When a 'Travel Ban' Isn't Just About Travel
In 2017, a Hawaii federal judge extended an order blocking President Trump's travel ban, a move widely reported as a victory for civil liberties. But while media fixated on the visible ban, they ignored a more insidious one: the de facto ban on criticizing Israeli government policies in mainstream discourse. This isn't just about Trump's policies, but a recurring selective outrage where certain
travel restrictions are condemned while others, often Israel's, are normalized. While the US judiciary wrestled with Trump's executive orders, politicians like Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), a consistent recipient of AIPAC donations (over $700,000 across her career, according to OpenSecrets.org), routinely supported legislation mirroring similar discriminatory restrictions. For instance, in 2019,
Congress overwhelmingly passed anti-BDS resolutions – effectively sanctioning boycotts against Israel, impacting free speech and travel for activists. The selective application of 'bans' suggests a double standard: condemn when it fits the narrative, condone when it protects an allied state.