Thread by @LaraFriedmanDC

Rumors are rampant over past few days that Pelosi has decided to let H. Res. 246 - a resolution delegitimizing political free speech in the form of boycotts of Israel/settlements & maligning anyone who supports them - move forward.

1/

This is a non-binding resolution introduced in March during the AIPAC conf, after S. 1 - an effort to give Congressional cover/green light to brazenly unconstitutional legislations - got stuck in Senate, & after yrs of AIPAC failing to move other key anti-boycott law (IABA)

2/

I covered this resolution in detail in the March 29 edition of the Round-Up:

fmep.org/resource/fmep-…

3/

Quick review here:

GOOD: It doesn’t include binding provisions that would quash free speech. Yippee! Violating the 1st Amdt rights of Americans to insulate Israel from criticism/pressure is not ok!

4/

But….BAD: The res is a far-reaching, unambiguous indictment of anyone who boycotts Israel (or settlements – we’ll get back to that). Folks who support it are in effect legitimizing the same simplistic narrative that is being used to justify laws quashing free speech.

5/

Also BAD: Folks who support it are going to be called hypocrites if they subsequently vote against legislation trying to fight what they have in effect labeled an evil scourge. [At the time this was written Rubio, R-FL, had already starting attacking Dems for exactly that]

6/

Also BAD: This res will fuel arguments that anyone, incl members of Congress & candidates, who supports, tolerates, or even brushes up against BDS is anti-Israel & anti-Semitic — and the argument that those who back this Res who don’t denounces them as such are hypocrites.

7/

GOOD: It doesn’t explicitly call boycotts of Israel/settlements “anti-Semitic” But…

BAD: There is no way you could read this res & not conclude that the intent is to label boycotts/boycotters of Israel anti-Semites.

8/

GOOD: It doesn’t *explicitly* conflate Israel & settlements.

9/

But… BAD: It implicitly conflates Israel & settlements, opposing boycotts of US companies “engaged in commercial activities that are legal under US law.” Why not just say “that do business in Israel?” Because intent is to also indict boycotts aimed at settlements/occupation

10/

GOOD: It affirmatively supports peace, negotiations, 2SS, mom, and apple pie.

11/

But…BAD: The formulaic recitation of hollow pro-peace language, at a time when US & Israeli govts are all but proclaiming Greater Israel, is being used as shameless political cover for throwing progressives who care about Palestinians under the bus (& backing over them).

12/

Conclusion:

It seems some progressives think that, on balance, this resolution is still a good middle ground that will neutralize BDS as a political weapon against them. They are deluding themselves.

13/

Worse still, they are setting themselves, & everyone who cares about free speech or the Palestinians, up for worse attacks.

14/

This resolution will outrage people who understand that it is just another way to delegitimize free speech & who recognize that it will be another thing weaponized to justify efforts to quash 1st Amdt rights at both the federal & state levels.

15/

And by egging on these attacks & delegitimizing those who care about Palestinians, it will further fracture the progressive base on an issue related to Israel…

16/

...which in turn will only feed more attacks from those who, cynically exploiting BDS as a false metric, will argue progressives are bad on Israel and tolerate/engage in anti-Semitism.

17/

In sum, this resolution is an own-goal of epic proportions, at a moment when Democrats are already many goals down & have several players playing injured due to ugly fouls committed against them.

/end

In sum, this resolution is an own-goal of epic proportions, at a moment when Democrats are already many goals down & have several players playing injured due to ugly fouls committed against them.

/end