My Senator and Congressman Want To Jail Me for the Sake of Israel's Settlements

A couple of days ago, I was alerted to a truly astonishing bill that has been introduced in Congress. It's so ridiculous that you won't even believe it's real. When you find out it's being spearheaded by Maryland's senior US Senator and co-sponsored by the majority of our state's congressional delegation you will wonder if they have collectively lost their minds. 

The topic which has inspired bizarre and confounding behavior by our members of Congress is a familiar one: Palestinian Human Rights.

Senator Ben Cardin 

(D-LovesIsraeliSettlements)

Congressman John Delaney 

(D-WantsToBeGovernor?) 

The bill is the called "The Israel Anti-Boycott Act". It was introduced in the Senate by Ben Cardin (D-MD). There is an identical bill in the House. The bill does what it's name indicates. It makes peacefully boycotting Israeli products or companies a crime. Violations could land people in jail for up to 20 years. Not only would boycotting Israeli products/companies be a crime, but boycotting products from Israel's settlements in the Occupied West Bank could also earn someone 20 years in the slammer -- even though everyone knows these settlements are a gross violation of international law.

Can you believe it? Maryland's members of Congress -- most of the Democrats -- want to throw peaceful political activists in jail. And they want to do so in service of a foreign government which is violating international law. This is deeply authoritarian. It's an attack on the First Amendment. It is simply un-American and indecent. I would expect such a law from totalitarian states like China and Saudi Arabia, not from the US Congress. There are innumerable Marylanders who would be at risk of being jailed. As a vocal proponent of Palestinian human rights, I am one of them.

The bill has a huge bi-partisan list of sponsors. Here is Maryland's delegation position on the bill:

• Senator Ben Cardin (D): Original sponsor
• Senator Chris Van Hollen (D): Not a sponsor
• Congressman Anthony Brown (D-MD-04): Co-sponsor
• Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD-07): Not a sponsor
• Congressman John Delaney (D-MD-06): Co-sponsor
• Congressman Andy Harris (R-MD-01): Co-sponsor
• Congressman Steny Hoyer (D-MD-05): Co-sponsor
• Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD-08): Not a sponsor
• Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD-02): Co-sponsor
• Congressman John Sarbanes (D-MD-03): Co-sponsor

Seven out of ten of our members of Congress support this bill. Does this make sense to you? It doesn't make sense to me. And it doesn't make sense to many of their constituents either. Take a look at some their reactions from social media:

It's not just social media which is on fire about this bill. Liberal organizations are panning it and mainstream news sources are writing about this highly controversial bill as well:

• Glenn Greenwald blows the whistle on this bill in The Intercept
• The ACLU condemns the bill
• MoveOn.org opposes the bill
• ThinkProgress shames the bills sponsors
• The Washington Post runs an Op-Ed tearing into the bill.
• The Gothamist writes about the controversy
• Vice News rips the bill
• Even the right-wing National Review - not exactly a pro-Palestinian magazine - calls the bill "mind-bogglingly stupid"
• And many, many, many more...

It's time these 7 wayward Congress-members accept their mistake, renounce their support for this horrible bill, and go read the First Amendment to the US Constitution. I'm pasting it below for their benefit in case they've never seen it before:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Why are these Montgomery County Senators supporting Israel's illegal settlements?

The four Montgomery County Senators who co-sponsored the pro-Settlement bill.

From left: Cheryl Kagan, Brian Feldman, Craig Zucker & Rich Madaleno

Remember last December when the Obama Administration abstained from voting on United Nations
Security Council Resolution 2334 that said the Israeli settlements in the West Bank had "no legal validity"? Sure you do. Republicans had a massive freakout against President Obama for this completely reasonable position. They threatened to defund the UN and kick it out of America. They even passed a resolution in the US House (supported by most Democrats, sadly) condemning 2334.

Well that same fidelity to Israel's settlements has now filtered down to our local politics. Four Montgomery County state senators have just co-sponsored a bill (Senate Bill 739). Under the guise of opposing BDS (the movement to apply boycotts and sanctions to end the occupation of Palestine) these four senators have co-sponsored a noxious bill that is actually designed to insulate the illegal settlements from political pressure like UN Resolution 2334.

