Sen. Jack Reed voted against pro-Israel bill. (reed.senate.gov) (reed.senate.gov)
Sen. Jack Reed

Related:

Why did pro-Israel Democratic Senator Jack Reed cast a pro-BDS vote on SB-1, the Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019?

By Howard Brown, Executive Director, Rhode Island Coalition for Israel (RICI)

On February 5, 2019, the US Senate passed SB-1, the Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019, in a bipartisan vote of 77-23.  Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island voted against this bill, while Sheldon Whitehouse voted with the majority.

Senator Reed’s  vote came as a surprise to Rhode Island’s pro-Israel community who, even in spite of his ill-advised 2015 vote to support the Iran nuclear deal, traditionally see Reed as a friend of Israel. According to Ted Nesi of WPRI-TV, Reed spokesman Chip Unruh said “the senator’s vote was not a sign of wavering support for Israel. Senator Reed opposes the BDS movement and any other efforts to isolate Israel.”

But Reed’s vote clearly supported the very BDS movement that his spokesman claims Reed opposes. Anti-Israel groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and lobbying organizations of questionable intent – such as J Street, which also opposed SB-1 – celebrated the fact that 23 senators voted against it. JVP has declared this “the BDS [Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions] Congress.”

How did Whitehouse and Reed explain their opposing positions on the vote? As Whitehouse told Nesi: “Ninety percent of this bill was noncontroversial and there was a bipartisan alternative that was 100 percent noncontroversial…Leader McConnell decided to play a political game in the way he structured this legislation…I chose to vote aye as an expression of support for our ally, Israel.”

Whitehouse’s answer raises  these questions: What was so controversial about the bill, and what was the “political game”?

According to Congress.gov, the bill  “…authorizes assistance and weapons transfers to Israel, and extends defense cooperation with Jordan. It establishes additional sanctions related to the conflict in Syria, and allows states to divest from entities boycotting Israel.”

That “controversial” anti-boycott provision was the problem for Whitehouse and left-leaning “Progressive” Democrats.  Pro-Israel Democrats support anti-BDS legislation, since the stated goal of BDS leaders is the destruction of the Jewish state. Progressive Democrats ignore that reality, choosing to mask their general distaste for Israel by suggesting that the bill limits freedom of speech. That disingenuous position is fully refuted by mainstream legal scholars and by existing federal legislation enacted in 1977 against Arab boycotts of Israel.

The “political game” referred to by Whitehouse was the decision to include that anti-BDS provision in the overall SB-1, thus reducing the chances that it would go down to defeat if voted on separately. Still, Whitehouse voted “Yes”. What could Reed have felt was more important than “choosing to vote aye as an expression of support for our ally, Israel”?

Since 2016, Rhode Island has had H-7736 on the books, forbidding the state from contracting with companies that participate in boycotts of  our allies, including Israel. Why vote to prevent other states from doing the same thing?

Rhode Island Democrats Staunchly Support BDS

The inescapable conclusion lies in the 2020 Senate elections. Rhode Island’s Progressive Democrats are on the rise, and they staunchly support the BDS movement. Whitehouse, not up for re-election for another six years, apparently feels he can generously vote to support SB-1 as long as he gives lip service to opposing “controversial” anti-BDS legislation.

In a recent interview on public radio, Reed expressed a desire to remain in the Senate indefinitely. A career politician, Reed is predictable: He does what he thinks he needs to do to stay in office.

Reed, already feeling the heat of  the Progressives in 2020, would like to avoid a strong primary challenge. Voting against SB-1, in effect opposing anti-BDS legislation, may be understood as a step to appease his potential opponents.

Reed’s decision raises a red flag for pro-Israel supporters. As President Harry S. Truman observed: If you “want a friend in Washington, buy a dog.” On issues relating to Israel or anti-Semitism coming our way, Reed may no longer be the friend he has been in the past.