Hurricane Harvey made landfall on August 25, destroying numerous cities and towns, including Dickinson, Texas.
In a story picked up and spread all over the world, the Dallas Morning News claims:
To get Harvey relief funds, residents of Dickinson must vow not to boycott Israel.
The Independent wrote (with no response or balancing information):
American Civil Liberties Union says application form for flooding relief grants ‘reminiscent of McCarthy-era loyalty oaths.’
The BBC, also with no balancing information, included a propaganda video in support of BDS, the anti-Israel Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement. For more, see this HonestReporting critique on the BBC and its reporting on BDS.
This Texas town offers hurricane relief — if your politics are right.
Numerous publications, from the New York Times to the Daily Beast and others, wrote almost identical articles.
Join the fight for Israel’s fair coverage in the news
But is it true?
No. At least not in the way publications led their readers to believe.
There is an anti-BDS law in the town of Dickinson, Texas requiring state contractors to certify that they do not participate in an anti-Israel boycott before they may receive state funds.
However:
- this law does not apply to the general public but only to state contractors; and
- in any case, the provision is not being enforced against anyone at all in this particular case.
In a statement to the JTA, Dickinson City Management assistant Bryan Milward explains:
Because our application also functions as a contract, it [the anti-BDS language] was included in there…[however] We’re not checking up on that. Our city secretary is not digging into anyone’s background. We’re not running background checks or anything like that. They’re attesting that they’re not boycotting, and we’re accepting that based on good faith.
According to the drafters of the law, the entire event is no more than a misunderstanding of the law by local officials.
Rep. Phil King, the Texas state legislator who authored the bill, explained to Haaretz:
I think this is simply a result of confusion over the implementation of a recently approved law.
What about free speech?
Many of the articles were quick to claim that this anti-BDS law is a violation of free speech, as guaranteed under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. In a clear violation of journalistic ethics, most articles did not include opposing opinions from legal experts.
In fact, a boycott of foreign nations (as distinguished from local businesses) has never been considered free speech in America. To that end, the United States has an entire Office of Antiboycott Compliance, to enforce America’s numerous laws prohibiting boycotts of foreign nations.
In case you’re interested in the technical legal analysis, HonestReporting previously explored this issue in depth.
Israeli disaster relief in Texas.
Another fact conspicuously absent from all articles is that a portion of the aid rushing into Texas is from IsraAID, the Israeli NGO responsible for international disaster relief. The group has sent disaster management experts, mental health experts, and engineers. So far, we have not heard of any BDS supporters declining the assistance.
Why the missing context?
The actual nature of this law, the way it is (or more accurately is not) being enforced in this case, and the actual functioning of the United States Constitution, are all relevant and critical pieces of context.
So why did almost every news outlet in the world leave this information out?
If you see similar stories in your local news source, please contact them with a thoughtful complaint, and share the information in this critique.
Storm illustration from www.Vecteezy.com
