 So just before we get into the BDS vote, I just want to get my audience caught up. This is the vote on July 23rd This is House Resolution 246 where the house voted to condemn BDS in that same day the house passed 1837 which is another APAC endorsed resolution which authorizes an additional 1 billion increase to Israel For five years over the next five years that is for the US War Reserve stockpile It gives Donald Trump the ability to essentially Unilaterally transfer over additional weapons to Israel. There's no stipulations when it comes to human rights So there's that as well as the BDS vote So my audience knows where I stand on this So I just wanted you to be able to kind of give us your take and why you voted to condemn BDS Sure, I'll answer the direct question of BDS, but first let me just put into broader context where I stand on the Israel Palestine relationship I have the call for an end to any new settlement. I've been opposed to Demolition of any villages and have written a number of letters Calling for Israel to stop the demolition of Villages and I will be leaving another letter soon about that issue and I have been for lifting the blockade in Gaza To allow for humanitarian aid and economic activity. I Also Have not supported any effort to penalize or criminalize BDS so there are a number of laws and resolutions I think Rubio had one and floating around in the Senate that would actually make it a crime or make it a penalty to do that what I did vote for is a resolution that and that I disagreed with BDS as a tactic to get peace in the Middle East And the reason I did that is one I think it was it's overbroad to boycott the entire State of Israel. I mean you're not even targeting Settlements you're targeting the entire state and I you know just like I actually I'm not for usually sanctions I've been against sanctioning people in Venezuela. Why would why would we public punish collectively an entire country I also think it's somewhat selective why? do Israel and not the oppression of the Uyghurs in China a million people who are being Oppressed or Saudi Arabia where there is huge oppression in the Yemen war. So I I Think there is absolutely suffering and abuses with the Palestinians but I don't think that calls for the boycott of an entire country and finally Culturally, I mean the many walk under the house floor the first Statute you see overlooking the entire house is Moses the lawmaker and I just think that culturally Recognizing the relationship with Israel and then moving them Into a direction a more progressive direction a direction of human rights and direction of peace is a more effective strategy to get To the the goal of a two straight solution and a Palestinian state So let me ask you this because I don't I don't agree with What you said but I can I can understand your position and I think that some of your points You know in terms of why single out Israel I think that that is persuasive to a lot of people But this is what I would like to know if not BDS, you know, this is a Palestinian led peaceful movement if not BDS What can we do to put pressure on Israel to end this occupation to actually get peace to get them to recognize? Palestinian human rights because it seems like BDS is really the one thing that has gotten the attention of US lawmakers of you know, the Netanyahu government. So this seems like it can work So I mean if you're against BDS What do you think? We're able to do as US citizens as allies to the Palestinian people to stop the suffering essentially Well, I'm not sure it has worked I mean, I would argue that Netanyahu was committed more abuses and been more destructive to peace There's probably any other of his recent predecessors and now partly I think the Trump administration has enabled that but I don't think you can argue that the Situations start with the BDS movement has led to a more peaceful out job Maybe one day it will but certainly the facts on the ground don't suggest to me right now that it's achieved the The ends I think what has it been ends in the past it has been when presidents whether it was Dwight Eisenhower going back to the the crisis with It was a side-eye peninsula or Ronald Reagan or George Bush senior or Bill Clinton at all different times they said that whether it was conditional loans or certain forms of United States assistance, they said look we we reserve the right to suspend that we reserve the right to to block that if you don't comply with The framework that the United States has set forward and we if that's not a novel idea That's something America presidents have done going back as I said to Eisenhower It's all I would say that you need a president who will articulate a clear vision Stop the settlement growth Get to the peace table list the blockade and the demolitions and be willing to Deliberation our extraordinary role there to get get that Well when it comes to the effective effectiveness of BDS, I think that You can argue that it has been effective in some ways and it hasn't been effective in others But I think that what really is important about this is the Palestinian people they modeled this after the apartheid Boycott, you know in South Africa and even though that wasn't necessarily in and of itself the one thing the one catalyst that ended Apartheid it was a crucial tool to ending oppression. So I'm just I just feel like you know when we are Emphasizing peace peaceful resistance BDS is essentially the one tool that Palestinians have so if we essentially take that away from them And we tell American allies that they also shouldn't participate in that and there may be you know penalties in the United States then I just don't feel like there's much that We're leaving in terms of actually putting pressure on Israel who is the occupier and there's this imbalance of power So it feels as if you know the situation is already hopeless But when you remove BDS when you have us lawmakers voting to condemn it and in some instances criminalize it in multiple states It just it feels