print-icon
print-icon

Abbott Vows To Withhold State Funding From Texas City For Its Opposition To Israel

blueapples's Photo
by blueapples
Thursday, May 01, 2025 - 11:00

blueapples on X


Since Israel began its war in the Gaza Strip following the attacks of October 7th, 2023, the political consequences have continued to reverberate throughout the world. Although the Netanyahu regime has done well in maneuvering that response to serve Israel's interest to the tune of billions of dollars in foreign aid and reaffirmed pledges of unconditional support from leaders of the world over, the gravity of the horror of the war has made the full scope of its consequences impossible to contain. The facade Israel has hid behind has started to crack as its seams as criticism of the country has become vocal enough to cut through the deafening cacophony of propaganda it has spread to portray itself as the force of good in a manichaestic struggle between light and darkness. That vociferous opposition to the war in Gaza has begun to shift the Overton Window toward a purview that threatens the control of public perception that Israel has so adeptly manipulated for so long.

In response to that paradigm shift, the influence Israel has exerted over the United States government at both the federal and state level has been further exposed. As policies designed to maintain the Zionist status quo have become increasingly enforced to match growing opposition to that world order, they have done little more than prove the point that the US government has subverted the interests of its own citizens in favor of serving its masters in Israel. The response of Governor Greg Abbott to a resolution undertaken by the city council of San Marcos, Texas erases any doubt over where the true loyalty of America's political class lies in the dynamic of weighing the interests of Israel against those of citizens the United States.

During the April 15th San Marcos City Council meeting, an agenda item dedicated to “a possible resolution calling for the immediate and permanent ceasefire in occupied Palestine" took center stage during public comments. The proposed resolution elicited an immersive discussion between proponents and opponents of the measure calling for the city of San Marcos to take an official position against the war in Gaza in a manner that embodied the American ethos rooted in the principles of freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.

However, the response from the State Of Texas proved to be antithetical to that embodiment of America as Governor Greg Abbott's office quickly condemned the proposed resolution. In response to the City Council Of San Marcos' decision to schedule an official vote on the resolution at its next meeting on May 6th, Governor Abbott indicated that the adoption of measure would be in violation of Texas law, which would lead to the termination of all active state grants to the city and the withholding of any future state funding.

Abbott's office predicated its position on existing Texas law prohibiting measures to boycott, divest, or sanction ("BDS") the State Of Israel. In 2017, Governor Abbott signed House Bill 89 into law as Texas Government Code § 808. The anti-BDS legislation prohibits state entities from entering into government contracts with companies that boycott Israel, going so far as to require government contracts to contain a written verification signed by contractors affirming that they are not engaged in BDS action at the time of the contract's executed nor will they enter into any throughout the duration of its term.

Texas is one of 38 states across the US to have enacted anti-BDS policies by either legislation or executive order since Illinois became the first state to do so in 2015. Those state policies are echoed by federal law under 19 U.S. Code § 4452. That federal law "opposes politically motivated actions that penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with Israel, such as boycotts of, divestment from, or sanctions against Israel" and requires the Office Of The President Of The United States to submit a report to Congress on politically motivated boycotts of, divestment from, and sanctions against Israel annually. The statute advances the aim of eliminating state-sponsored boycotts of Israel like those led by the Arab League by including anti-BDS parameters into the framework of trade agreements the US enters into with foreign countries.

Unlike 19 U.S. Code § 4452 which solely concerns agreements with international trade partners, the measures taken by Texas' anti-BDS law are actionable against US citizens. As such, their enforcement has been met with constitutional challenges over infringements on free speech and assembly. Following lawsuits made by employees of different independent school districts employed in the state as contractors and other public employees, the Texas Legislature amended Texas Government Code § 808 when Governor Abbott signed House Bill 793 into law. The law amending Texas' 2017 anti-BDS legislation significantly lessened its scope by excluding its enforcement against sole proprietors. The amendment limited the enforcement of Texas' anti-BDS law to state contracts given to companies with 10 or more employees that are valued at $100,000 or more. This change to Texas' anti-BDS law came after a federal court issued a temporary injunction against it in the case of Bahia Amawi v. Pflugerville Independent School District on the basis that law infringed upon the First Amendment.

Despite the reforms made to Texas' anti-BDS law limiting its applicability, legal challenges against it persist. The State Of Texas' defense of its legislation remains equally steadfast under the argument that it is not action taken against free speech but instead being taken against commercial activity. In the case of Haseeb Abdullah v. Ken Paxton; Glenn Hegar, an employee of Travis County filed a legal challenge to Texas' anti-BDS law. The basis of the lawsuit focused on the section of Texas Government Code § 808 that barred the state pension funds from investing in companies that actively boycott Israel. The Plaintiff challenged that provision by asserting it could harm the financial performance of his retirement fund. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed his case in 2022 on the grounds that he lacked standing because he was not able to demonstrate any negative financial performance that would constitute concrete damages. In April 2023, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal of Abdullah's case upon appeal.

