Law Texas speech pathologist fired from public school for refusing to sign pro-Israel pledge

Yes, if America finally stopped putting everyone else first, it would be free to finally become the richest and most powerful country in the history of civilization. Oh wait....

It just so happens the people with direct ties to the outsiders or everyone else have disproportionate share of the wealth and power in this country, when compared to the vast majority of population. So it be more accurate to say that if we stopped putting everyone else first, we can all share in the wealth. We are all part of the most powerful country on Earth in history. Is only fair.
 
The fact she is a sunni arab and wont agree to not promote her islamist anti Israel was in a publiv school. Should be the real issue. How did she or her parents even get in america? Id bet so much money that her real loyslty isnt to christian or secular american values. If this law was about promoting palestinian stuff or against Israel what is the likiehood she woule oppose it?

I dislike quoting you because quite frankly I think you're below me as not only a poster but as a human being. (I don't think you have worth as either, but that's okay.)
but she has absolutely no call to be loyal to Christian values.

Also tf do you know about American values, the boycott of a foreign product (English tea) was a founding American value.
 
Made a thread on this earlier today. Should be merged into this one.



Yeah, not just Texas (although Texas is predictably the most gung-ho about it.

palestinel-1544902013.png


weird, Texas usually doesn't like being told what to do
 
I wonder when Israel will be included in the american national pledge.
 
Compulsory allegiance to a foreign nation? There is no rule against boycotting American companies, but boycotting Israeli ones is unacceptable?

Fuck that

The scarry thing about that bill is the precedent it may set for other nations.

As it is known other developing countries tries to emulate certain facets of the American government just like my country who is a former US colony.

Now we are starting to get close to China and the Manila government is increasingly promoting a more Pro China foreighn policy and the powers that be could take a page from this Texas Bill/law and make it illegal to criticize Red China or any country the government wants to suck up too.
 
It's a lot more complicated than you all think, people.

We've had federal anti-boycott laws since the mid-70s, when the Arab League refused to do business with companies that did business with Israel.

The purpose of anti-boycott laws are simple and obvious...to prohibit U.S. companies from implementing other countries' foreign policies when those policies disagree with U.S. policy. So if Qatar says that any company doing business with it must supply an affidavit that it doesn't do business with Israel, and that company supplies an affidavit, that company is violating U.S. laws. That doesn't mean the company must do business with Israel or can't do business with Qatar. It can do one or both. It just can't sign the affidavit.

This makes perfect sense. Companies don't make foreign policy, the government does. We can't have companies violating our foreign policy.

Under Citizens United, companies are recognized as persons. So now we are saying that at least one certain type of person cannot participate in a boycott that goes against the foreign policy of the United States. So, is another type of person exempt?

In the case of Texas, it has ordered its state agencies not to do business with entities that support BDS. This would seem to be constitutional. Would we have any constitutional problem if the Texas Department of Education refused to buy #2 pencils from Ticonderoga Co. if Ticonderoga supported BDS? I doubt it.

But then the agency does business with a certain type of entities, individual contractors, and that gets iffy. But if it's OK to not buy from Ticonderoga, why wouldn't it be OK to not buy from Bahia Mahawi?

To not buy would seem to violate the 1A rights of both Ticonderoga and Mahawi, but as we all know certain restrictions of free speech do exist.

I'm American, I'm Jewish, I support Israel, and I support a federal anti-BDS law. Yet I'm very conflicted with regards to a state law that would affect a citizen like Mahawi. It just seems wrong to me.
 
Last edited:
I'm American, I'm Jewish, I support Israel, and I support a federal anti-BDS law. Yet I'm very conflicted with regards to a state law that would affect a citizen like Mahawi. It just seems wrong to me.

Which movement? If you don't mind...
 
This is a very long read but a good review of BDS:
BDS: how a controversial non-violent movement has transformed the Israeli-Palestinian debate
"Bethlehem, June 2015. Photograph: Thomas Coex/AFP/Getty Images
Israel sees the international boycott campaign as an existential threat to the Jewish state. Palestinians regard it as their last resort.