Map of Israeli-occupied West
Bank with illegal settlements
shown in black

SB 739 purports to oppose discrimination against Israelis. But actually, it has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with Israel's occupation and illegal settlements. You see, some companies opposed to the occupation don't do business in the West Bank settlements. For example McDonalds has restaurants in Haifa, Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities. But it doesn't open restaurants in any of the settlements. SB 739 says that any company (or person or church or other organization) that boycotts Israel or "Israeli controlled territories" (that means the settlements) should be blacklisted. Entities on that blacklist will be denied contracts with the State of Maryland and divested from our state pension fund. McDonald's could be blacklisted because it avoids the settlements.

The way this bill has been used in other states makes it's real intent very clear. In Illinois, where it passed, Governor Bruce Rauner is warning European companies that if they follow the UN Resolution, they might lose business with Illinois's government. Several companies that currently do business within Israel's pre-1967 internationally-recognized borders were blacklisted simply because they don't operate in the settlements. 

Creepy attempts by our politicians to kowtow to Israeli settlers are unfortunately pervasive in Maryland. Last month Jamie Raskin was doing it. Ben Cardin has been at it his entire career. But it really should raise some very serious eyebrows. Can you imagine any other foreigners enjoying this level of support for their violations of international law from our local elected officials? Just imagine if Ike Leggett came out in support Russia's annexation of Crimea. Or if Larry Hogan announced his support for China's aggressive actions in the South China Sea. Wouldn't we erupt in outrage and mockery? Of course we would. What Kagan, Feldman, Zucker and Madaleno are doing here is no less bizarre.

President Obama condemned Israel's illegal settlements. These four senators support them. Side with Obama, not with them.

<New Development> President Donald Trump just yesterday condemned Israel's settlements which goes to show just how far out on a limb these senators are.

Ask them to withdraw their support for the pro-settlements bill using the contact information below:

• Senator Cheryl Kagan (D-Rockville)
  • cheryl.kagan@senate.state.md.us
  • (410) 841-3134
• Senator Brian Feldman (D-Potomac)
  • brian.feldman@senate.state.md.us
  • (410) 841-3169
• Senator Craig Zucker (D-Olney)
  • craig.zucker@senate.state.md.us
  • (410) 841-3625
• Senator Rich Madaleno (D-Kensington)
  • richard.madaleno@senate.state.md.us
  • (410) 841-3137

New liberal Congressman Raskin sides with Trump and Republicans over Obama on illegal Israeli settlements

Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-Progressive Except on Palestine)

Last Tuesday was the first day of the 115th Congress. Congressmembers and Senators who just won their elections were sworn in and took their seats. Here in Montgomery County, MD, liberal superstar State Senator Jamie Raskin became a Congressman.

On Thursday Jamie was asked to vote on House Resolution 11, a purely-symbolic resolution condemning the Obama administration for allowing the passage of United Nation Security Council Resolution 2334 which identified the illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied West Bank as a "flagrant violation" of international law and "having no legal validity".

Leading up to the vote on HR 11, many people were wondering how Jamie would vote on this resolution. He was a Constitutional Law professor at American University. He had positioned himself as possibly the most liberal member of the Maryland Legislature. He has been battling Republican and right-wing forces all his life. Meanwhile Trump, the Republican Party and some Democrats had been pulling out all the stops against Obama/Kerry calling UNSC 2334 "shameful" and a "betrayal of Israel" all the while pointedly refusing to acknowledge the harm these settlements cause to Palestinian lives. Surely Jamie would side with liberal supporters of human rights and international law over Trump and the Republicans? He's no supporter of the illegal Israel settlements, right?

Wrong! Although 76 Democrats stuck with Obama, Jamie joined the Republicans (and a majority of Democrats) in rebuking the administration by voting in favor of HR 11. The 76 included outspoken liberals like Nancy Pelosi, Keith Ellison, Raul Grijalva, Jan Schakowsky, Don Beyer and Pramila Jayapal.

