MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Israel Loyalty Oaths Now Part Of Public ...

Israel Loyalty Oaths Now Part Of Public School Contracts


weird.

A Texas Elementary School Speech Pathologist Refused to Sign a Pro-Israel Oath, Now Mandatory in Many States — so She Lost Her Job

A children’s speech pathologist who has worked for the last nine years with developmentally disabled, autistic, and speech-impaired elementary school students in Austin, Texas, has been told that she can no longer work with the public school district, after she refused to sign an oath vowing that she “does not” and “will not” engage in a boycott of Israel or “otherwise tak[e] any action that is intended to inflict economic harm” on that foreign nation. A lawsuit on her behalf was filed early Monday morning in a federal court in the Western District of Texas, alleging a violation of her First Amendment right of free speech.

The child language specialist, Bahia Amawi, is a U.S. citizen who received a master’s degree in speech pathology in 1999 and, since then, has specialized in evaluations for young children with language difficulties (see video below). Amawi was born in Austria and has lived in the U.S. for the last 30 years, fluently speaks three languages (English, German, and Arabic), and has four U.S.-born American children of her own.

Amawi began working in 2009 on a contract basis with the Pflugerville Independent School District, which includes Austin, to provide assessments and support for school children from the county’s growing Arabic-speaking immigrant community. The children with whom she has worked span the ages of 3 to 11. Ever since her work for the school district began in 2009, her contract was renewed each year with no controversy or problem.

But this year, all of that changed. On August 13, the school district once again offered to extend her contract for another year by sending her essentially the same contract and set of certifications she has received and signed at the end of each year since 2009.

She was prepared to sign her contract renewal until she noticed one new, and extremely significant, addition: a certification she was required to sign pledging that she “does not currently boycott Israel,” that she “will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract,” and that she shall refrain from any action “that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations with Israel, or with a person or entity doing business in Israeli or in an Israel-controlled territory.”

The language of the affirmation Amawi was told she must sign reads like Orwellian — or McCarthyite — self-parody, the classic political loyalty oath that every American should instinctively shudder upon reading:

That language would bar Amawi not only from refraining from buying goods from companies located within Israel, but also from any Israeli companies operating in the occupied West Bank (“an Israeli-controlled territory”). The oath given to Amawi would also likely prohibit her even from advocating such a boycott given that such speech could be seen as “intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations with Israel.”

Whatever one’s own views are, boycotting Israel to stop its occupation is a global political movement modeled on the 1980s boycott aimed at South Africa that helped end that country’s system of racial apartheid. It has become so mainstream that two newly elected members of the U.S. Congress explicitly support it, while boycotting Israeli companies in the occupied territories has long been advocated in mainstream venues by Jewish Zionist groups such as Peace Now and the Jewish-American Zionist writer Peter Beinart.

This required certification about Israel was the only one in the contract sent to Amawi that pertained to political opinions and activism.
...
In order to obtain contracts in Texas, then, a citizen is free to denounce and work against the United States, to advocate for causes that directly harm American children, and even to support a boycott of particular U.S. states, such as was done in 2017 to North Carolina in protest of its anti-LGBT law. In order to continue to work, Amawi would be perfectly free to engage in any political activism against her own country, participate in an economic boycott of any state or city within the U.S., or work against the policies of any other government in the world — except Israel.

That’s one extraordinary aspect of this story: The sole political affirmation Texans like Amawi are required to sign in order to work with the school district’s children is one designed to protect not the United States or the children of Texas, but the economic interests of Israel.
https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/
https://www.statesman.com/news/20181217/pflugerville-school-contractor-challenges-anti-israel-boycott-law

reply

Israel is an apartheid state. This is fascist.

reply

A labor union is an arparteid state. That's all apartheid South Africa was. It was the white working class unionizing against slave masters like Cecil Rhodes, who openly talked about how white people were the real enemy because they were the ones who stood in the way of global exploitation. Multinational corporations and celebrities destroyed it and South Africa no longer has a middle class.

