US/World News

Tlaib condemns anti-BDS resolution as ‘unconstitutional’

(JNS) U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) condemned the House Foreign Affairs Committee for considering a resolution condemning the anti-Israel BDS movement. The resolution seeks “to silence opposition of Israel’s blatantly racist policies that demonize both Palestinians & Ethiopians. Our 1st Amd. right to free speech allows boycott of inhumane policies. This bill is unconstitutional,” tweeted the freshman congresswoman.

The resolution currently has 336 cosponsors. It was introduced by Reps. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Ann Wagner (R-Mo.). Tlaib is not on the Foreign Affairs Committee, though fellow freshman Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, of Minnesota, is. They both support the BDS movement.

Republican lawmakers criticized Tlaib’s stance. “This is a 100% false characterization of the bill. It doesn’t ban the #BDS movement. All it does it protect states & local governments that decide not to give contracts to companies participating in that anti-Semitic movement,” tweeted Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). A bill called The Combating BDS Act would, if enacted, allow state and local governments the right to punish state or local contractors from engaging in boycotting Israel. It has sparked opposition from some Democrats and the American Civil Liberties Union, which has said that it would violate the First Amendment. The bill has stalled in the lower chamber, where House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said in May that it will go forwards “in the relatively near future.” House Republican lawmakers launched a discharge petition to force a vote on the House floor on the Senate legislation, which passed the upper chamber in February. The petition currently has 196 cosponsors. To force a vote would require 218 representatives to sign onto the petition.

SHARE
RELATED POSTS
Pope to visit Israel
Israeli study: Breastfeeding can reduce risk of cancer
Obama on Syria retaliation: Israel ‘can defend itself’

Leave Your Reply