American Senate’s first Bill in 2019 aims to defend Israel

[Kailash Kumar]

American Senate’s first Bill in 2019 aims to defend Israel

31 MINUTES AGO

The US Senate seems to be prioritising the interests of Israel as it kicks off the new year, instead of focusing on bills that could have a positive impact on the lives of Americans.

The US Senate’s first bill of 2019 is not designed to address the economic inequality and socio-economic injustices in the country, but to protect and defend Israel from the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

The bill, titled S.1, contains various measures regarding US foreign policy but specifically focuses on political and financial assistance to Israel. It has been supported by the influential pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

The bill consists of four components. The first is the Ileana Ros-Lehtinen United States-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2019 (the 2018 version of it can be seen here).
It aims to implement the 2016 deal between former US president Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and guarantees to give a $38 billion aid package to Israel over the next 10 years. The aid would make up the largest-ever military aid package given to any country in the world by the US.

The pro-Israel legislation did not pass in the last Congress, and has been reintroduced by Republican Senator Marco Rubio, from Florida.

Another chapter of the bill is the Combatting BDS Act of 2019. This section allows the punishment of any individual, state or local government that boycotts Israel or supports the BDS movement.

BDS is a non-violent grassroots and global movement inspired by the boycotts and sanctions against apartheid South Africa. The core demands of BDS are that Israel ends the occupation in Palestine, dismantles the wall built to restrict the freedom of movement of Palestinians, recognise the equal rights of Arab citizens of Israel, and honour Palestinian refugees’ right to return.

Currently in the US, at least 26 states have adopted laws to punish and sanction individuals and corporations that participate in and support the boycott of Israel, while in at least 12 states, similar laws are waiting to be passed.
Bahia Amawai is just one of the hundreds of Americans whose lives have been affected by the pro-Israel laws in the country.

Senators Bernie Sanders and Dianne Feinstein sent a letter to the Senate, arguing that the bill will harm free speech in the US.

“While we do not support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement, we remain resolved to our constitutional oath to defend the right of every American to express their views peacefully without fear of actual punishment by the government,” they wrote in the letter.

Speech pathologist Bahrawi, who worked with disabled students at an elementary school in Texas, lost her job last just last month when she refused to sign a renewed contract that required her to sign a pro-Israel oath.
Across the US, American states have chosen to criminalise their citizens’ decision not to purchase a certain type of olive oil or wine at the expense of American citizens’ constitutional rights.

Similarly, the Senate seems to have chosen to prioritise the interests of a foreign country in the first days of 2019, instead of bills that would have a positive impact on the lives of Americans.

https://www.trtworld.com/americas/american-senate-s-first-bill-in-2019-aims-to-defend-israel-23154

 

[Englishman]

Lol
So it's not America first after all.

Anyway
Now all say with me
Death to Israel

 

[Kailash Kumar]

So it's not America first after all.

It was never America First.
It has always been Arms Industry and Israel Lobby First.

 

[Solomon2]

...Speech pathologist Bahrawi, who worked with disabled students at an elementary school in Texas, lost her job last just last month when she refused to sign a renewed contract that required her to sign a pro-Israel oath -

No, a Texas woman did NOT lose her job for refusing to sign “pro-Israel pledge”
BY ADAM LEVICK ON DECEMBER 19, 2018 •

...as Constitutional Law Professor David Bernstein explains, the law’s requirement can be more accurately described as an anti-discrimination clause – similar, on constitutional grounds, to laws “requiring a contractor to pledge that the business does not refuse to hire Muslims, or Jews, or blacks”, etc. Further, contrary to the Indy’s claim, there’s nothing in the law – which is similar to anti-BDS laws in many other states – which prohibits individuals like Ms. Amawai from boycotting Israel in her personal capacity. It only applies to her business -

 

[hussain0216]

Insidious jews

Then what happens is people get ticked off that the state is sacrificing self interest for jew interest and there is a reaction or a pogrom

 

[maximuswarrior]

America is owned by Zionists. There is no doubt about that. Zionist Hollywood producers misuse American actresses like garbage and no one bats an eye lid. That is how deeply entrenched the Zionists have become.

