How to Conduct a Policy Analysis

Policy Analysis
Abstract
This paper focuses on a bill currently going through Congress that would restrict the right of Americans to voice their support for the oppressed and marginalized Palestinian people by joining in the BDS Movement. This paper discusses why this issue is important to social welfare policy and shows that the bill would deny people the right to advocate by using social, political and economic means. The opposition towards the Israeli settlement practices in Palestine has already been condemned by the UN, but the U.S. Congress is now seeking not only to condemn the UN for its 2016 resolution against Israel, but it is also seeking to condemn any American person engaged in interstate commerce who chooses to support the UN resolution by boycotting Israeli products. This bill therefore would marginalize and socially, politically and economically exclude Americans in a dangerous way. This policy analysis paper also shows how already people are being marginalized and even fired from their jobs for not signing pro-Israel contracts or for criticizing the Israeli lobby’s practices among Congressmen. This paper also goes on to discuss the importance of this issue to social welfare and to show why this issue has to be addressed urgently.
Keywords: UN resolution Israel, BDS Movement, social welfare justice, social justice
Introduction
The BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanctions) Movement has prompted the U.S. to respond with a bill that will essentially prohibit Americans from boycotting Israeli companies. The controversy stems from the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution of March 24, 2016, “which urges countries to pressure companies to divest from, or break contracts with, Israel” (H.R. 1697, 2018) because of the latter’s observed human rights abuses towards the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Banks, where illegal Israeli settlements have been installed. The bill would allow the U.S. to sanction countries that boycott Israel and it would allow the federal government to prohibit any individual who operates in interstate commerce in the U.S. from joining a boycott like the BDS Movement, which is international in character. This is an issue that is important for social welfare because it would deny one of the Constitutional rights to Americans—the right to free speech and the right to protest foreign governments that are themselves opposed to human rights, as the UN resolution of 2016 showed was clearly the case in Israel. The full extent of this bill can already be seen in the way criticism of Israel is strongly forbidden in the public sector. For instance, newly-elected Representative Ilhan Omar criticized publicly the role of AIPAC (the American-Israel Political Action Committee) in the affairs of Congress and suggest that AIPAC buys off members of Congress to always support Israeli issues and concerns. She was severely rebuked by both sides of the political aisle for her words and forced to issue an apology (Stolberg, 2019). However, as Greenwald (2019) showed, everything she said and insinuated was true. Thus, this bill serves as a challenge to social inclusion and the right of people to speak freely and to have their own social welfare protected if they dare oppose or object to the actions of a seemingly politically protected group of people.
Purpose
The purpose of this policy analysis paper is to examine the bill put forward in Congress and to show why it would threaten social welfare and lead to the further marginalization of those who oppose the protected political classes designated as untouchable and unassailable by their political protectors. The impact of the problem is not just that it would violate the First Amendment rights of Americans but that it would also lead to instances of social exclusion, as has already happened in Texas, where a similar law led to the firing of a teacher who did not pledge in her contract with her school to support Israel (Moritz-Rabson, 2018). If this bill were to pass, it would make it a criminal offense for any American who engages in business to join the BDS Movement. It would lead to people becoming social pariahs and being socially excluded just for having a political opinion on a nation that the UN has recognized as a violator of human rights. Social welfare is not just about ending poverty and making sure people have homes, it is also about social justice and the right of individuals to stand up for those who are persecuted at home and abroad. The BDS Movement focuses on promoting the rights of Palestinians, who routinely have the homes and land bulldozed by Israeli settlers (Stein, 2003). This issue is urgent because the voice of the American people could be silenced in favor of a small political class that seeks to bury all opposition and socially and politically and economically marginalize and exclude anyone who does not agree with their politics.
Approach
This policy will be analyzed by conducted a scholarly research review from peer reviewed articles, speaking with affected organizations and populations, and gather evidence from independent journalists like Glenn Greenwald and Representatives like Ilhan Omar who have voiced their opposition to the bill. There are also other scholarly articles that can be referenced to provide both sides of the issue and to establish greater context about what is happening in the case of this situation. The approach will include conducting key word searches on Google Scholar, which hosts various gateways to online databases of scholarly, peer-reviewed literature. Conducting interviews with stakeholders will also help to show how this issue is important from a social welfare perspective. The findings will be analyzed using the perspective that free speech is a valid human right and that people in America should be permitted to advocate on behalf of marginalized people no matter where they live in the world. The fact that Americans are now in danger of being repressed just because they criticize an apartheid state that is on record with the UN for committing human rights abuses shows that America’s legislators are in the pockets of the apartheid state as Omar has claimed. The research will be analyzed from the lens of human rights to show where the dangers to social welfare truly are.
Findings
It is expected that this policy analysis will show that the reason Congress is pushing it through is that many Congressmen say that the BDS Movement is anti-Semitic and that anti-Semitism is heinous and should be condemned in all its forms (Fischel, 2005). However, this would be a gross mischaracterization of the movement and it is expected that other research would show as much. Beinen (2004) for instance shows that policing Middle Eastern though is now the new McCarthyism. Likewise, Corrigan (2009) questions where anti-Zionism can really be said to be equated with anti-Semitism, which is an important point to consider with regards to this policy.
