA-5], Rep. Watson Coleman, Bonnie [D-NJ-12], Rep. Payne, Donald M., Jr. [D-NJ-10],  Rep. Rush, Bobby L. [D-IL-1], Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7]

    Once again Omar is getting way more attention way than she deserves.

    The resolution is incoherent.  To the extent that it is correct, it is redundant of Constitutional protections, to the extent that it is wrong it is that she has no grasp of federalism and the persistent tendency to assume that the First Amendment does not apply when criticizing someone else’s (political correct) exercise of such rights.

    • #33
  4. Misthiocracy secretly Member
    Misthiocracy secretly
    @Misthiocracy

    Wikipedia defines a boycott as “an act of voluntary and intentional abstention from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for moral, social, political, or environmental reasons.” (emphasis mine)

    It seems to me that a genuine “right to boycott” would include the right for business owners to refuse service for pretty much any reason, for private employers to refrain from hiring for pretty much any reason, for private organizations to refuse membership for pretty much any reason, etc. etc.

    Furthermore, wouldn’t a genuine right to boycott prohibit any government from mandating that citizens must procure goods and/or services against their will? Like, say, health insurance, or schooling, or vaccines, or occupational licensing, or union membership, or unemployment insurance, or social security, etc. etc.

    The real problem with Omar’s resolution is that rather than guaranteeing the right to boycott, it actually imposes limits on when boycotts are deemed legitimate.  If the text was amended by striking the words “in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad”, I’d have little problem with the resolution.

    Heck, even if you didn’t strike those words from the resolution, could it not still be interpreted as an affirmation of the right to refuse to pay taxes?

    • #34
  5. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    she has no grasp of federalism and the persistent tendency to assume that the First Amendment does not apply when criticizing someone else’s (political correct) exercise of such rights.

    There. That’s the key factor. Thanks, @oldbathos.

    • #35
  6. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Misthiocracy secretly (View Comment):
    It seems to me that a genuine “right to boycott” would include the right for business owners to refuse service for pretty much any reason, for private employers to refrain from hiring for pretty much any reason, for private organizations to refuse membership for pretty much any reason, etc. etc.

    Seems reasonable to me. Too bad others on the Left don’t agree with us.

    • #36
  7. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Ah, now. Just because she’s an unAmerican bigamist anti-Semitic grifter is no reason to think her motives are not pure…y’know, pureish…maybe? 

    • #37
  8. WI Con Member
    WI Con
    @WICon

    Don’t trust her, the other three members of “The Four Horses-Asses of the Apocalypse’ or their backers.

    I’m guessing but think this may be some way to  shield or restore funding to any groups that support BDS but also have radical islamist ties.

    • #38
  9. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Probably has a tail. Can’t trust her. 

    • #39
  10. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Well I wonder if the “Squad” will support HR246 then. Seem rather straight forward and in keeping with general American policy of “everyone play nice” with respect to the the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

    I doubt it. Mostly because they don’t want to play nice. They want Israel and the Jewish people to disappear.

    I wonder if that is accurate about all four. I have little doubt it is true of half of them, but the other two are probably just reflexively anti-Semitic. 

    • #40
  11. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Probably has a tail. Can’t trust her.

    A monkey?

     

    • #41
  12. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Zafar (View Comment):
    A speech pathologist at a Texas elementary school has sued after allegedly being forced out of her contract job at an elementary school for refusing to sign a mandatory pro-Israel pledge.

    The characterization of an anti-BDS pledge, a pledge to refrain from a certain action, as “pro-Israel” is not the most adroit slight of hand. Did you even realize you did it?

    • #42
  13. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    A speech pathologist at a Texas elementary school has sued after allegedly being forced out of her contract job at an elementary school for refusing to sign a mandatory pro-Israel pledge.

    The characterization of an anti-BDS pledge, a pledge to refrain from a certain action, as “pro-Israel” is not the most adroit slight of hand. Did you even realize you did it?

    It’s a quote, and I think you’re parsing it a little fine.  

    Swearing not to act in any way prejudicial to the interests of Luxembourg, no matter what crimes you think Luxembourg has committed, is pro Luxembourg. 