 

[Kailash Kumar]

No, a Texas woman did NOT lose her job for refusing to sign “pro-Israel pledge”
BY ADAM LEVICK ON DECEMBER 19, 2018 •

...as Constitutional Law Professor David Bernstein explains, the law’s requirement can be more accurately described as an anti-discrimination clause – similar, on constitutional grounds, to laws “requiring a contractor to pledge that the business does not refuse to hire Muslims, or Jews, or blacks”, etc. Further, contrary to the Indy’s claim, there’s nothing in the law – which is similar to anti-BDS laws in many other states – which prohibits individuals like Ms. Amawai from boycotting Israel in her personal capacity. It only applies to her business -

But she is a speech pathologist at an elementary school.
She works with children at the school who have speech and language disorders.
How can she boycott Israel professionally?
Can you give me an example of a scenario where this might happen?

 

[Solomon2]

How can she boycott Israel professionally?
Can you give me an example of a scenario where this might happen?

The pledge in question requires her - in her professional, not personal, capacity - to refrain from "taking any action intended to penalize, inflict harm on, or limit commercial relations specifically with Israel, or with a person or entity doing business in Israel or Israel-controlled territory."

Ms. Amawai, an Arabic-language speech pathologist, didn't provide a specific example of how she could boycott Israel professionally. She cited "moral issues", says "political speech is of great national and international importance", and claims she "will be chilled in her personal capacity to advocate for Palestinian rights, and unable to provide speech pathology services for children -".

 

[maximuswarrior]

The pledge in question requires her - in her professional, not personal, capacity - to refrain from "taking any action intended to penalize, inflict harm on, or limit commercial relations specifically with Israel, or with a person or entity doing business in Israel or Israel-controlled territory."

Ms. Amawai, an Arabic-language speech pathologist, didn't provide a specific example of how she could boycott Israel professionally. She cited "moral issues", says "political speech is of great national and international importance", and claims she "will be chilled in her personal capacity to advocate for Palestinian rights, and unable to provide speech pathology services for children -".

What an incredibly disingenuous Zionist. I am happy that you are enslaving your American buddies. You deserve each other.

 

[Kailash Kumar]

The pledge in question requires her - in her professional, not personal, capacity - to refrain from "taking any action intended to penalize, inflict harm on, or limit commercial relations specifically with Israel, or with a person or entity doing business in Israel or Israel-controlled territory."

Ms. Amawai, an Arabic-language speech pathologist, didn't provide a specific example of how she could boycott Israel professionally.

If she cannot boycott Israel in her profession as a speech pathologist, why would she need to sign a contract where it says she will not boycott Israel?

Should it not be first evaluated by the State of Texas if a company or its employees is able to boycott Israel before you expect them to sign a contract which states that they should not do so?

She cited "moral issues", says "political speech is of great national and international importance", and claims she "will be chilled in her personal capacity to advocate for Palestinian rights, and unable to provide speech pathology services for children -".

I did read the part where she 'will be chilled in her personal capacity to advocate for Palestinian rights' but I could not find in the court documents where it specifically says she is 'unable to provide speech pathology services for children'.

I did however read she is unable to sign the contract.

Ms. Amawi cannot and will not sign the contract with the “No Boycott of Israel”
provision, which is required by state law. As an advocate for Palestinian rights and justice, she cannot
in good faith certify or state that she does not boycott Israel, and will not engage in a boycott of Israel.

But she also stated that she could sign the contract (and thereby still provide speech pathology services for children) without the part where it states that Israel cannot be boycotted.

Ms. Amawi would sign a contract to continue providing language pathology services
to PFISD if the “No Boycott of Israel” clause were stricken. She agrees to all other contractual terms.

And why should she not be able to (economically) boycott a country?
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the First Amendment protects the right to boycott Israel.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/first-amendment-protects-right-boycott-israel

And does Article Six of the Constitution of the United States of America not state that it is the supreme law of the country where, in case of conflict with state laws, state judges are legally bound to honor the constitution and federal laws over those of the state?

Therefore, I do expect the judge to rule in her favour.

By the way, forcing people to not boycott a country will only make them want to boycott the country.

 

[KhalaiMakhlooq]

The US Senate’s first bill of 2019 is not designed to address the economic inequality and socio-economic injustices in the country, but to protect and defend Israel from the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

So the US government has been shutdown for weeks, they've pulled out from Syria and Afghanistan, the economy is in the shitters, and the first thing they do is think about Israel.