Israel is looking out for itself. You can't blame them. Our problem is liberals won't let us do the same. They say America First is racist.

reply

No! Liberals think you need a kitty👍

reply


No it's not. South Africa was an apartheid state.

😎

reply

SA was, not anymore. Now israel has taken over that market.

reply

No it hasn't. That's nonsense. But if you think it has, prove it. Show me some documentation.
This sounds like you're just being anti-semitic, which is a growing problem in this world. Is that what is motivating you?

😐

reply

Now you're just talking s*** I'm not going to explain simple definitions to you

Enjoy the ignorance which is a growing problem in the world

reply


Right. Enjoy being a nasty antisemitic!

😎

reply

I typed your subject line and saw more.. Arkansas, too!

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2018/dec/12/paper-sues-to-halt-pro-israel-pledges-2-1/

reply

also new york. a number of states.

its way fecked up. people should SPEAK up, protect their first amendment rights. this is clearly an infringement.

reply

How can this be even legal???

reply

How can it be legal that our troops are defending Israel from Muslim neighbors, but illegal for them to defend our own border?

It's because you're against antisemitism.

reply

What? Because I'm against antisemitism? What are you talking about?

reply

he has no idea. his thought process is a sequence of non sequiturs, fox-ish incoherent what-aboutisms, babble.

people like this are strewn about the internets like zombies, trying to flag a ride from the coherent.

reply

You get so close to naming the Jew and then stop short. Blame "Israelis" "dual citizens" "AIPAC" or even "ZOG". We all hear your dog whistle. Do you? You seem to view it as a series of (((coincidences))) you can't quite make sense of. Nothing antisemitic about not wanting a bunch of rootless cosmopolitans dictating your politics. Nope.

reply

Are you in favor of antisemitism?

reply


It sure sounds like he's in favor of antisemitism, Thrillhouse.

😐

reply

haven't seen any attention to this

I highly doubt the media would ever mention this anyway

reply

There was some coverage initially when it was enacted in Chicago by Obama's Rham Emmanuel, around the same time they kicked out Chickafila on account of the owner having donated some money to an anti-same sex marriage group. First they came for competitors of McDonnalds and you said nothing because you were a homosexual corporate whore... Or something like that.

reply

ACLU has filed suit against these first amendment infringements in KS, AZ & now TX

these have now been overturned by a federal court in kansas.

i'm thinking these will soon be abolished - disappointing hordes of ardent republican (and democrat) likudniks everywhere, who want to impose their international view upon the nation.

why? no reason i can think of, other than authoritarianism, under an Israeli banner - what a curious, incongruous, turn of events for the most powerful nation on the planet, being led around by a teeny nation the size of new jersey, only in business for 70 years.

I would call it pushy, but then that would be highly inappropriate. So I'll just call it funky.

these things are everywhere, by the way - 26 states w/ existing, 13 more on the way :

https://palestinelegal.org/righttoboycott/

reply

Creepy!!!

reply

Several other states have the same oath. What has teaching in a school have to do with one's loyalty to any country???????

reply

i think this a lobbying push that didnt take into account how un-american it would strike people.

also, an indication of how bought-off our politicians are, by the various lobbys. in this case, AIPAC, one of the most powerful lobbying outfits in the nation.

reply


So why do you believe the Palestinian web site, but not AIPAC?

😐

reply


Also why do you believe the Statesman? That's a liberal paper in The People's Republic of Austin, the most liberal city in all of Texas. It sounds like this is Liberal antisemitism. This makes sense because we all know that the Left champions the Palestinian cause, and hates Israel.

And I also do not trust the ACLU, one of the farthest Left and most evil organizations in America imho.

This whole thing seems like Liberal Bullshit to me.

😐

reply


Sorry, but I do not believe this. Can you provide a source? Your link does not work.

😎

reply

[deleted]


When I first said that, I had not noticed your (non functioning) link at the bottom. Sorry if I offended you.
I'm Old Skol, and don't know how to cut and paste. So if you would be so kind as to fix your link, I will be able to
click on it, and see the source you're referencing. If not, I will simply ignore this post. It's your choice.