    • #43
  14. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    A speech pathologist at a Texas elementary school has sued after allegedly being forced out of her contract job at an elementary school for refusing to sign a mandatory pro-Israel pledge.

    The characterization of an anti-BDS pledge, a pledge to refrain from a certain action, as “pro-Israel” is not the most adroit slight of hand. Did you even realize you did it?

    It’s a quote, and I think you’re parsing it a little fine.

    Swearing not to act in any way prejudicial to the interests of Luxembourg, no matter what crimes you think Luxembourg has committed, is pro Luxembourg.

    Too fine a line? I don’t think so. You had to stretch the true circumstance again to fit your special pleading. The pledge wasn’t “not to act in any way prejudicial to the interests of” Israel. It was to refrain from economic boycott of Israel. Given the context of corruption of the polity by the left, that seems a reasonable restriction for a school district concerned with public morality. A little clumsy and broad, perhaps. I’m sure it could be tuned.

    But I’m betting there’s no not-anti-Israel restriction they could apply that’d satisfy you.

    • #44
  15. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    From snopes

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/texas-israel-oath-boycott/

    The text of the pledge:

    ////

    Pursuant to Section 2270.001 of Texas Government Code, the Contractor affirms that it:

    1. Does not currently boycott Israel; and 2. Will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract.

    Pursuant to Section 2270.001 of Texas Government Code:

    1. “Boycott Israel” means refusing to deal with, terminating business activities with, or otherwise taking any action that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations specifically with Israel, or with a person or entity doing business in Israel or in an Israeli-controlled territory, but does not include an action made for ordinary business purposes…

    ///:

    Which looks like it includes advocacy for BDS.

    Also

    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/04/26/landmark-victory-first-amendment-court-strikes-down-texas-anti-bds-law

    From which:

    In a decision hailed as a “landmark” victory for the First Amendment, a federal judge on Thursday struck down a Texas law requiring government contractors to sign a pledge vowing not to participate in the pro-Palestinian boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement.

    “The right to boycott is alive and well in the United States and any attempt to suppress it puts you squarely on the wrong side of the Constitution.”
    —Vera Eidelman, ACLU

    • #45
  16. JosePluma Coolidge
    JosePluma
    @JosePluma

    Zafar (View Comment):
    “The right to boycott is alive and well in the United States and any attempt to suppress it puts you squarely on the wrong side of the Constitution.”
    —Vera Eidelman, ACLU

    And yet they didn’t support the right of a baker to boycott the support of gay weddings.

    • #46
  17. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    JosePluma (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    “The right to boycott is alive and well in the United States and any attempt to suppress it puts you squarely on the wrong side of the Constitution.”
    —Vera Eidelman, ACLU

    And yet they didn’t support the right of a baker to boycott the support of gay weddings.

    Of course those smartybritches over at the ACLU have an answer:

    When Black citizens in Mississippi boycotted white-owned businesses to protest racial segregation, the Supreme Court held that the boycott was protected under the First Amendment. As the court made clear, consumers have a First Amendment right to withhold their patronage from businesses in order to express their political beliefs. On the other hand, businesses do not have the right to refuse service to consumers because of who they are.

    Think about it this way: You have a First Amendment right to boycott Starbucks to protest their secular holiday cups. Starbucks does not have a First Amendment right to discriminate against you because of your Christian beliefs. The same principle applies to boycotts of consumer goods and services from foreign countries.

    What’s sauce for the goose, etc:

    Consider seven of the most interesting faith-based boycotts that have occurred over the past 1o to 15 years. JC Penney, Lowe’s, Best Buy, Disney, Target, Heinz and Starbucks are only a few of the well-known companies that have faced backlash for their support of issues or causes that some saw as improper, dangerous, ant-Christian, anti-gay and, inevitably, boycott-worthy.

    Or

    Conservative Christian Group Boycotting Disney and ‘Toy Story 4’ Over ‘Dangerous’ Lesbian Scene

    Or

    Pro-life group calls for Netflix boycott after streaming giant threatens to leave Georgia over ‘heartbeat’ bill

    iow:

    These really are everybody’s rights being defended.

    • #47
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.