IDF Congressman Introduces Legislation to Strip Americans of Passports for Criticizing Israel

Reminiscent of travel restrictions in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and apartheid South Africa.

Back in mid-September, the legless Afghanistan veteran, Rep. Brian Mast, who likes to wear an IDF uniform in Congress, introduced a bill that would strip critics of Israel of their passports and deny them the ability to travel.

“Congressman Brian Mast has introduced a bill that would allow the State Department to revoke the passports of Americans who oppose Israel,” AF reported on September 13.

Under the legislation, anyone the State Department determines has “knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support” to designated terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran’s IRGC could have their citizenship pulled. No due process would be needed for the State Department to accuse an American citizen of supporting a terrorist organization, given the vague and extrajudicial wording of the bill.

I was not able to find evidence that Rubio and the State Department will revoke the citizenship of Americans for criticizing the Zionist genocide of Palestinians. However, revoking the right to travel by denying a passport for expressing a political opinion is not much different from what the Soviet Union did during the Cold War.

The Soviet Union imposed a number of travel restrictions on citizens. In addition to the inability to travel internationally, the communist government imposed an internal passport system in 1932, which required all Soviet citizens above the age of 16 to obtain an internal passport with their personal information and travel history. A special ID and passport for domestic travel was also used in Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa.

For many Soviet citizens, a residence permit, included in the Propiska system, was also required to live and work in certain areas of the country. Changing residence required official permission.

The Soviet state imposed travel restrictions on individuals considered dissidents. In addition, political dissidents were often forcibly relocated to remote areas. Internal exile was used by the Soviet government to silence opposition and remove dissidents and activists from urban areas where they might influence others.

In the United States, following 9/11 and the so-called global war on terror, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced all domestic air travel would require either a traditional passport or a federally compliant ID card, known as “Real ID.” In essence, this imposed an internal passport system on American citizens.

Former IDF “volunteer” Brian Mast’s resolution will extend travel restrictions to critics of Israel. Mast has called for “kicking terrorist sympathizers out of our country.”

Mast’s new bill claims to target a narrow set of people. One section grants the secretary of state the power to revoke or refuse to issue passports for people who have been convicted of — or merely charged with — material support for terrorism.

The bill circumvents due process and would allow the Secretary of State to deny passports to people whom he decides have “knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization.”

The reference to “material support” disturbed advocates who have long warned that the government can misuse statutes criminalizing “material support” for terrorists — first passed after the 1995 Oklahoma City federal building bombing and toughened after the 9/11 attacks — to punish speech.

As Matt Sledge at The Intercept notes, the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that even offering advice about international law to designated terror groups could be classified as material support. “Since the October 7 Hamas attacks, pro-Israel lawmakers and activists have ratcheted up attempts to expand the scope and use of anti-terror laws,” Sledge writes.

The USA Patriot Act permits prosecution of people who provide material support to government-designated terrorist groups, a category that includes speech. In addition, US anti-terrorism laws have increased surveillance and investigative authority, prompting concern about overreach and degrading the First Amendment and privacy rights.

The Trump administration and a majority of Congress members on the AIPAC payroll have yet to follow the Soviet and Nazi model of travel restrictions. Thus far, the administration has revoked visas, detained, or sought removal of some noncitizen students and scholars associated with pro-Palestinian campus activity, claiming that it is addressing antisemitism and support for terrorism.

AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the Foundation to Combat Antisemitism, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis, and other Zionist groups are united in an effort to squelch so-called antisemitic activism and speech, which is usually criticism of Israel.

Randy Fine, a Jewish representative from Florida, called for a five-year prison term for distributing anti-Israel flyers, an effort similar to legislation in France that proposed a two-year prison term and a €75,000 fine for criticizing Israel, while Mark Levin, a fanatical pro-Zionist podcaster, demands that criticism of Zionism and Israel on social media platforms be silenced.

Congress has adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, and social media platforms are applying it to recognize and remove anti-Zionist content.

“Among the most common politicized legal tools for shielding Israel from criticism is the IHRA working definition of antisemitism,” explains the Rutgers Law School Center for Security, Race and Rights. “The desired outcome is clear: censor and punish the humanization of Palestinians through academic research, political analysis, or public condemnation of Israeli practices, policies, and laws.”

In the United States, Israel’s supporters actively utilize the IHRA working definition of antisemitism to intimidate and attack individuals and institutions that defend the equality of Palestinians, challenge U.S. foreign policy toward Israel and Palestinians and criticize the foreign state of Israel.

The Trump administration and Congress have not yet enacted broad censorship or removed American citizens’ right to travel for criticizing Israeli policies in the occupied territories and Lebanon.

However, Representative Mast’s bill and other legislation, such as codifying IHRA, may signal future shifts—especially as global condemnation of Zionist war crimes grows and momentum turns against the outlaw state of Israel.

Article posted with permission from Kurt Nimmo