Once again, no offense intended.

😎

reply

sorry bud. we're good. i have a temper.

reply


No problemo. I tend to have one also. We're good. I guess I didn't word my initial response the best way.

😎

reply


PS I just noticed you fixed your links, and I clicked on them. The whole thing sounds odd, but I will read the articles
when I have time

Thanks.

😎

reply

its a national thing. 26 states have such laws, 13 more in the process of enacting them.

the ACLU has a lot of work to do, apparently

https://palestinelegal.org/righttoboycott/

reply


Interesting, but can you give me a source other than a Palestinian one? I don't trust a damn thing those people say regarding Israel, since they want to destroy Israel. And I am diametrically opposed to that. My suspicion is that they're lying.

😐

reply

why can you not trouble yourself to look into it. do i look like your research assistant.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/rights-protesters/new-israel-anti-boycott-act-still-unconstitutional

typical kool-aid drinker. who is gobbling up who, there, my good fellow ?

reply


I'm certainly not going to check with the ACLU. That is one of the worst, most liberal and evil organizations in this country.

😐

reply

oh fuck off then, you ignoramus.

reply

Oh so now your true colors show! You've just fallen back to your last line of defense, your Liberal Alinsky tactics. When you can't win a debate with facts or logic, just smear, insult and/or shout down your opponent. This definitely proves the weakness of your mind, and of your political position. You've basically just conceded the victory to me. Thank you for your concession.

And besides, as a Libertarian, I am opposed to many federal laws. States should have the right to pass any law they want. If someone thinks the law is wrong, they can work to get it changed, or challenge it in court. The Feds should keep their big fat noses out of the States' business.

😐

reply

Yet again...another poster follows the doctrine of “How To Lose Friends And Influence No​-​One“! They resort to ad hominem attacks.

reply


He's a butt head. If he bothers me any more, I'll just put his ass on Ignore.

😎

reply

And so is The Southern Poverty Law Center. Then we have the crooked FBI doing the following:

“The FBI now classifies the far-right Proud Boys as an “extremist group with ties to white nationalism”, according to a document produced by Washington state law enforcement.”
I don’t agree with their beliefs and actions, but why only them? The dangerous ones are the new “brown shirts”...the fascist Antifa gangs. We are permitting this gang of thugs to riot and destroy property. Their actions are shutting down the 1st amendment while they are committing violence to those who disagree with their tactics. Hitler would be pleased.

reply


Yes he would!

😎

reply

The BDS movement is wrong and this oath is also wrong. Israel is the only decent country in the Middle East.

reply

i can see both sides to the BDS question. i'm pro-boycott. but the fact that the anti-boycott is being foisted upon americans ought give anyone pause.

if your cause is right, why the need for coercion?

reply

I agree - no need for coercion. The Israeli economy is doing fine despite the BDS movement. The forced oath thing just makes the supporters of Israel look stupid.

reply

I have no problem with elected officials deciding that they won't spend their constituents' money with businesses engaged in the boycott.

reply

so you are fine with suppressing the first amendment rights of your fellow citizens, then. because that is the impact of this 'decision by elected officials'.

i'm not sure if that is a view that is defensible, in terms of american values.

reply

I disagree that these laws violate the First Amendment.

reply

you think that restricting employment to an independent contractor who believes/practices/expresses that a boycott of a foreign nation is proper as a matter of conscience, is a valid practice, constitutionally ?

if that is the case, what wouldn't be a valid restriction ? which views are protected, and which aren't ?

it really falls to you to demonstrate why this is not a first amendment suppression. the default position respecting speech is, remember, free.

reply

The First Amendment applies to individuals, not businesses.

The anti-BDS law applies to businesses, not individuals.

Amawi's private activities are not covered by the law. For example, she might also have to affirm as a condition of doing business with the state of Texas that she will not discriminate in hiring based on race, sex, religion or sexual orientation. That doesn't compel her to invite Jewish people into her home for a meal or punish her for failing to do the same. It doesn't prevent her from protesting against same-sex marriage or blogging about the virtues of Islam and the evils of other religions.

