November 11, 2023
The House of Representstives voted 234-188 to censure Representative Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, over her statements and activities related to Israel and Palestinians. Tlaib is the only Palestinian-American Representative in the Congress. Twenty-two Democrats joined Republicans in voting to censure Representative Tlaib for “promoting false narratives regarding the October 7th Hamas attack on Israel and for calling for the destruction of the state of Israel.” Click here for the full text of House Resolution 845. While I hardly ever find myself defending Rashida Tlaib due to her generally Progressive policy preferences, I must condemn this misguided Resolution and defend her right to express herself.
While censure in the House of Representatives has historically been limited mostly to rebuking unparliamentary language and punishing members for engaging in shady and/or criminal activity (see list), this effort reeks of “official narrative” defense and is akin to censorship. The Resolution that passed was not even the only one introduced. Another Resolution (H Res 807) attempted to censure Representative Tlaib for “antisemitic activity, sympathizing with terrorist organizations, and leading an insurrection at the United States Capitol Complex.” It contains even more egregious faulty reasoning than Resolution 845. Click here for the full text of House Resolution 807.
Have we learned nothing from the dangers presented by the blatant attempts to censor unpopular opinions during the COVID era? Remember the atmosphere during the height of the “Global War on Terror” and so many other divisive eras and issues (some of them partisan)? The popular consensus was not always ultimately correct in every important regard and there is always value in hearing differing perspectives on complex issues. Whatever you may think of the recent hostilities in Gaza and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in general, it should be recognized by all Americans interested in preserving free expression and open debate that these censure resolutions are being weaponized and help set a bad precedent. I have written about the dangers of this emerging trend before, as we have seen an increased demand for using official channels to punish political opponents since the 2016 Russia collusion hoax, the 2020 J6 hearings, and on through to more current incidents such as the expelling of the Tennessee Representatives that disrupted session in the State House. All these incidents require different courses of action to address them, including sometimes punishments (which depending on the case may include censure) but the trend appears to be more towards enacting partisan revenge than setting things right with appropriate response.
The members that introduced and voted for censure on Resolution 845 ought to be ashamed. Those that sponsored Resolution 807 ought to be embarrassed they supported such a poorly-written tantrum that is worded like it was written by an emotional social media user in a comments section. Many of the points mentioned in the Resolutions are distortions because in one way or another they violate the “truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” concept. Biased entities are also cited as authorities for reference (Resolution 807 cites the ADL as a source or example). The Resolutions rely on simplistic reasoning for complex ideas, which in itself misleads the public. If such actions were universalized, fruitful and spirited debate in the House and in society in general would be severely quashed because it would never rise to the level of scrutiny required for fear of punishment. Perhaps the members who supported these Resolutions ought to censure themselves.
The two primary points in Resolution 845 are regarding Tlaib allegedly “promoting false narratives regarding the October 7th Hamas attack on Israel and for calling for the destruction of the state of Israel.” Resolution 807 had similar points regarding Tlaib’s alleged “antisemitic activity” while “sympathizing with terrorist organizations.”
“Promoting false narratives”
Resolution 845 states;
“Representative Rashida Tlaib, within 24 hours of the October 7 barbaric attack on Jewish citizens of the State of Israel, representing the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust, defended the brutal rapes, murders, be-headings, and kidnapping—including of Americans— by Hamas as justified ‘‘resistance’’ to the ‘‘apartheid state’’; …Representative Tlaib’s October 8 statement claimed that Hamas’ October 7 attack on the Jewish people was partly attributable to United States security aid provided to Israel, which ignores the fact that the Iron Dome, a co-developed air defense system, saved lives that day by intercepting rockets launched from the Gaza Strip against Israeli civilian targets;…on October 18, 2023, Representative Tlaib continued to knowingly spread the false narrative that Israel intentionally bombed the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital on October 17 after United States intelligence, Israeli intelligence, and President Biden assessed with high confidence that Israel did not cause the explosion.”
