The Hijacking of America: An Engaging but Impossible Tale

WHAT IS IT about dystopian political thrillers that we find so compelling? You know, the stories depicting the descent of civilized, democratic societies into darkness, laced with themes of brainwashing, thought police, and the suppression of individual freedoms… Could it be that they cause us to think critically about our own very real world? More likely, it’s that they allow us to walk out of the theater, or switch off the tube, thinking: That could never happen here.

Consider the following improbable story-line, from a major production which reliable sources say is already well underway but not yet completed:

The setting is modern times. The pivotal, opening scene focuses on a teacher, employed by a public school system in a southern U.S. state, who has just lost her job for declining to sign an oath of loyalty– loyalty not to the welfare of her students, or to the state where she works, not to America’s Constitution, ideals and system of governance… but to a foreign nation!

Then in flash-back sequences, the screenplay unfolds how this twisted, dangerous state of affairs evolved: It seems that several decades before, a very small country had appeared on the world stage and quickly, inexplicably, come to exert enormous global influence. One element in the narrative involves a world body (akin to the real-life UN) serving as the global arbiter of international law and human rights, an entity repeatedly forced to cast scrutiny upon the small country’s questionable practices and policies. However, early in the story, American political leaders decide they must protect the small country at all costs from potential criticism, vetoing any meaningful censure that would sometimes arise from the global community.

The script goes on to describe how the small country — by then already highly developed and heavily armed, including with undeclared nuclear weapons — convinces the American government to hand over to it the largest portion of its foreign aid budget, not for humanitarian projects but solely in the form of ever more high-tech weapons systems and munitions. Amazingly, neither America’s citizens nor her political leaders seem to object, or even notice.

(All this stretches credulity, I know, but it’s just a story. Stay with me. By the way, the version of the project I’ve been privy to never fully explains how the small country comes to wield such monumental sway over the American body politic and popular mind. Maybe this will become clearer as the story is fine-tuned — as I say, it’s still a work-in-progress.)

Anyway, in one jaw-dropping scene the small country’s head-of-state — unbidden by the U.S. president but invited by the political opposition — addresses a joint session of the U.S. Congress and brazenly argues against established American foreign policy, receiving in response round after round of tumultuous, nearly unanimous, ovations. Then in a later scenario, the same foreign leader (the prime minister) is seen in a joint White House press conference with yet another president, this one so ignorant, foolish and easily manipulated that the minister can only laugh in response to the president’s inane blathering on grave matters of international diplomacy.

And so it goes. As the latter part of the narrative unfolds, the small country has essentially hijacked and subverted American’s public discourse and system of government. Thus, the U.S. Congress, with strong bi-partisan support, starts crafting shocking new legislation that actually imposes criminal penalties on their own citizens who dare criticize the small country, who merely insist that it abide by the established norms of international law. (Leading up to this unthinkable coups, agents of the small country had repeatedly brought to bear a devious tactic: Any criticism of the small country’s government policies or actions was immediately and forcefully re-cast as a hateful, racist rejection of that country’s people, especially their ethnicity, religion, and rich heritage. This simple yet clever tactic, however twisted and dishonest, proved unimaginably powerful.)

Anyway, by this point in the story the descent into a post-democratic nightmare was well advanced, since a majority of the U.S. states had already enacted laws forcing people to take what amounted to a loyalty oath to the small country: Unless they signed, public school teachers would lose their jobs, companies large and small would be shut out of government contracts, and so on. (This shocking takeover, we learn, had been achieved in part by ALEC, an Orwellian-sounding entity which regularly spewed out repressive legislative templates to gullible state lawmakers.)