like we're in this never-ending hopeless situation where this will always be the status quo now I don't think that you and I will See eye-to-eye when it comes to the issue of BDS But there is one area where I think that we can kind of put our disagreements to rest And it was something that you said with regard to the criminalization. So individually you disagree with BDS However, you did state that you are against the criminalization of BDS. Is that correct? the criminalization or civil fines I'm against any statutory Penalty for engaging at BDS. I have No desire nor do I think it's appropriate for the United States government to interfere with what any citizen wants to do in Their protests. I just think as a lawmaker whose goal ultimately is to try to see Resolution of peace in that area Then I may have a different perspective Than a citizen in a different sense of where I think Will be most effective for the peace process if people may disagree with me But that's my personal opinion, but I I certainly don't think I we I have the right as a Or we have a right as a state to penalize people for engaging in protests and I refuse Last term I never co-sponsored or supported the BDS bills that APEC was supporting That a number of many other of my colleagues if you go look at who all supported those bills There were a lot of people who supported the uh, the the penalty or criminalization of BDS. I never did And you know that really it does make a difference, right? We don't have to necessarily agree But so long as you know, you are using your power and platform as a lawmaker to not criminalize it That is important. So let me ask you this Since you are against the criminalization Can we count on your support for house resolution 496? This is sponsored by ilhan omar and this quote affirms that all americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil And human rights at home and abroad as protected by the first amendment to the constitution This is something that actually after tulsi gabbard and iana presley had voted with you to condemn bds They signed on to this bill. So can we count on you to do the same? I have not uh post sponsored that bill for the simple reason that I think it's self-evident I mean, I don't I don't know why we need to affirm the right. It's constitutionally Protected I support the principle I support and what you can count on me on is that I will never In my public career vote to criminalize or penalize a boycott against Any country including our own, uh, but I I think that's a violation of the constitution and I think Uh, a law is redundant. I told that to ilhan when she asked me about it And it is like I agree with you It is self-evident and this really is something that we shouldn't have to do We shouldn't have to affirm that u.s citizens have the right to protest and engage in political activity that the government may or may not Deem as inappropriate But unfortunately, that's not the reality currently when we have 25 plus states that actually penalize people Who don't sign these anti bds israeli loyalty pledges? I mean, there's a texas school teacher who was fired and she's now suing because She was forced to either sign a loyalty pledge to israel or lose her job So I feel like at this day and age when lawmakers are voting to condemn bds It really is important to affirm that support. So I'm hoping that you're not entirely, you know, your mind is made up here I mean, I'm an initial reason I have it and because other people have asked me is I just think it's a It's a constitutional principle and I I guess I don't see what Unless we're going to pass something What the value it's almost diminishing the constitutional protection what I would be happy to do is sign on to an amicus brief for someone suing in one of these states And if it's going to the supreme court to support someone's right to To to boycott I'd be happy to support legislation that said that the states need to remove these restrictions But to affirm a federal constitutional right Legislatively, I think is actually to Um to diminish that right. It'd be like if someone said let's pass a statute to affirm roe versus wade I mean, we wouldn't do that because it's a constitutional right I mean, that's my that was my perspective on it But but in terms of the commitment It's it's a hundred percent there And you can hold me to it where we're being recorded that in the entire course of my public career I will always stand up for people's right to boycott and And the government shouldn't be ever penalized But on one hand, you know, you voted to condemn bds But now it seems contradictory that you won't vote to affirm our right to engage in bds So do you kind of see why it seems as if there's this double standard? And again, I think that the fact that you're willing to say I will not support the criminalization Is important that goes, you know a long way But to take it a step further and say not only do I not condone the criminalization But I affirm the right to protest it just it may be symbolic But I think that it would demonstrate to people that you're really committed to stopping any efforts to curtail freedom of speech I hear that. Uh, I I don't think uh a singular is the only way to do that I think I can make the constitutional argument for that and there'll be numerous cases. I've made that case and if you talk to constituents in my own District that I said I would vigorously oppose any efforts in california to criminalize BDS and penalties and I can be active In in doing that in other states. I'm not I'm I'm open to when I get back after recess to To looking at the bill when I admitted to affirming the the right to A boycott for broadly Well, thank you for being open. Um, I really I do appreciate the fact that you're being open And unlike other other lawmakers when you say that you're open I genuinely believe that you are open. So thank you and I just really hope that you do consider that bill One more time that is hr 496 sponsored by ilhan omar for viewers who don't know