Page 28 - Issue 30
P. 28

distinction between the State of Israel and the Palestinian territories
               it militarily occupies. This critical differentiation between the State of
               Israel and the settlements established in occupied territory in
               violation of international law is rightly recognized and maintained in
               various ways by official US policy and the constitutionally-protected
               actions of private individuals and organizations.

               Most Jewish Americans support policies that reflect this important
               distinction. For example, a recent poll of Jewish voters in the United
               States found that a majority support both continued US military aid
               to Israel and measures to ensure that such assistance is not used in
               connection with expanding settlements. We also note that the
               McDonald’s franchisee in Israel has declined for many years to open
               a restaurant in the settlements. In contrast, both the global BDS
               movement and supporters of the settlements argue against this
               distinction between Israel and the occupied territories, asserting
               that the entirety of the land should be treated as a single political
               entity. That approach forecloses the possibility of a peaceful two-
               state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — a solution
               supported by a supermajority of American Jews and Americans
               overall, and which is the official policy of the US government.

               We are also deeply concerned that moves to penalize those who
               choose to protest settlements, the occupation or Israeli policy at
               large violate Americans’ fundamental constitutional rights and
               dangerously create a false dichotomy between freedom of speech
               and support for Israel. We have joined First Amendment advocates
               like the American Civil Liberties Union in opposing recent state and
               local “anti-boycott” laws, as well as similar bills at the federal level,
               on free speech grounds, and because they have the potential to be
               weaponized against political opponents and to silence Palestinians
               and human rights advocates. Several such laws have already been
               ruled unconstitutional by federal courts in states such as Texas,
               Arizona and Kansas.
   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30