Thus it was that some American citizens — those who sought a measure of Truth beyond America’s corporate media — started seeing reports like the following, a bit of realistic-looking newscast footage about the fired school teacher. (This sneak preview comes from one of my trusted sources.)– CLICK on the image:

CLICK on IMAGE to view the scene

 

*  *  *

OK, by now many of you have realized that this is no dystopian fairy-tale but absolutely real — all of it. Everything I’ve just described, yes, has actually happened, or is now unfolding, in the realm of American relations with the State of Israel:

• The historic,nearly air-tight U.S. protection of Israel from international censure, through use of its veto power in the UN Security Council, is well known.
• The United States gives Israel (in round numbers) a whopping $4,000,000,000 a year — 10,000,000 dollars a day — in 100% military aid, more than is given to any other single country, for any purpose. Israel not only has the region’s most robust military, and a burgeoning weapons industry of its own, but its nuclear arsenal, after more than 50 years, remains undeclared and subject to no international oversight whatsoever.
• The U.S. Congress’ shameful (and repeated) fawning over Israeli PM Netanyahu is well-documented.
• Netanyahu’s Laugh I have posted about before.
• The clearly unconstitutional federal legislation, seeking to punish Americans for exercising their freedom of expression, is being bandied about in Congress RIGHT NOW. (See the full text of the Haaretz print story (below), plus this commentary by journalist Glenn Greenwald.)
• Unbelievably, 39 U.S. states have already enacted or had introduced some form of such legislation — all in a misguided attempt to protect a foreign state, Israel, from criticism. This has been done almost completely “under the radar”, unreported by the mainstream press. (It is disconcerting, but not surprising, to learn that in my own state of NC such a measure was signed into law by our Democratic governor in 2017. Again, under the radar.) What about your state?
• Oh, yes– ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council — flush with funding from the Koch brothers and other corporate interests — is absolutely real.  ALEC-“owned” legislators are constantly pushing through repressive, regressive, anti-democratic measures, especially on the state level– probably in your state. They so twist the issues (or when necessary, as in their push for voter suppression laws, invent the issues) that a constitutionally-protected boycott, for example, is painted as “discriminatory” and, by implication, un-American.

This brings us to the story about the certified Texas school teacher, a U.S. citizen, who refused to sign away her constitutional rights and swear loyalty to a foreign entity — and thus lost her job (she was a long-time contracted specialist, a speech pathologist). Is this possible in America?? Yes it is — it’s happening right now! If you have not viewed the entire video piece (above), I urge you to do so.

This present assault on Americans’ civil liberties, and their right of non-violent dissent, specifically targets the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.  BDS (of which there are a number of variant “flavors”) is a loosely-organized, worldwide movement whose goal is to pressure the State of Israel to end its 50-year occupation of the Palestinian Territories and reach a just resolution with their Palestinian neighbors, a stateless people who live under virtually complete Israeli control.

BDS has emerged as a non-violent form of direct action– and, as it gains worldwide traction, it’s seemingly becoming a genuine thorn in Israel’s flesh! But it’s not really about economic pressure at all. The robust Israeli economy certainly faces no real threat. Look beyond the surface and it’s more about Israel’s image and standing within the world community. BDS embodies the same kind of organized action which once helped shine the spotlight on the system of legalized racial discrimination in America, as well as on the legally-sanctioned Apartheid regime in South Africa. And we all know how those played out, with the undoing of historic injustices under growing pressure from the world community.

Just as with those historical analogs, BDS is really about Israel’s global image, and being exposed to honest scrutiny. (Example: a boycott of Caterpiller, whose Israeli military D-9 bulldozers have demolished many of the 48,000 Palestinian homes and other buildings reduced to rubble since 1967.) Well, Israel can’t stand it, hence the push-back, now with the help of Americans’ elected representatives!

For the push-back, Israel’s representatives and die-hard supporters invariably trot out the old, cynically false equation: Criticism of Israel equals anti-semitism, period. For added impact, there’s a corollary accusation: Among all the world’s miscreants, why do you single out Israel? (Implied answer: it’s anti-semitism). These are time-tested ploys, and are used because they work! Indeed, in a post-Holocaust world, they carry unimaginable weight as a sort of emotional blackmail. (In the UK, the same tactics have been brought to bear against opposition leader Jeremy Corbin, for the supposed “anti-semitism problem” within his Labour Party– when it’s really all about Corbin’s vocal support for Palestinian rights.)

In short, almost no American lawmaker, either state or national, is willing to risk appearing as anything other than a stalwart “friend of Israel”. And they will go to almost any length to prove it, even if it means trashing the constitutional rights of the very people they’ve been elected to serve. To them, it’s just not worth it– one murmur from the ADL or AIPAC and they could well be out of a job at the next election.