All seven other Congressmen from Maryland also voted for HR11. But the two new Congressmen Jamie Raskin and Anthony Brown (from Prince Georges County) were the ones whose votes were most in question. Rep. John Delaney took the extra step of adding his name as a co-sponsor of the resolution, but that's not that much of a surprise since he had already expressed his hostility towards human rights for Arabs/Muslims with his craven vote against Syrian refugees.

So we have this weird situation where Raskin presents himself as a progressive innovator on all issues from gay rights to gun control to immigration reform yet he votes in favor of well-known violations of international law by a racist, right-wing Israeli government. What's going on here?? Why is Jamie to the right of Obama and many other Democrats on the issue of Israeli settlements?

Ladies and gentlemen, what is going on here is a textbook case of "Progressive Except on Palestine" (PEP). PEP is an archetype of someone who is liberal on every issue under the sun -- but takes hawkish right-wing positions against Palestinians. This archetype is especially common amongst Congressional Democrats. It's a testament to the power of the anti-Palestinian lobby (AIPAC, Christians United for Israel, Zionist Organization of America and others) and to the weakness of those who stand for Palestinian rights. This power imbalance is largely due to the importance of big campaign donations and to the anti-Arab/Palestinian racism widespread in American society but especially pronounced among conservatives.

Within the Democratic Party, however views on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are rapidly shifting in favor of the Palestinians. And Jamie's vote has provoked a bit of a backlash amongst liberals (shown below). Let's hope these liberals can hold Jamie's feet to the fire and make sure he doesn't vote against human rights again in the future.

Elijah Cummings, Make the Democratic Party Stand Up For Human Rights

On Friday June 24th, The Democratic Party Platform committee met in St. Louis to debate a draft of the party’s platform. The committee’s 15 members were made up of 6 appointees from Secretary Hillary Clinton, 5 appointees from Senator Bernie Sanders and 4 appointees from Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (including herself). Maryland Representative Elijah Cummings presided over the proceedings as chairman of the committee.

One of the more contentious issues that was debated was the party’s position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Dr. James Zogby, a Sanders surrogate, proposed an amendment specifically calling for the end of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and condemning the illegal Israeli settlements. The amendment also removed derogatory references to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement which were in the draft. This amendment was rebuffed on an 8-5 vote with only the Sanders appointees voting for it (Cummings and Wasserman-Schultz didn’t vote).

The draft platform will now head to Orlando for another markup session and then to the floor of the Democratic Presidential Convention in Philadelphia at the end of July where more Democrats may get to weigh in on Palestinian human rights.

Prior to Friday’s session, we tried unsuccessfully to arrange a meeting with Congressman Cummings to urge him to support the Sanders position vis-a-vis Israel/Palestine. We now urge him to support the language of Zogby’s amendment in upcoming party meetings.

For too long, the Democratic Party Platform has been silent -- or worse hypocritical -- on the human rights of Palestinians. It’s time to end this hypocrisy. In 2012, the party’s platform contained a statement proclaiming Jerusalem as Israel’s “undivided capital” -- even though President Obama’s own State Department (headed by then-Secretary Clinton) didn’t recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and insisted it must be divided between Israel and Palestine. What sense does it make for the Democratic Platform to contradict the official policy of the Democratic President who wrote it?

Such duplicity at the expense of Palestinian rights is no longer acceptable to many Democrats. Surveys show that self-described American liberals now sympathize with Palestinians more than they do with Israelis. Black Lives Matter activists routinely draw a parallel between their struggle and the fight for Palestinian freedom. Undoubtedly this is due to the decades of occupation and apartheid-like conditions that the Israeli government has imposed on the Palestinian people. During the Presidential debates, Senator Sanders received widespread praise when he criticized Israel’s “disproportionate” use of force during the 2014 war with Gaza. The non-violent movement to Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel is gaining steam because people rightfully see it as an analog to the movement that helped end apartheid in South Africa.

Congressman Cummings likely already knows about the dehumanization that the occupation inflicts on Palestinians. They live as non-citizens in their own land. In East Jerusalem their homes are subject to demolition because as non-Jews they cannot get construction permits. In the West Bank they can’t dig wells to irrigate their crops and feed their livestock. In Gaza, they aren’t permitted to travel outside the tiny enclave -- even to visit family in Europe or America. Palestinians in the diaspora are not allowed to resettle in the Palestinian territories. Meanwhile Jewish people from all over the world are encouraged to emigrate, instantly get Israeli citizenship and take up residence in illegal Israeli settlements built on West Bank land land illegally taken from Palestinians. Knowing all this, it is disappointing that Congressman Cummings didn’t vote for Zogby’s amendment. He missed an opportunity to change the course of the Democratic Party which for too long has favored the occupier instead of the occupied.