Despite the victory for the State Of Texas being on a technicality over Abdullah's legal standing, Attorney General Ken Paxton zealously championed the dismissal as a triumph for the state's anti-BDS law and its commitment to protect the interests of Israel. Following the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to uphold the dismissal of the case brought by Abdullah, the office of the Attorney issued a statement reading:

“Texas’s anti-boycott law is both constitutional and, unfortunately, increasingly necessary as the radical left becomes increasingly hostile and antagonistic toward Israel,” said Attorney General Paxton. “Though some wish to get rid of the law and see Israel fail, the State of Texas will remain firm in our commitment to stand with Israel by refusing to do business with companies that boycott the only democratic nation in the Middle East. In this case, I’m pleased to see the court recognize that the plaintiff lacked any standing to bring this challenge. Thus, our important law remains in effect, and I will continue to defend it relentlessly.”

The relentless commitment to defending Texas' anti-BDS law espoused by Paxton was echoed by Governor Abbott in a letter he wrote to the Mayor Of The City Of San Marcos condemning the city council's proposed resolution aimed against Israel. In the letter, Abbott alleges that the aim of the resolution to reallocate funds away from Israel toward essential domestic priorities is on its face a violation of Texas law. Abbott chastised the city council for deciding to hold a vote on the resolution by characterizing it as antisemitic, a trite criticism weaponized against critics of Israel for any dissent that has become to overused that it made the word ring hollow long ago. Despite alleging that the city of San Marcos would be in violation of Texas Government Code § 808 if it adopted the proposed resolution, significant legal questions remain regarding how exactly that action constitutes a breach of Texas' anti-BDS law.

Forecasting the response of Governor Abbott, San Marcos Mayor Jane Hughson voiced her concern over the fallout from the proposed resolution at the April 15th city council meeting. During the meeting, Major Hughson read a statement issued by Kirk Watson, the mayor of nearby Austin, Texas regarding a similar proposal brought to the city council of his own city:

“The proposed resolution of the Austin City Council will not realistically end the violence on the other side of the globe, nor will it stop federal taxes being used to implement foreign policy....That is not within our power. The resolution, however, has the power to divide Austin and will.”

Despite her protestations, San Marcos City Council Members Alyssa Garza, Amanda Rodriguez, Lorenzo Gonzalez, and Saul Gonzales voted to have the ceasefire resolution come to a vote on during the forthcoming meeting on May 6th. San Marcos City Council Member Matthew Mendoza joined Hughson in voting against the resolution on the basis that it would do little to affect any substantive change and instead would only embolden a response from the State Of Texas due to its staunch defense of the existing state anti-BDS law. Shane Scott was the lone council member to abstain from voting.

Texas Government Code § 808 states that no governmental entity may enter into a contract worth $100,000 or more unless it includes a written verification that the contracted entity does not boycott Israel. However, the ban on a boycott of Israel undertaken by the contracted entity is not aimed at governmental entities like the city of San Marcos under the plain meaning of the statutory construction of the law. It instead applies to the companies they enter into contracts with, not the government entities themselves. Presumably, the governor reasonably infers that if the resolution was adopted then the mandated written verification affirming that the contractor will not boycott Israel would be omitted by the city. However, the text of the resolution itself does not call for the non-compliance of that section of Texas Government Code § 808 nor does it even contemplate contracts entered into by the city.

According to the text of the proposed resolution, the only action it asks the City Of San Marcos to take is to compel state and federal authorities including the President Of The United States to pursue a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas among other measures including the recognition of a Palestinian state. The resolution also calls for an arms embargo against Israel which would prohibit future military aid funded by US tax dollars. While that measure within the resolution demonstrably calls for a sanction against the State Of Israel, it does not constitute entering into an agreement with a government contractor who is actively engaged in BDS activities themselves. Nevertheless, Abbott called for an immediate review of active grants with the city for their compliance with Texas' anti-BDS law and proclaimed that the state will not "enter into any future grant agreements with the City and will act swiftly to terminate active grants for non-compliance" if the resolution is adopted by the City Council Of San Marcos.

The legal basis of holding the City Of San Marcos in violation of Texas Government Code § 808 for adopting a resolution that calls for an embargo on federal military aid to Israel is rife with complexity, making the validity of such a determination difficult to ascertain. What is much more simple to understand is how the unfettered support for Israel that Governor Greg Abbott wasted no time in reaffirming is indicative of a disconnect between America's political class and its duty to serve the citizens of its own country, not those of foreign nations.

Texas, a state which was founded upon the principle of devotion to its own people above all else as sanctified through its moniker as the Lone Star State has treacherously relinquished that identity in favor of becoming more akin to the Lone Star Of David State under the leadership of Greg Abbott as governor.

Like individual suits brought against the State Of Texas for its anti-BDS law, Governor Abbott has shown that his support for the State Of Israel supersedes the constitutional obligation that he has to uphold the rights of free speech and assembly that Texans hold. Nowhere is that disconnect over those interests more apparent than in the second paragraph of the letter Abbott wrote to the Mayor Of San Marcos in which he stated "Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies.", a statement that succinctly summarizes the extent to which Israel's influence over the political system of the US has been elevated.

Contributor posts published on Zero Hedge do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of Zero Hedge, and are not selected, edited or screened by Zero Hedge editors.
Loading...