Informed observers of the wider American scene are now starting to talk about the “Palestine Exception” to the exercise of free speech in our society. Consider that, just in recent weeks, an otherwise progressive California city was pressured to cancel a documentary screening and panel discussion on the events in Palestine in 1948. A public figure has had a prestigious award rescinded — before it was even officially bestowed — because of her outspoken support of Palestinian rights. A university professor and sometimes CNN commentator was fired for making a reasoned address on Israeli-Palestinian issues before a UN panel. At a major university, students are being denied permission to even organize a group promoting Justice for Palestine…

It seems as though “anything goes” in Western media and public discourse — no matter how raunchy, twisted, frivolous, misleading, or outright false — anything except an honest discussion about the Palestinian people, their history and status, their human rights, and their bleak and uncertain future.

Sorry, but when free speech is tamped down in this way, and constitutionally protected dissent not only squelched but legally penalized — all to protect some foreign country from embarrassment on the world stage… that’s not my America.

* * *

UPDATE / February 2019

So, here we go… The U.S. Senate, by an overwhelming majority, has now voted to lend federal backing to the repressive anti-BDS measures already passed by state and local governments (26 states) and pending in 13 additional states. See HERE >>

---

A Week Into New U.S. Congress, Tense Debate Erupts Over anti-BDS Bills

Debate centers on two bills against boycotts of Israel and its settlements, with some claiming that ‘a significant number of Democrats now support BDS and leaders want to avoid a floor vote that reveals that’

Amir Tibon for Haaretz | Washington

Jan 07, 2019 9:38 PM

 

WASHINGTON – Less than a week after the new U.S. Congress began its work, a tense debate has erupted on Capitol Hill over legislation against political boycotts of Israel and of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

A number of Democratic lawmakers have come out against the proposed legislation, warning that it will harm free speech. Republicans are now trying to use the Democrats’ opposition to the legislation in order to accuse them of supporting the boycott, divestment and sanctions, or BDS, movement.

The fight over the anti-boycott legislation is a continuation of a similar struggle that started while the previous Congress was in session. Sources on both sides of the aisle were surprised, however, at how quickly the issue returned to the headlines, just days after the current Congress was sworn in.

At the heart of the debate are two separate bills against boycotts of Israel and its West Bank settlements.

One bill, which was presented last week as part of a package of bills on U.S. policy in the Middle East, is focused on supporting state-level legislation that mandates state contractors to sign a pledge stating they don’t participate in boycotts of Israel or the settlements. More than half of U.S. states have passed such legislation over the past decade.

In the past year, laws of this kind have been challenged in courts. State contractors have sued states over these laws, arguing that the demand to sign such pledges is unconstitutional and harms their First Amendment right to free speech. In two cases, federal courts in Kansas and Arizona ordered to freeze the implementation of the laws because of constitutional concerns. New lawsuits on the same issue have recently been filed in Texas and Arkansas.

Now, Republicans and a number of Democrats in the Senate want to pass a bill that would express support, on the federal level, to these controversial state laws. The bill they are pushing was presented last week by Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. It has the strong backing of AIPAC.

 

In addition, the new Congress is expected to take on a second controversial law dedicated to boycotts of Israel and the settlements. It is titled “The Israel Anti-Boycott Act” and civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have warned that it will lead to heavy penalties on individual American citizens for expressing support for boycotts of Israel and the settlements.

AIPAC and the bill’s supporters on both sides of the aisle have rejected the ACLU’s criticism of the bill. They claim it will only influence corporations that will join an internationally-led boycott of Israel or the settlements, and won’t harm the ability of American citizens to choose to boycott Israel or the settlements out of ideological reasons.

The supporters of this bill, which is considered by opponents of “anti-BDS” legislation as the more problematic and harmful of the two, tried to pass it in the very last days of the previous Congress’ session, by adding it into a broader budgetary piece of legislation. However, strong opposition from prominent lawmakers such as Senators Bernie Sanders and Dianne Feinstein postponed that effort.

Over the weekend, Sanders came out against the bill proposed by Rubio. He criticized not only the contents of the legislation, but also the timing of its presentation, in the middle of an ongoing government shutdown. “It’s absurd that the first bill during the shutdown is legislation which punishes Americans who exercise their constitutional right to engage in political activity,” Sanders wrote. “Democrats must block consideration of any bills that don’t reopen the government. Let’s get our priorities right.”