There are many other articles that can be helpful in this study as well. For instance, Gutierrez and Campos (2015) show in their article entitled “Subjective and Objective Aspects of Points of View” that the tension between the objective viewpoint and the subjective viewpoint is what causes most of the trouble among people of opposing points of view. This is a good source for understanding why issues like this one are difficult to discuss in the public venue as so many people rely on their subjective experiences and emotions for information instead of trying to be objective about the ethical issues. In other words, to understand why Trump and Pelosi responded to Omar the way they did one needs only to look at where the emotional triggers are in today’s society. Because of the highly politicized culture of today, and because of identity politics and political correctness, one must be careful not to use a trigger word or to behave in a way that might trigger the emotions of another. Criticizing Israel or its lobby AIPAC is like calling down a rain of thunder upon one’s head. Everyone who is connected to or who supports either sets out to condemn the critic as an anti-Semite, which is not always the case as the research shows. Just because one criticizes Israel, as the UN has done, does not mean one is anti-Semitic—but that is how the discussion is framed in America. This type of emotional response is unproductive and quite the opposite of what one should have when an ethical issue such as the fact of corporate campaign contributions is brought up.
Importance to Social Welfare
This issue is clearly important for social welfare policy because it relates to the social, political and economic marginalization and exclusion of persons who oppose the actions of a country that has already been condemned internationally by the UN. The bill going through Congress would restrict Americans from standing up for social justice and the rights of the oppressed in Palestine, and it would turn those who advocate on their behalf into socially, politically and economically excluded members of an oppressed and repressed population themselves. The case of Rep. Ilhan Omar is a perfect example of the silence that this bill would force on people who seek to stand up for justice in the face of Israeli political pressure. For instance, since Omar’s election last November, she is one of two freshmen representatives who are of the Muslim population. Since her criticism of AIPAC, her Muslim heritage has become the target of personal attacks on her character, as her criticism of AIPAC’s influence in American politics was taken by some as being Anti-Semitic. Though Omar conceded that her words might have come across as offensive, she heroically did not retract her assertion that AIPAC essentially bribes Congress to show allegiance to a foreign country—Israel (Stolberg, 2019). As a result, AIPAC urged members of Congress to censor Omar and a House Resolution “condemning anti-Semitism” was prepared accordingly (Stolberg, 2019). However, one former AIPAC member named M. J. Rosenberg stated that Rep. Omar was actually completely and factually correct in her characterization of AIPAC. Rosenberg charged that AIPAC does “buy” members of Congress through back-room dealings. If Congress had its way with this bill, the ability to speak out against Israel’s political and social practices, and the ability to stand up for the oppressed Palestinians or for other Americans who lose their jobs or incomes because of their refusal to support pro-Israel policies would be eroded.
The affected populations and communities of this bill would be those who believe strongly in opposing nations who violate human rights and who engage in behavior that is condemned by the UN. The UN resolution of 2016 showed that Israel was illegally occupying Palestinian territories and had been doing so since 1967. Israel was settling land that did not belong to it and is still doing so. That is why the BDS Movement came into being—so as to put pressure on Israel to stop repressing and marginalizing the Palestinians. Now American individuals and groups who wish to stand up for the Palestinians are being marginalized and repressed themselves thanks to the bill that Congress is pushing through. Therefore, it is of critical importance to social welfare, not just in the U.S., but in the Middle East as well that this issue be addressed from the right perspective because it is about ensuring that people be allowed to stand up for social justice and human rights and be allowed to advocate and take political, social and economic action in the service of promoting human rights and ending the human rights abuses of nations like Israel.
Conclusion
The problem of human rights is one that very much concerns social welfare advocates no matter where they live or what country they are part of. For a country’s legislators to create a bill that would punish Americans for voicing concern about the human rights abuses of a country known for its apartheid practices is for the social welfare of the public to be threatened. This policy analysis paper looks to examine the bill currently going through Congress that would punish American businessmen for boycotting Israel in an effort to engage in political, social and economic activism against the apartheid state of Israel.
References
Beinin, J. (2004). The new American McCarthyism: policing thought about the Middle East. Race & Class, 46(1), 101-115.
Corrigan, E. C. (2009). Is Anti?Zionism Anti?Semitic? Jewish Critics Speak. Middle East Policy, 16(4), 146-159.
Fischel, J. R. (2005). The new anti-Semitism. The Virginia Quarterly Review, 81(3), 225.
Greenwald, G. (2019). The House Democrats’ “Rebuke” of Rep. Ilhan Omar Is a Fraud for Many Reasons, Including Its Wild Distortion of Her Comments. Retrieved from https://theintercept.com/2019/03/05/the-house-democrats-rebuke-of-rep-ilhan-omar-is-a-fraud-for-many-reasons-including-its-wild-distortion-of-her-comments/
Gutiérrez, A. M. L., & Campos, M. V. (2015). Subjective and Objective Aspects of Points of View. In Temporal Points of View (pp. 59-104). Springer, Cham.
H.R. 1697. (2018). Israel Anti-Boycott Act. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1697
Moritz-Rabson, D. (2018). Teacher sues Texas after being fired for refusing to sign pro-Israel contract. Retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com/teacher-fired-refusing-sign-pro-israel-document-1262083
Stein, Y. (2003). Any name illegal and immoral. Ethics & International Affairs, 17(1), 127-137.
Stolberg, S. G. (2019). Ilhan Omar’s Criticism Raises the Question: Is Aipac Too Powerful? Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/us/politics/aipac-congress-democrats.html