With one interview, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., just obliterated her own argument that her opposition to legislation combating boycotts against Israel was rooted in her support for free speech.
To those not following the story, Senate Republicans have been pushing a bill, currently being held up by Democrats, that would make sure that nothing in federal law would prevent state and local governments from passing legislation barring contracts to businesses that are part of the effort to boycott, divest, and sanction Israel.
In stating her opposition to the bill earlier this month, Tlaib tweeted of supporters, “They forgot what country they represent” — which I, among others, took to be a classic anti-Semitic dual loyalty smear.
In a friendly interview in the Intercept, she was asked about the controversy and dismissed the anti-Semitism charges as “ridiculous.”
Instead, she argued that she just cared about free speech.
“I — just my mere existence as a Palestinian here of speaking up against, you know, people taking away our First Amendment right of freedom of speech,” she said. “Do you know what we’ve done in this country with the right to boycott, what we’ve done in this country with the right to speak up and to protest and to say we disagree with this country and their doings? You look at Apartheid. You look at all the, you know, anti-blackness in our country and what we’ve been able to try to do to push back against that, you know, I don’t even call it an anti-B — I call it anti-First Amendment, anti-speech bill.”
Before going on, it’s worth noting that Tlaib is grossly misrepresenting what the bill is about. It would not prevent anybody from advocating or participating in boycotts against Israel. Nor would it even require states to pass laws addressing boycotts. It simply says that if a state decides not to give contracts to businesses boycotting Israel, nothing in federal law would prevent that. And again, the state laws we’re talking about do not have anything to do with individual political beliefs or activities — they only apply to businesses seeking government contracts. Under these laws, somebody could be part of a business that has a government contract and still personally be a BDS activist.
Putting her misrepresentation aside, what’s amazing is that after addressing BDS, the interview moves on to the idea of aid to Israel and whether Tlaib would vote against a military aid package that provided funds to Israel.
Her response undermines her entire First Amendment argument (emphasis mine): “It has to be for leverage. We do it to states all the time where we say: ‘Look, if we —’ and I can tell you, I mean, people know this. If we are going to tell states they have to support the Civil Rights Act, they have to support the, you know, same-sex marriage, anything that we believe in, we say: ‘Okay, you want this money, then you’re going to have to support these values.'”
Let me repeat that again for double emphasis: “Okay, you want this money, then you’re going to have to support these values.”
Got that? Clearly, Tlaib does not, as a matter of principle, have any objections to government imposing value judgments when deciding how to allocate money. Nor, from a constitutional perspective, does it matter which classes states want to protect in their anti-discrimination laws. In this case, some states have decided to protect Israel against discriminatory boycotts.
So, let’s put an end this farce. Tlaib’s opposition to anti-BDS legislation is not about her love of free speech. It’s about her hatred for the Jewish state.