Rubio in return claimed that the Democratic opposition to his bill isn’t truly because of the shutdown, but rather because “A significant (number) of Senate Democrats now support BDS and (Democratic) leaders want to avoid a floor vote that reveals that.”

It should be noted that as of today, not a single Democrat in the Senate has publicly expressed support for the BDS movement. Sanders and Feinstein, the two Democrats who have expressed the strongest opposition to anti-BDS legislation, clearly wrote in a letter on the subject that they oppose the BDS movement. Two Democratic legislators in the new House of Representatives – Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) – have expressed support for BDS.

Tlaib responded to the introduction of the legislation by writing that legislators who support the bill “forgot what country they represent. This is the U.S. where boycotting is a right and part of our historical fight for freedom and equality. Maybe a refresher on our U.S. Constitution is in order, then get back to opening up our government instead of taking our rights away.”

Rubio in response accused Tlaib of anti-Semitism, writing that “this ‘dual loyalty’ canard is a typical anti-Semitic line.” He added that BDS “isn’t about freedom and equality, it’s about destroying Israel.”

The American Jewish Committee joined the criticism against Tlaib, writing that “It’s outrageous to imply dual loyalty because you disagree with a policy initiative” and that “a new member of Congress has no place saying that four U.S. Senators don’t know which country they represent.”

The ACLU criticized Rubio’s defense of his bill, in which he said that just like American citizens should have a right to boycott Israel, states should have a right to boycott those who boycott Israel. “States don’t have the ‘right’ to punish individuals for participating in political boycotts the government doesn’t agree with, which this bill encourages them to do,” the ACLU wrote on its Twitter account. “First Amendment rights belong to the people, not the government.”

Lara Friedman of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, which has been tracking anti-BDS legislation in the state-level for years, told Haaretz on Monday that “one of the reasons the supporters of these bills tried to ‘sneak’ them at the end of the previous Congress, was that they knew the debate about it in the new Congress will be more tense.”

Friedman said that for Republicans, “any Democratic opposition to these bills over concerns about freedom of speech will end with a statement bashing Democrats for being supposedly ‘anti-Israel”. She added that “so long as progressives allow the term ‘pro-Israel’ to be defined by Netnayahu and his supporters, there is no win for them on this. Until they take the initiative and take back the definition of what it means to be pro-Israel, this will be a losing argument for them.”

UPDATE / February 2021

Federal Court Overturns Arkansas Law Requiring Pledge Not to Boycott Israel

FEB 16, 2021

From “Democracy Now”–

 

[A] federal appeals court has thrown out an Arkansas state law prohibiting government contractors from participating in boycotts of Israel, ruling it violates their First Amendment rights. In a statement celebrating the ruling, the Council on American-Islamic Relations said, “Just as African-Americans had the constitutional right to participate in the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and just as anti-apartheid activists had the constitutional right to boycott South Africa’s government, every American has the constitutional right to boycott the Israeli government over its human rights abuses of Palestinians.”

---

NEW / October 2022

The Arkansas legal case, push-back against that state’s anti-BDS law, is still unresolved and has now been submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. Plus, background on and excerpts from an important new film, “Boycott”. View the 17-minute video segment (and transcript) from Democracy Now, here:

“Free Speech Issue”: Meet the Arkansas Publisher & ACLU Lawyer Asking SCOTUS to Overturn Anti-BDS Law

AND ON IT GOES… / January 2023

Long-time Head of Human Rights Watch Loses Harvard Fellowship Over Criticism of Israel

FOLLOW-UP, 20 JAN 2023: In response to a public outcry, especially within the academic community, Harvard’s Kennedy School has renewed its offer of a fellowship to Kenneth Roth. See the report from Democracy Now! HERE. More on this story from NPR, HERE.

It’s Not Just in America… / FEB 2023

Anglican cleric Dr. Stephen Sizer has been de-frocked by the Church of England in reaction to his criticism of the State of Israel and his strong advocacy for Palestinian rights. See the story as reported on Mondoweiss HERE.

NEW / February 2023

Silencing Critics of Israel: Biden Pulls Nomination of Human Rights Lawyer For Decrying Apartheid