Here is Tlaib’s October 8th, 2023 statement on the initial attacks by Hamas;
“I grieve the Palestinian and Israeli lives lost yesterday, today, and every day. I am determined as ever to fight for a just future where everyone can live in peace, without fear and with true freedom, equal rights, and human dignity. The path to that future must include lifting the blockade, ending the occupation, and dismantling the apartheid system that creates the suffocating, dehumanizing conditions that can lead to resistance. The failure to recognize the violent reality of living under siege, occupation, and apartheid makes no one safer. No person, no child anywhere should have to suffer or live in fear of violence. We cannot ignore the humanity in each other. As long as our country provides billions in unconditional funding to support the apartheid government, this heartbreaking cycle of violence will continue.”
This statement does not rise to the level of “defense” of the violence indicated in the Resolution. This statement reflects the reality of the larger situation and debate. To suggest anyone, especially a Palestinian-American Representstive in the US Congress, cannot bring this up as a point for consideration is the height of absurdity. Tlaib has also condemned and rejected the violence elsewhere, including in her co-sponsoring of House Resolution 786, which states,
“Whereas all human life is precious, and the targeting of civilians, no matter their faith or ethnicity, is a violation of international humanitarian law; whereas between October 7 and October 16, 2023, armed violence has claimed the lives of over 2,700 Palestinians and over 1,400 Israelis, including Americans, and wounded thousands more… the House of Representatives urges the Biden administration to immediately call for and facilitate deescalation and a cease-fire to urgently end the current violence.”
As for the notion Tlaib has continued to promote the “false narrative” regarding the hospital bombing, this is also not exactly true. When the incident at the hospital occurred, partisans on both sides (those blaming Israel and those blaming Palestianian militants), rushed to conclusions. Many commentors, pundits, and officials on both sides committed the same fallacious errors that hinder and contradict proper analysis, investigation, and logical reasoning. We should always strive to wait for the proper investigation and consideration of the facts when analyzing such events and use appropriate language when reporting on the incident in the meantime. Tlaib’s initial reaction falls into this category, as does that of so many pro-Israel defenders that immediately did the same thing but from defense of Israel standpoint (automatically believing the word of their trusted sources). Tlaib did ultimately come around to admitting there are conflicting reports and suggesting an independent investigation is warranted. Here is her October 23, 2023 statement,
“Media outlets and third-party analysts have raised doubts about claims and evidence offered by both Israel and the Gaza Ministry of Health, and I agree with the United Nations that an independent investigation is necessary. I cannot uncritically accept Israel’s denials of responsibility as fact, especially in light of confirmation from the World Health Organization that Israel has bombed numerous medical facilities in Gaza and reports from the Palestinian Red Crescent Society of ongoing threats from the Israeli military to evacuate hospitals. Both the Israeli and United States governments have long, documented histories of misleading the public about wars and war crimes—like last year’s Israeli military assassination of Shireen Abu Akleh and the false claims of weapons of mass destruction that led our country into the Iraq War—and cannot clear themselves of responsibility without an independent international investigation. This debate should not distract us from the urgent need for a ceasefire to save innocent civilian lives.”
Failing to completely agree with official narratives and/or the conclusions of specific groups is not censure-worthy. If reacting to horrific events without waiting for proper investigation is censure-worthy, then there would be a whole lot more censuring going on. We do not wish to punish mere dissent and we also do not wish to promote jumping to conclusions. Given the overall tone of this censure effort, it appears it is more aimed at punishing Tlaib’s dissent than attempting to dissuade her (and others) improper analysis and reporting procedures. Time and proper investigation can get at the truth if we push it, and this is indeed what is being called for, including by Tlaib, in this instance of the hospital bombing.
“Celebrating the Holocaust”
If deliberate distortion is our enemy (which it is) then we must consider the deliberate distortion found in Resolution 807, which states, “Whereas in May 2019, Rashida Tlaib said that she celebrated the Holocaust, and felt a ‘‘calming feeling’’ when thinking about the genocide of millions of Jews.” This is a distortion of what she said and meant. One does not have to agree with Tlaib, but her words must be accurately considered. According to a transcription of the relevant interview, the interviewer asked about Tlaib about her support for a one-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict:
“Interviewer: Congresswoman, you’ve created something of a stir by coming out in favor of a one-state solution, Israel and Palestine, and I think you may be the only Democrat who’s publicly supported a one-state solution. So what is your vision for a one-state solution that meets both Palestinian and Israeli-Jewish national aspirations?Tlaib: Absolutely. Let me tell you — I mean, for me, I think two weeks ago we celebrated, or took a moment I think in our country to remember, the Holocaust. And there’s a kind of a calming feeling, I always tell folks, when I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust in the fact that it was my ancestors — Palestinians — who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways had been wiped out, and some people’s passports — I mean, just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right?, in many ways. But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away, right, and it was forced on them.”
