5. Struggle with us:

15. Support the Right to Boycott for Justice

+ Support legislation such as H.Res. 496 (116th Congress) that affirms the right to boycott in pursuit of civil and human rights domestically and abroad, and reject efforts to criminalize, punish, or condemn boycotts for justice.

There is a global divide today between those who believe in freedom and equality for all, and those who justify racial and religious supremacy. At a time when political expression is under attack both at home and abroad, it is imperative that Congress stand on the side of justice by affirming that we have the right to boycott in protest of unjust policies, no matter where these injustices occur. 219 bills have been introduced at the state and federal levels that attempt to target advocacy for Palesitnian rights, and suppress the right to boycott. Legislators must refuse to support bills such as the Israeli Anti-Boycott Act (116th Congress) and oppose state legislation that has similar harmful impacts.

The use of time-honored social justice tactics of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions is modeled on the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa and upholds the simple principle that Palestinians are entitled to the same rights as the rest of humanity. These tactics seeks accountability for institutions and corporations that are either complicit in or profiting from Israeli abuses of Palestinian human rights—such as those named in the UN settlement database—until the Israeli government ends its denial of Palestinian rights and three goals are achieved: freedom for Palestinians and Syrians living under Israeli military occupation, justice for the Palestinian refugees who are denied their right to return to their homes, and equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel.

From H.Res. 496, Affirming that all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution:

Whereas boycotts have been effectively used in the United States by advocates for equal rights since the Boston Tea Party and include boycotts led by civil rights activists during the 1950s and 1960s in order to advocate for racial equality, such as the Montgomery bus boycott, and promote workers’ rights, such as the United Farm Workers-led boycott of table grapes;

…

Whereas the Supreme Court, in the 1966 case Rosenblatt v. Baer, held that the First Amendment to the Constitution ensures that “[c]riticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion”;

Whereas the Supreme Court held in the 1982 case NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware that “[t]he right of the States to regulate economic activity could not justify a complete prohibition against a nonviolent, politically motivated boycott … .”;

Whereas the Supreme Court has recognized various activities as “expressive conduct” warranting constitutional protection, such as flag burning, wearing black armbands, silent sit-ins, and creating and designing custom wedding cakes; and

Whereas despite this tradition, governments and nongovernmental organizations alike have sought to criminalize, stigmatize, and delegitimize the use of boycotts in an attempt to stifle constitutionally protected political expression: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) affirms that all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution;

(2) opposes unconstitutional legislative efforts to limit the use of boycotts to further civil rights at home and abroad; and

(3) urges Congress, States, and civil rights leaders from all communities to endeavor to preserve the freedom of advocacy for all by opposing antiboycott resolutions and legislation.

16. Oppose harmful definitions of antisemitism that fail to address white supremacy and far right roots of bigotry, suppress Palestinian rights advocacy, and infringe on constitutional free speech guarantees.

+ Focus on safety through solidarity: do not isolate anti-semitism from other forms of oppression and challenge political ideologies that foment racism, hate and fear

From Jewish Voice for Peace, “Principles for dismantling anti-semitism:”

“Instead of trying to codify definitions of antisemitism, we call on progressives around the world to commit to dismantling it alongside all forms of oppression and bigotry."

• Oppose the use/codification of the The International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) working definition of anti-semitism in law and policy

• The IHRA definition of anti-semitism lists 11 contemporary illustrative examples, 7 of which focus on Israel. Policing speech critical of Israel silences Palestinian voices and experiences, violates free speech guarantees, and does not make Jewish people safer. We need to protect people from anti-semitic acts, not exempt a government from criticism of its policies

• Push the Biden administration to repeal Trump’s Executive Order #13899, which directs the Department of Education to use the IHRA definition to investigate discrimintaion claims

• The Department of Education, the State Department and the office of the Special Envoy on Anti-Semitism should not use a definition that equates criticism of Israel and efforts to seek accountability for human rights violations with anti-semitism, while failing to address rising right wing anti-semitism

• Refer to Jewish Voice for Peace when/if antisemitism, and questions around its definition comes up in Congress