As a practical matter, it would be difficult to imagine a real-life situation where her sole proprietorship business itself could engage in the prohibited boycott activities. That fact doesn't invalidate the law. If anything, it renders her case moot.

reply

ok - every public school teacher in the state of texas is a business. so what?

as a practical matter, the employment of vast number of individual citizens as contractors does not vitiate their rights to the reasonable exercise of their free speech protections.

how is her personal view of the propriety of the actions of any particular nation - israel, nepal, belgium, south africa, canada - a fit matter upon which to condition her employment ?

what is the relevance - could the tx government sanction her for wearing red ? or being in favor of alcohol prohibition ?

what is the reasonableness of this restriction - do you conflate israel with jewishness? you certainly seem to be, in mentioning one's attitudes to entertaining jews, a curious observation. is the nation of israel to be considered a protected class, along the lines of religion or sexual preference ?

could tx have just as reasonably restricted the employment rights of independent contractors who objected to south african apartheid? or belgium during leopold's time of terror in the congo ? or russia for seizing crimea ? how would you feel about those sorts of restrictions, since there is no intrinsic distinction between those nations and israel. on what basis would ALL such protests be constitutionallly restricted?

and if, as you allow, she can protest same-sex marriage, how is that justification for not being allowed to protest israel policies with a boycott?

pointing to all the things one can do, in other words, cannot serve as an argument in support of what one cannot do, in the context of a fundamental right to freedom of expression.

reply

I am a big time social liberal, but this doesnt suppress 1st Amendment.

She is free to hold views about Israel, and even to spread hate if an wants, but public acts such as boycotts could reflect on the school itself.

The oath is still creepy. Oh, and fyi, an argument drawing from Citizens United could turn this into a 1st Amendment fight, as that ruling declared money=speech

Better 1st Amendment debate: Male teacher at an all girls school openly declares he is a pedophile, but never acts on it. School fires him for expressing his view.

Is it right?

reply

she loses her right to publicly boycott a foreign nation on a matter of conscience. if that isnt a freedom of speech issue, i dont know what is.

moreover, it is entirely unreasonable. its not hate speech - its a political view, which we all have every right to holding 'publicly'.

there is an implicit notion being pushed behind it that objecting to israel's settlement policy (which is illegal under international law), is anti-semitic.

it is not. this legislation is a coarse, wrong-headed and ultimately non-productive attempt at intimidation.

its also going on at the federal level :

today's nyt, owned by the sulzbergers, a fine jewish family :
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/opinion/editorials/israel-bds.html

reply

this legislation is a coarse, wrong-headed and ultimately non-productive attempt at intimidation

Or even indoctrination.... I agree that the way the US deals with Israel is just plain weird (but Israeli girls are so hot... I know, that's not related to anything).

But, aside from a Citizens United argument of money=speech (ala boycotts), this is similar to an employee getting fired, or not hired in the first place, due to something perfectly legal.

One teacher was fired because she had posed for sexy photos once (non-nude). Nothing illegal about that, and she was technically expressing her view that sexy photos are acceptable.

I know the Israel thing would never fall into a "Bona Fide Qualifications" territory either (the concept that allows evaluating employees on qualifications that are tangentially related to the job, like hiring attractive stewardesses and refusing to hire ugly ones, refusing to employ a disabled person in a job where they would be unable to do any of the work, etc).

But still, schools are allowed leniency on what they expect of their teachers.... But let's see what the courts have to say about this. You know there will be some big donations from the Israeli lobby going to any judges on this/these case(s).

reply

ok, your take is basically similar to mine, but maybe your expectations are just lower :)

the ACLU is taking all this stuff on. i think they'll knock it out of the park.

actually, i can't believe the stupidity of pushing these initiatives. its like over-playing a good hand.

they must see more vulnerability in their situation, pr wise, than i do.

as to the hotness of israeli and arab woman, for that matter - i'm totally down with that.

reply