To suggest, as the Resolution 807 does, that Tlaib “celebrated” the Holocaust and somehow felt good thinking about genocide, given these remarks, is the height of irresponsibility and distortion.
“From the river to the sea” phrase
Resolution 845 states, “on November 3, 2023, Representative Tlaib published on social media a video containing the phrase ‘‘from the river to the sea,’’ which is widely recognized as a genocidal call to violence to destroy the state of Israel and its people to replace it with a Palestinian state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea; …Representative Tlaib doubled down on this call to violence by falsely describing ‘‘from the river to the sea’’ as ‘‘an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence’’ despite it clearly entailing Israel’s destruction and denial of its fundamental right to exist.”
Resolution 807 also stated, “Whereas in 2020, Rashida Tlaib retweeted an illustration with the caption, ‘‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’’, and this Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) slogan has been adopted by Hamas and calls for the elimination of Israel and the death of all Jews;”
The tweet in question, and another Tlaib tweeted to clarify her position, are presented below:
The Resolutions (845 and 807) are taking unwarranted liberty with the suggestion that any and all use of this quote must imply association with Hamas and “calls for the elimination of Israel and the death of all Jews.” It is also not accurate to characterize the phrase as “widely recognized as a genocidal call to violence to destroy the state of Israel and its people to replace it with a Palestinian state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.” To the contrary, this is a very popular phrase and it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, but primarily it can be a slogan to show solidarity with the Palestinian cause in general. As already stated, disagreement with one’s positions or ideas does not justify censorship and punishment of expressing the ideas. We also do not want to adopt a “guilt by association” maxim in our debates that will make it difficult for people to express their ideas for fear of the words used being misconstrued as support for other dangerous or demonized ideas. It is safe to say that nearly every Representative that voted for this Resolution has been the victim of similar fallacy in one way or another in debate on this issue or some other topic. When we start acting like this too often, we make fruitful debate impossible. Indeed, there are hardliners in Israel and the US that use strong rhetoric in support of Israeli actions that are controversial, including those that could be interpreted as violent and illegal. Do we wish to set a precedent where in the future, if the balance of power is shifted, advocates for Israel are on the receiving end of this weaponization of censure and “guilt by association” standard? I think not.
Israel’s apartheid government & the One-State Solution
Resolution 845 claims Tlaib calls for “the destruction of the state of Israel” but doesn’t elaborate on what that means beyond the other points already considered. Resolution 807 states, “Whereas in September 2022, Rashida Tlaib, as a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, displayed her disdain for Israel, saying, ‘‘You cannot claim to hold progressive values yet back Israel’s apartheid government.’’”
This is clearly an opinion based on her interpretation of what it means to be a Progressive in America and her interpretation of Israel’s policy and actions towards the Palestinians. There is nothing wrong with her expressing her opinion in this regard. It feels almost unreal that an official document and Resolution submitted to the US House of Representatives would list this statement as a reason for censure. One does not need to agree with this sentiment to understand it must be allowed to be expressed. Again, if this mentality of seeking punishment for unpopular ideas were universalized, it would contradict the spirit of the First Amendment and the logical necessities for legitimate debate. Tlaib is a known supporter of the idea of a “One-State solution” to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This is a long-established policy idea with many iterations debated by statesmen and academic alike. In my opinion, and the opinion of many, the one-state solution is unrealistic and counter-productive. But the way to refute such ideas is by expressing reasons why they are not good ideas and presenting a proper argument against them, not simply making accusations about the motives of others and telling them they cannot advocate for their preferences. We should not rush to accuse any or all of Israel’s critics of wanting to “destroy Israel” unless we want to encourage Palestinian supporters to up their rhetoric and accuse any or all of Israel’s supporters of wanting to “destroy the Palestinians.” Such heated rhetoric levels are already high enough; we should defend the rights of all and allow them to express themselves while toning down the vitriol by setting an example of how to lay out passionate arguments thoroughly, forcefully, and respectfully. Censuring Rashida Tlaib has not, and will not do this, but it may do the exact opposite.
