The US House of Representatives. (Photo: United States House of Representatives, via Wikimedia Commons)
Proposed legislation uses the politicized weaponization of governmental power to stymie free speech and actively stamp out pro-Palestinian voices.
Originally published in Palestine Chronicle.
New legislation, which has been proposed and co-sponsored by pro-Israeli politicians who have received financial contributions from the pro-Israel lobby, threatens to hunt down American non-profits that exercise free speech in support of Palestinians.
Despite it already being a criminal offense in the United States to provide any kind of support to a designated terrorist organization, a bipartisan effort has been mounted to draft new legislation that would be aimed at revoking the status of non-profit organizations that support Palestine.
There are currently three bills in question.
The first, H.R.6408, “suspends the tax-exempt status of terrorist supporting organizations” and requires the Department of the Treasury to provide notice to the non-profit of the designations.
The second, H.R.9495, is a two-part bill that slips in the same thing and has been widely condemned by Universities, Civil Rights Groups, Charities, and others as the “Nonprofit killer bill”.
While the third, S.4136, is an amendment to H.R.6408.
The first two bills have passed the House of Representatives and were pushed by both Republican and Democratic Party lawmakers, who have received significant campaign finances from the American Israel Public Affairs Committees (AIPAC).
It has also been made clear the reasoning behind such bills being proposed, as those in support of it have argued this is a means of preventing finances from reaching Hamas.
In fact, HR.6408 was drafted specifically in response to the October 7 Hamas-led attack against Israel. In practice, both bills would essentially grant to the Secretary of the Treasury unprecedented powers to issue designations that will strip non-profits of their tax-exempt status.
While this may sound fine in theory, the problem lies in the legislation proposed uses and the politicized weaponization of such powers to not only stimmy free speech but also to actively stamp out pro-Palestinian voices on college campuses, in addition to tearing down charities and even news outlets.
This is why ‘The American Civil Liberties Union’ has led a coalition of over 300 nonprofit organizations in signing a letter in specific opposition to H.R.9495.
Neoconservatives like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies vice president Jonathan Schanzer has supported the bill and previously argued for the shutting down of groups like Student for Justice in Palestine (SJP) on the basis of them taking guidance from a non-profit that in his mind bears “a striking resemblance to the Hamas charities that were dismantled here more than a decade ago.”
These statements are not only baseless but also serve as an indication of the kinds of action that such neoconservatives hope to take place as a result of the bills being passed.
Incoming President Donald Trump had previously floated the idea of deporting pro-Palestine students on campus and pretty much any group, individual, or organization that preaches a pro-Palestinian message is labeled as a Hamas supporter.
The writing is on the wall when it comes to the potential that such legislation could hold and even though such erroneous claims can in theory be defeated through appeals, it is not always the case that politicized issues are dealt with fairly.
For instance, in the wake of the September 11 attacks, The Holy Land Foundation, which was the largest Muslim charity in the United States, was declared a terrorist organization in what Israeli author/activist Miko Peled depicted in his book about the issue as a completely unfair and politicized process that was absent of solid evidence.
Although the legislation may not lead to such drastic steps, H.R.9495 would allow for the Secretary of the Treasury to revoke the tax-exempt status of non-profit organizations using classified evidence and without issuing formal charges.
This is part of the reason why these bills are viewed as unconstitutional and simply tools for the US government to kill civil society organizations that dare to criticize Israeli policies.
Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.
This week you had the Democratic Party, Libertarianism, and Native American relations with African Americans on your minds.
The books in focus explore the ways an anti-black world tries to interdict the possibilities of Black life, and how Black people resist and overcome such assaults.
Increased police technology, increased training and “community policing” tend to actually expand instead of decreasing policing.
The attorney general’s theory rests on the premise that there is a set path by which one radicalizes into becoming violent.
Does the belatedness and ubiquity/banality of allyship echo an anxiety about the enormous restraint that African Americans have exercised?