It seem like the power hierarchy is ISRAEL ---> US ---> REST OF THE WORLD

If I was american, i'd be voting this guy into power, the head of CIA Bin Laden Unit

I'd dump Israel tomorrow

Ms. Amawai, an Arabic-language speech pathologist, didn't provide a specific example of how she could boycott Israel professionally. She cited "moral issues", says "political speech is of great national and international importance", and claims she "will be chilled in her personal capacity to advocate for Palestinian rights, and unable to provide speech pathology services for children -".

As an American, would you sign an employment agreement to refrain from "taking any action intended to penalize, inflict harm on, or limit commercial relations specifically with North Korea, or with a person or entity doing business in North Korea or North Korea-controlled territory."

Further if North Korea was commuted to unilateral expansionism and genocide of South Korea, holding South Koreans in refugee camps, enforcing aid blockades and bombing them as they please. Murdering civilians. Would you sign this as professional human?

What the hell has it got to do with you?

 

[Solomon2]

If she cannot boycott Israel in her profession as a speech pathologist -

That seems to be a false premise: just because you or I can't think of how she can do it, doesn't mean she can't; otherwise, why would she be distressed at being forbidden to?

I did read the part where she 'will be chilled in her personal capacity to advocate for Palestinian rights' but I could not find in the court documents where it specifically says she is 'unable to provide speech pathology services for children'.

Paragraph 56, page 9.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the First Amendment protects the right to boycott Israel.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/first-amendment-protects-right-boycott-israel

The ACLU suit addresses a federal law whereas Ms. Amawai's suit objects to a different law passed by the State of Texas. The Texas law concerns businesses that contract with the State of Texas, whereas the federal law, the ACLU implies, applies to all transactions.

By the way, forcing people to not boycott a country will only make them want to boycott the country.

I don't see a crush of Pakistanis wanting to buy products from and visit Israel, do you?

What the h has it got to do with you?

Since TRT demonstrably got one part of their story wrong, there's no reason to assume the rest of the story is accurate, either. The solution is to seek out more accurate sources.

 

[KhalaiMakhlooq]

Since TRT demonstrably got one part of their story wrong, there's no reason to assume the rest of the story is accurate, either.

Are you lawyer? No

 

[Kailash Kumar]

That seems to be a false premise: just because you or I can't think of how she can do it, doesn't mean she can't; otherwise, why would she be distressed at being forbidden to?

Because according to the law it applies to all companies.
They do not distinguish.

This law was enacted as a reaction to the BDS movement.
The BDS movement tries to stop people, companies and government from importing or exporting goods and / or obtaining or offering services from or to Israel.

Her work does not consist of importing or exporting goods and / or obtaining or offering services from or to Israel.
It is about helping children in a local elementary school.

Do you not think that these type of contracts with a 'No Boycott of Israel' clause should only apply to companies which could be a target of the BDS movement?

Paragraph 56, page 9.

Ah yes, I see it now.

The ACLU suit addresses a federal law whereas Ms. Amawai's suit objects to a different law passed by the State of Texas. The Texas law concerns businesses that contract with the State of Texas, whereas the federal law, the ACLU implies, applies to all transactions.

But do 'business transactions' not fall under 'all transactions'?

I don't see a crush of Pakistanis wanting to buy products from and visit Israel, do you?

Fair enough.

Although, Israel and Pakistan were created around the same time.
And Pakistan has boycotted Israel, I think, since the beginning.
So Pakistanis are used to that. They grew up with that.

The 'No Boycott Israel' clause is 'new'.
People are not used to that.
And when they are forced to change to something which they are not used to, they might do the opposite.

And that is where the difference lies.

 

[Solomon2]

...Her work does not consist of importing or exporting goods and / or obtaining or offering services from or to Israel.
It is about helping children in a local elementary school.

It appears she is upset she cannot use her government job to further the BDS movement.

But do 'business transactions' not fall under 'all transactions'?

I think the ACLU's position is that the federal law applies not just to companies' contracted work with the government (as in the Texas law) but every business transaction.

The 'No Boycott Israel' clause is 'new'.
People are not used to that.
And when they are forced to change to something which they are not used to, they might do the opposite.

I'm sure there are people who have responded to the BDS movement by increasing their purchases of goods and services from Israel and this Texas law is explicitly in response to BDS pressures.