If language from Zogby’s amendment isn’t inserted into the platform, Mr. Cummings might find himself on the floor of the Democratic Convention faced with a revolt from assembled delegates. Memorably, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa found himself in this position in 2012 when he gaveled through the united-Jerusalem amendment on a voice-vote over the overwhelming boos of the rank-and-file.

Congressman Cummings is uniquely positioned to advocate for Palestinians long suffering under military occupation. Will he take this opportunity to make a bold statement for justice? Or will he tow the line on stale party orthodoxy?

Saqib Ali,

Chairman, Marylanders For BDS

Sammy Al-Qassem,

Founding Member, Baltimore Palestine Solidarity

You can boycott Iran. You can boycott North Carolina. Just don't boycott Israel.

You can boycott Iran.
You can boycott North Carolina.

Just don't boycott Israel.

This morning I was the subject of this charming blog post from David Lublin drawing attention to my support for Palestinian human rights as if the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement (BDS)  is something that should turn people off. I asked David to run my response but he refused. So I'll just post it here.

David (a professor of Government at American University) seems startled by the idea, but Israeli settlements do indeed fit the legal definition of a war crime. Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the International Criminal Court Rome Statute defines "[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" as a war crime. It's right there in black and white. Who can argue that the settlements don't meet this definition? Of course that's why Netanyahu wants Palestinians not to take this issue to the ICC. Legal experts agree that they would likely win.

Settlements aren't the only war crimes inflicted on the Palestinians. Watch this gut-wrenching video of an (off camera) Israeli sniper shooting to death a Palestinian civilian who was simply searching through the rubble of his Gaza neighborhood. Isn't intentionally targeting civilians a war crime? Of course it is -- just as much as Hamas shooting rockets at Israeli civilians is also a war crime. So why shouldn't the government carrying out these activities face a boycott?

Apparently these are the rules for the Progressive Except Palestine (PEP) folks: A boycott of Iran is Ok. A boycott of North Carolina over its anti-transgender law is Ok (and even noble). But boycotting Israel for the occupation is off-limits. How can that possibly be? It makes no sense. Are Palestinian lives somehow less worthy than everyone else's? Until someone can explain this glaring double-standard, I'm not buying David's insinuation that that BDS is a bad word. And neither should you.

What this is really about is David trying to make me politically radio-active because of my support for Palestinian human rights. For a long time supporters of Israel's occupation have sought to police the discourse around this topic so that criticism of the occupation remains extremely mild & timid. Those days are over. 

Now young American Jews are swelling the ranks of pro-BDS organizations like If Not Now and Jewish Voice for Peace. We have Bernie Sanders criticizing the destruction of Gaza during a nationally televised debate. Leading Zionists like Peter Beinart calling for a boycott of the illegal Israeli settlements. Black Lives Matter activists routinely tout Palestinian rights as a parallel movement for equality. American Muslims are becoming a political force within Democratic circles, and politicians seeking their support are increasingly paying heed to their views.

Sympathy for Palestinian human rights is shifting rapidly. BDS may not be "mainstream" today. But so what? As a longtime and outspoken advocate for gay rights (I salute you), David should know better than others that the mainstream position is not always the right one. 

David's attempt to make me radio-active will fail. But hopefully this will spark a wider conversation among his readers: If it's OK to boycott North Carolina for human rights, why isn't it OK to boycott Israel for the same?

Think about it....

PS. Yes, I will do whatever I can to help elect George Leventhal as the next County Executive. He's a thoroughly decent human being. Sixteen solid years of progressive legislating, 2 stints as Council President and an unwavering dedication to help those who need it most makes him my choice. He hasn't (yet?) launched his candidacy but I'm working hard to persuade him. If you want to join the effort to recruit George, join this list-serve.