Re: Op Ed 3/24: No gov funding of anti-Semitism
The bill for no government funding of anti-Semitism sounds like a great idea — until you think about it a bit.
This bill, proudly sponsored by our state Sen. Phillips, strips funding from companies and student organizations that engage in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.
The bill is wrong and inconsistent in so many ways.
1. A boycott due to Israeli government policies is a far cry from anti-Semitism.
There are many Jews in Israel who disagree with the West Bank settlement policy.
Presidents Bush, Clinton, and Carter were all against Israeli settlements.
Are they anti-Semitic?
When our country effectively boycotted Iran, for its nuclear development work, were we anti-Moslem? No — we were anti the policy.
Result: Engagement or activity in the BDS is a protest against a government policy. The conclusion that it is an anti-Semitic act is simply not correct.
2. How does the government determine that an entity is engaged in the BDS?
It is difficult to measure not doing something — which is what a boycott is.
If I decide to buy my oranges from Spain instead of Jaffa, am I boycotting Israel? No way to tell.
There can be many factors that go into that business decision. So the only way the government can determine if an entity is engaged in the BDS is to listen to what that entity says.
Result: There are no clear objective criteria that can be used to determine if a company is engaged in the BDS and has the potential for government overreach.
3. Here’s a situation — two companies are engaged in the BDS. But one does it quietly.
The other issues press releases. Only the second company is punished. Result: Unequal treatment under the law.
4. Citizens United (which I abhor) effectively said corporations are people and have free speech rights.
OK — reconcile these free speech rights with this bill which punishes companies for speaking out on a political issue. Result: This bill, if it becomes law, will be challenged and likely will be declared unconstitutional.
This is the type of bill that tries to make us feel good — but it is ill conceived and near impossible put into practice.
If it were to become a law, it will lead to biased application and unequal treatment, distract government from more important issues, and ultimately will be declared unconstitutional.
I hope our governor will have the fortitude to veto this bill if it gets to his desk. And I hope our new senator uses her position on more productive issues.
Mark Mogul
Port Washington
