Below is a draft of something that, if passed by the town, could keep town services from supporting murderers of children, i.e., those who have fought in the Israeli I.D.F.

It’s unclear whether I will introduce this at the Hartford Selectboard. But judging by the neoliberal makeup of the board, I suspect it will not go far if I do.

That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t work on it. It doesn’t mean I shouldn’t publish it. Perhaps other cities, towns, and/or states, with representatives who are more solidly against fascism, could take it and use it as a first draft. This itself was a draft based on a brave innkeeper in Japan, who made international headlines by requiring all guests to sign a similar affidavit. I believe his right to refuse service based on something like this was upheld in courts there, as well.

It’s time we start doing things like this. Maybe someday it will come to pass that ICE, for instance, will face similar social consequences.

-Brandon

Introduction:

The paradox of tolerance posits that, if tolerance is to survive—and we want it to survive—then a very limited *intolerance* must be engendered: specifically against those who are intolerant of any group. (Setting aside the limited intolerance described herein.) In other words, we *must* be intolerant of the intolerant—and of them alone. Otherwise, the paradox describes, intolerance will spread uncontrollably.

Intolerance is already spreading. First it was intolerance of immigrant students protesting genocide. Then immigrants generally, including toddlers, and trans people. (Note: Barack Obama deported 5.3M people. Trump has deported 1.67M and counting.) Then citizens who protested genocide. Then all LGBTQ people, and autistic people. Now it’s judges who try to ensure due process for those above who were targeted. A DOJ memo has decided they may ignore the constitution and enter your home without a warrant from a judge. Next perhaps it’s journalists. Perhaps those who would help targeted individuals. Perhaps all disabled people. With this kind of progression, no one is safe. If we keep being tolerant of those clearly and happily intolerant, we may (or will, as the theory goes) lose our entire society.

It’s important to note that, according to the theory, no one—and no opposition party—can save us. The only thing that can save us is a little strategic intolerance. Therefore, we feel we have reached a point where this is necessary. Not just in social circles but in the official workings of government. We propose the following questionnaire for all government functions that law does not mandate we provide to everyone. (This could cover programs by Parks & Recreation, to cite one example.)

Preliminary question:

First, the following question, asked of everyone attempting to use non-essential services, will govern whether a person requires their attestation on a  form:

Have you worked for:

1. the armed or intelligence services of Israel or the U.S. since or including 2023;
2. a military contractor for either of those nations since or including 2023
3. or been a national politician, or political appointee of a national politician, for either of those nations since or including 2023?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, you must fill out the attestation below.

Attestation form:

I hereby pledge the following:

I have never been involved in any war crimes that violate international law or humanitarian law. (Note that providing “weapons aid” to countries that do not allow humanitarian aid to pass through areas they control, such as what Israel has done since 2023, does violate international law.)

I have never committed war crimes, including but not limited to:

– attacks on civilians (children, women, etc)

– Killing or mistreating those who have surrendered or been taken as prisoners of war

– Torture or inhumane treatment

– Destroying hospitals, universities, or other infrastructure of civic life

– Withholding food, medicine, or humanitarian aid

– Sexual violence or forced displacement

– Any other acts that fall under Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)

I have never planned, ordered, aided, abetted, voted for, promoted, or incited war crimes, nor have I participated in such acts, including following orders to commit such acts.

I pledge to continue complying with international law and humanitarian law and to never engage in war crimes in any form.

If “yes” to ANY of the above, please circle “Yes.”

If “no” to all of the above, please circle “No.”

By signing this form I submit that my answers are true and accurate to my best knowledge and belief, under strict penalty of perjury.

Printed name:

Signature:

Date:

Note: if one or more answers is “yes” but you feel there were extenuating circumstances; or you wish to explain your role and receive an exemption based on that explanation; or you wish to demonstrate you have changed as a human being; you are free to petition the town Selectboard to hear your case. You will be granted five minutes to give a statement. In the case of wishing to demonstrate change, priority will be given to deeds over words.

Likely questions and/or examples:

• Q: I work for Dartmouth and Dartmouth remains invested in companies that profit from bombing children. Am I participating?
• A: Not directly enough for the purposes of this questionnaire. Thank you for being aware of your employer’s role.

• Q: I work for the U.S. armed (or intelligence) services, or did since October 7, 2023. Given that the armed (or intelligence) services have played a role in the genocide of the Palestinian people, am I participating?
• A: If you loaded munitions that went to Israel, planned “weapons aid” gifts to Israel, or aided in targeting or other efforts by Israel to attack Palestinians, that is participating and you must mark “yes”. If you clearly and plainly had no role in this conflict, you can mark “no.” If you received orders to participate in any of the above-described ways and refused them, or asked to be given other orders, then you can mark “no.”

• Q: Isn’t this reminiscent of McCarthyism, something we have left behind for good reason?
• A: Only in so far as it uses one tool the McCarthyist movement used: a form. Tools are value-neutral. A hammer can be used to build a house or harm a person. A rifle can be used to feed your family or harm a person. We understand the gravity of this particular tool, and implement it only after knowing that the topic it references is far more grave and serious than the use of the tool itself.

• Q: Doesn’t this create an “apartheid” of sorts, a group of second-class citizens? Isn’t this what the pro-Palestine movement is seeking to dismantle?
• A: See above reference to selective intolerance. (Another system of selective intolerance is the legal system to which we all defer.) We believe this intolerance is the very minimum intolerance to guarantee tolerance writ large is ensured throughout our global society. We do not subscribe to the fallacy that “what happens over there does not affect us here.”

• Q: I don’t care about my loss of access to programs but what about my kids’ loss of access? They’re the ones who will be the most harmed by this policy.
• A: Technically, the children most harmed by the situation are the tens, potentially hundreds, of thousands of murdered and starved children in the carpet-bombing and siege of Gaza. In entering into the service you did, you had a personal responsibility to know the war crimes statutes before you started, and/or to simply exercise conscience while you were acting. While our federal government appears to be willing to defend you from imprisonment in The Hague, your child not being able to play soccer with other local children is a small price to pay. Perhaps this is the only consequence you and your loved ones face. May it help you think about the conditions you imposed upon others for being born when and where they were.

• Q: This seems like a small price to pay for literal war crimes. Why aren’t we advocating for these crimes to be prosecuted?
• A: The advocacy of a small town government accomplishes no real-world action. We have no lobbying power when faced with a Trump presidential administration. This is a real-world action we can take and we believe it is better than taking no real-world action.