By Nathan Thrall

Tue 14 Aug 2018 06.00 BSTLast modified on Fri 24 Aug 2018 12.00 BST

The movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel – known as BDS – has been driving the world a little bit mad. Since its founding 13 years ago, it has acquired nearly as many enemies as the Israelis and Palestinians combined. It has hindered the efforts of Arab states to fully break their own decades-old boycott in pursuit of increasingly overt cooperation with Israel. It has shamed the Palestinian Authority government in Ramallah by denouncing its security and economic collaboration with Israel’s army and military administration. It has annoyed the Palestine Liberation Organization by encroaching on its position as the internationally recognised advocate and representative of Palestinians worldwide."

It's disturbing that any American would support these laws against boycott of Israel as a violation of the right to free speech, regardless of how you feel about BDS. The article is worth the time.
 
Not surprisingly, Greenwald totally fucked this up and misrepresented the Texas Law. Par for the course.

It's her business that can't boycott Israel under Texas law. If she doesn't want to buy Sabra hummus, she's more than able to buy that shitty Cedars of Lebanon stuff for her personal use.

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/12/18/everyone-is-misreporting-the-texas-bds-l

Btw, the Volokh Conspiracy is a national treasure.
 
Not surprisingly, Greenwald totally fucked this up and misrepresented the Texas Law. Par for the course.

It's her business that can't boycott Israel under Texas law. If she doesn't want to buy Sabra hummus, she's more than able to buy that shitty Cedars of Lebanon stuff for her personal use.

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/12/18/everyone-is-misreporting-the-texas-bds-l

Btw, the Volokh Conspiracy is a national treasure.

That link was idiotic. It's using parol evidence to present a narrative contrary to both the text of the law and its active applications. Then they try to feign an inability to understand immutable characteristics, which are the subject of anti-discrimination laws, and policy-based boycotts to try and claim this is somehow hypocrisy from "the left." And it trying to fucking cite Rumsfeld v. FAIR? LOL, you'd think Reason could hire at least one legal consultant to let them know that's fucking moronic.

0/10. Par for the course for Reason, but 0/10.
 
That link was idiotic. It's using parol evidence to present a narrative contrary to both the text of the law and its active applications. Then they try to feign an inability to understand immutable characteristics, which are the subject of anti-discrimination laws, and policy-based boycotts to try and claim this is somehow hypocrisy from "the left." And it trying to fucking cite Rumsfeld v. FAIR? LOL, you'd think Reason could hire at least one legal consultant to let them know that's fucking moronic.

0/10. Par for the course for Reason, but 0/10.

Uh no. Parol means "literally." So the rule of parol evidence would suggest that evidence may not be presented to suggest that the contract doesn't really mean what it says.

Bernstein ( a professor at George Mason - which isn't a schlock school be any means) notes what the contract literally says. If anybody is breaking the rule of parol evidence, it's Greenwald.

Texas law states (it's a quote from plaintiff's suit), that a "governmental entity may not enter into a contract with a company for goods or services unless the contract contains a written verification from the company that it..."

It's literally clear, the text of the law doesn't refer to individuals but to companies. Bernstein's "narrative" is correct... Amawi's business is restricted from boycotting Israel, she, personally, can do what she wants.

Now, I'm a little confused by your reference to active applications. Do you have evidence of Texas discriminating against sole proprietorships in which the owner boycotts Israel on a personal basis? I doubt it. If Texas actually did, then there would be a parol evidence argument in which Texas would have to explain why company didn't really mean just company.

Given the rule of parol evidence, I don't think Rumsfeld v. Fair even needs to be brought up (which is why I never mentioned it or the discrimination thing - which I admit I found out there).
 
A Texas school employee has sued her school district because it fired her after she refused to sign a loyalty oath to Israel...

“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,” Glenn Greenwald wrote at The Intercept....

“The point of boycotting any product that supports Israel is to put pressure on the Israeli government to change its treatment, the inhumane treatment, of the Palestinian people,” Amawi explained. “Having grown up as a Palestinian, I know firsthand the oppression and the struggle that Palestinians face on a daily basis.”

More here:
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/01/02/fired-school-employee-sues-over-israel-loyalty-oath/

And LOL at the moron defending this crap.
 
Back
Top