Chris Coons Wants To Make It A Crime To Boycott Israel

Filed in Delaware, National by on July 19, 2017

This demands a thread of its own.  To a large degree, Sen. Chris Coons has always been bought and paid for by AIPAC, the so-called pro-Israeli lobby.  ‘So-called’ b/c they promote the most egregious excesses of Benyamin Netanyahu, the Chris Christie of Israel. Not the Israel that others, including many Jews, envision.
However, it never dawned on me that Coons, much less 42 other senators, would seek to make it a crime to boycott Israel.  To put it mildly, this is unamerican (Do I run the risk of being charged for not capitalizing the A in America, Chris?).  A blatant violation of both free speech and individual liberties. That’s what they’re trying to do, though.

This article (h/t to Sussex Anon) defies belief:

But now, a group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country’s decades-old occupation of Palestine.

Israel’s occupation of Palestine, including the building of settlements on the West Bank, is, to put it mildly, not a ‘no-brainer’.  People of conscience who boycott Israel would be treated as criminals if Chris Coons has his way.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill “was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.” Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year.

AIPAC represents Israel’s hardliners. The Netanyahu Yahoos.  They sure as shit don’t represent many progressives in the Jewish community.  But they have Chris Coons eating (Kosher campaign contributions) out of their hand.

So far, neither Sen. Carper nor Rep. Rochester have signed on.  Let’s hope they withhold both their sponsorship and, should the need arise, their votes.

You oughtta see what this bill would do. In fact, you can, by reading this letter in opposition from the ACLU.  Among other provisions, the bill would:

… also broaden the law to include penalties for simply requesting information about such boycotts. Violations would be subject to a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison.

Really, Chris? Does that punishment fit the non-crime you’re seeking to criminalize?

As the ACLU letter points out, if a company or individual does not do business with Israel as a matter of course, they’re not at risk.  Only those boycotting as a matter of conscience face criminal sanction:

This bill would impose civil and criminal punishment on individuals solely because of their political beliefs about Israel and its policies. There are millions of businesses and individuals who do no business with Israel, or with
companies doing business there, for a number of reasons. Some, like those who would face serious financial penalties and jail time under the bill, actively avoid purchasing goods or services from companies that do business in Israel and the Palestinian Occupied Territories because of a political viewpoint opposed to Israeli policy. Others may refrain from Israeli-related business based on political beliefs, but choose not to publicly announce their reasoning. Still others do no business with companies in Israel for purely pragmatic reasons. Under the bill, however, only a person whose lack of business ties to Israel is politically motivated would be subject to fines and imprisonment–even though there are many others who engage in the very same behavior.
Chris, do you remember Vietnam? Were you OK with protesters being locked up b/c they opposed the government?  This, in some ways, is even worse.  You took an Oath to protect the Constitution, including the Right to Free Speech.  However, you are now the sponsor of legislation that places fealty to the repressive regime of Netanyahu above the Constitutional protection of Free Speech.
I have only one question, Chris:  What the fuck is WRONG with you?

About the Author ()

Comments (7)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. alby says:

    I don’t think even a conservative Supreme Court is ready to give the First Amendment this sort of drubbing. Not yet, anyway.

  2. puck says:

    That was my first reaction too – this thing won’t pass Constitutional muster on Commerce grounds or 1a.

    Still, there are a lot of D sponsors, What’s up with that? I guess they figure that the bill will never become law, so the penalty for cosponsoring is less than the penalty for not cosponsoring.

  3. bamboozer says:

    I read about this yesterday and was astounded that any Dem would sign on to it. It’s an obvious attempt to stifle free speech, the penalties in particular are insane and extreme. Good demonstration of the power of the AIPAC lobby, and the need to primary Coons. Find the articles last words appropriate.

  4. Paul Hayes says:

    Perhaps there should be a law against supporting AIPAC or its activities.

  5. RE Vanella says:

    Because they can sponsor it knowing it’s going nowhere on Constitutional grounds. That way they can play pretend and keep that money following. Do you think it’s more lucrative for campaign coffers and personal political esteem to pander to radical Zionists & ultra-Orthodox settlers or Palestinian villagers? Coons is borderline worthless.

  6. Dave says:

    Just to clarify the proposed bill amends §4607. Foreign boycotts, (a) Prohibitions and exceptions

    “(1) For the purpose of implementing the policies set forth in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (5) of section 4602 of this title, the President shall issue regulations prohibiting any United States person, with respect to his activities in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States from taking or knowingly agreeing to take any of the following actions with intent to comply with, further, or support any boycott fostered or imposed by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States and which is not itself the object of any form of boycott pursuant to United States law or regulation:…”

    Notice the part that says “with respect to his activities in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States ”

    If I am not engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, it has no applicability to me. Still since corporations are now people too, it does infringe on their rights. I’m guessing that what everyone noted already it won’t pass muster.

    Even so, note the use of the gender term “his.” I guess it only applies to men or those identify themselves by that pronoun!

  7. alby says:

    REV is right. This is another version of “repeal Obamacare” votes while Obama was in the White House. How allowing Israel to dictate American policy is different from, or better than, letting Russia dictate American policy is something only Democratic Party partisans can explain.