Protect free speech in Pa.

Legislators shouldn’t punish criticism of Israeli policies

Our state legislators are considering a bill that would infringe on the First Amendment rights of Pennsylvanians.

House Bill 2107 targets the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian human rights and would deny government contracts to companies that withdraw their financial complicity from Israel’s oppressive policies.

This smacks of McCarthy-era legislation, as it would subject political positions to government investigation and potential penalty. Introduced in May by state Rep. Matt Baker, RWellsboro, HB 2107 is one of more than 14 bills introduced at the state and federal level so far in 2016 intended to stifle criticism of Israeli policy toward Palestinians. These bills have been widely condemned by civil rights and constitutional attorneys as intended to punish and chill constitutionally protected political speech.

Sidestepping concerns over constitutional issues, HB 2107 portrays BDS — a diverse, inclusive human rights movement — as discriminatory. Much like the successful movement to divest U.S. holdings from apartheid South Africa in the 1980s, today’s BDS movement targets the policies of the Israeli state that displace, discriminate against and enforce a military occupation on a disenfranchised Palestinian population. The goal of this nonviolent movement is to spur political change and secure full civic equality for Palestinians and Jews, something that I strongly support as a rabbi dedicated to working toward justice for all people in the region.

Regardless of your opinion of Israeli policies toward Palestinians, there is cause to be concerned over attempts by Pennsylvania lawmakers to infringe on constitutionally protected boycotts because they disagree with a political position. As U.S. public support for BDS has grown — with a recent survey reporting that one-third of Americans support the movement to hold Israel accountable for its policies — so too have efforts to suppress speech critical of Israeli policies. In recent years there has been a national wave of legislative proposals aimed at punishing or suppressing BDS — including three previous efforts in Pennsylvania over the past two years.

Avoiding the more obviously unconstitutional language of earlier legislative attempts, HB 2107’s purpose is defined as “to stand with Israel” and “to discourage policies” that obstruct trade with Israel. It would prohibit Pennsylvania from contracting with any company engaged in a boycott — of whatever kind — that is “based on race, color, religion, gender or national affiliation or origin of the targeted person or entity.”

On the surface, this seems like a reasonable civil rights provision that could deter businesses from discriminating against racial minorities, women or immigrants. But a number of laws already prohibit exactly these forms of discrimination. In addition to the Civil Rights Act, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act bans discrimination in employment on the basis of all of the above-mentioned categories, and Gov. Tom Wolf recently signed an executive order extending those protections to gay and transgender individuals.

Although BDS is a human rights campaign aimed at the oppressive policies of a state, the bill’s otherwise inexplicable reference to Israel is a directive to interpret this one particular form of political protest as a type of religious or nationalorigin discrimination. As a result, companies that withdraw their financial complicity from Israeli policies that violate international law and deny Palestinian rights — say, by divesting from a multinational firm that supplies the Israeli army with equipment to demolish Palestinian homes or expand Israeli settlements — could be denied government contracts on the grounds that they are “discriminating” against Jews or Israeli nationals.

This wording ignores the fact that many Jews are critical of Israeli government policies, and that 20 percent of Israelis are not Jewish. Even if no action were taken, the prospect of punishment suggested in the bill would be enough to chill free speech.

Jewish rabbinic tradition reminds us how critical it is to honor all viewpoints. The rabbis of the Talmud recorded dissenting opinions, noting that the precedent of silencing an individual’s ideas and passions runs the risk of depriving future generations of the wisdom of those who came before. They honored ideas that violated their own sense of right and wrong, knowing that sometimes hindsight sees things differently.

Let that embolden us, regardless of whether we support BDS, to protect the right to express dissenting political views. The vibrancy of our democracy depends on it.