Activism

By ELIYAHU KAMISHER

The Jerusalem Post

The bag features bold Arabic script along its side, which translates to: “This text has no other purpose than to terrify those who are afraid of the Arabic language.”

A photo of the bag has struck a nerve with many social media users after journalist Nader Sarras snapped a photo of man wearing the tote bag on the Berlin subway last week.

The Haifa-based design studio Rock Paper Scissors is responsible for the bag, which sells for $15 on their website.

Sana Jammalieh and Haitham Charles Haddad two friends who met at the Shenkar College of Engineering, Design and Art in Tel Aviv run the design studio.

In an interview with AJ+, an affiliate of Al Jazeera, Haddad said the bag was meant to challenge peoples’ perception of the Arabic language and “kind of make fun of those who are afraid of the language.”

Jammalieh contended that the bag is a pushback against generalizations of Arabs. “What I would like to tell people: give Arabs a break. Forget about the stereotypes,” she stated.  “Arabic language and culture are beautiful things that are full of love.”

Source: www.jpost.com

Darializa Avila Chevalier and Khury Petersen-Smith

The Electronic Intifada 

Solidarity with Black people in the US cannot be conditioned on silence over Israeli racism. Keiko Hiromi Polaris
August opened with a major development in the struggle against anti-Black racism in the US and beyond.

Activists from more than 50 organizations came together in the Movement for Black Lives and published the Vision for Black Lives, which identifies key aspects of the oppression of Black people and puts forth solutions to the systemic violence and oppression that target Black people in the United States. This statement proposes a set of demands for activists to advance that address racialized poverty, police violence, environmental racism and myriad other issues that plague Black communities in the United States.

While the vision inspired activists in the US and around the world, not everyone was excited. The Vision for Black Lives statement was immediately met with a slew of criticism from Zionist organizations and publications.

The criticism focused on how the statement declares solidarity with the movement for Palestinian liberation. It is unsurprising that organizations such as the Jewish Community Relations Council — in this case, the Boston Chapter — reacted with hostility to the vision for its solidarity with Palestinians. The organization states that it is committed to building support for Israel. What is a little striking is the JCRC’s rejection of the entirety of the Movement for Black Lives because of its stance on Palestine.

Since the state-sanctioned murder of Trayvon Martin in 2012, the 2014 Ferguson uprising in response to the police murder of Michael Brown and the countless other Black lives lost to police violence, a movement has coalesced around a rallying cry that should be uncontroversial: Black lives matter. This latest stage in the struggle for Black freedom has transformed the conversation around racism in the US and is forcing people to take a stand on what the Vision for Black Lives accurately names a war on Black America.

In its response to the vision statement, the JCRC has virtually nothing to say about the main issues that the statement addresses: rampant police violence, economic devastation and other realities of the racist nightmare for Black people. Instead, it focuses on a small, though important, portion of the statement.

Tepid
The JCRC’s response does say that “we recommit ourselves unequivocally to the pursuit of justice for all Americans and to working together with our friends and neighbors in the African-American community, whose experience of the criminal justice system is, far too often, determined by race.” This, the one line in JCRC’s statement that addresses anti-Black racism in the US, is tepid at best.

It is also a lie. A previous line says that JCRC “cannot and will not align ourselves with organizations” that use the word “genocide” to characterize Israel’s violence, indicating that the organization’s “commitment” to anti-racism is actually highly equivocal.

An anti-racism based on the premise that its proponents agree with JCRC’s embrace of Zionism is not anti-racism at all.

That Zionist organizations are willing to reject the current battle for Black lives raging in the United States when its activists find common ground and solidarity with Palestinians simply reaffirms what we already knew: Zionism is racism. Because the very principle of Zionism dictates that Jewish people be granted greater privileges by the State of Israel than its non-Jewish subjects, the result is necessarily a system of apartheid and inequality.

This comes at the expense of other groups, particularly Palestine’s non-Jewish indigenous inhabitants. Systematic dispossession and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, along with other forms of brutal violence by Israeli police and military, are the daily practices of the Israeli state. This is only possible through the racist dehumanization of the Palestinian people.

It follows, then, that US organizations committed to Zionism as a core principle will only make a limited commitment to anti-racism here.

JCRC’s statement accuses the Vision for Black Lives of seeking “to isolate and demonize Israel singularly amongst the nations of the world.” This is simply false; the Vision for Black Lives statement identifies a number of oppressive regimes backed by the US and projects carried out directly by the US military to oppress people abroad.

There are, however, many Israeli practices that are extraordinary — even among the world’s imperial states. These include its systematic arrests and “trials” of children in military courts and its use of 19th century practices and language regarding the colonization of Palestinian land. After all, where else in the world today does a government talk openly of “settlements” and “settlers”?

Israel also maintains an apartheid regime with distinct laws and services that only apply to Jewish people. While we have no illusions that the US or South Africa are countries of equality, at least similar white supremacist laws in these places were defeated by freedom struggles decades ago.

Superficial?
The Vision for Black Lives’ characterization of Israel was a basis for other organizations and publications to disagree with the document. The Anti-Defamation League, which characterizes the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel as anti-Semitic, issued a response to the vision that, unlike the JCRC, acknowledges the existence of mass incarceration and other oppressive realities for Black people in the US. But the ADL opposes the document for referring to Israel as an apartheid state, which it calls a “gross mischaracterization.”

The head of the ADL, Jonathan Greenblatt, also argues that “it’s repellent and completely inaccurate to label Israel’s policy as ‘genocide.’”

Similarly, writers with +972 Magazine took issue with the language that the vision uses to describe Israel’s violence toward the Palestinians.

The progressive English-language news site based in Israel, which features writers who advocate for the human rights of Palestinians, greeted the vision warmly, with writer Amjad Iraqi explaining that “Black activists have delivered a powerful message to the Palestinian people: you are not alone in your struggle.” +972, however, has published three separate posts (including Iraqi’s) that argue that the vision is wrong for characterizing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians as genocide.

In the most extensive article on the subject, Dahlia Scheindlin argues — with incredible condescension — that the authors of the Vision for Black Lives should retract their use of the word. Unable to believe that Black activists looking at the same facts as her could rationally draw different conclusions, Scheindlin attributes the charge of genocide to describe Israel’s practices to “a rush job and a superficial form of groupthink.”

Though the Vision for Black Lives’ primary purpose is not to call attention to Palestine, the platform actually presents some key facts and arguments to justify its use of the terms “apartheid” and “genocide.”

For example, the vision statement notes that Palestinian homes are routinely bulldozed to make way for Israeli settlements and that Israel has more than 50 laws on its statute books that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of the state. The United Nations has defined the crime of genocide as including a deliberate policy to impose conditions of life on an ethnic, racial or religious group to bring about the group’s total or partial destruction. By seriously examining the situation, it is entirely reasonable to argue that Israel is trying to destroy the Palestinian people and is therefore committing the crime of genocide.

Neither the ADL nor any of the +972 Magazine bloggers who take issue with the platform respond to this context.

They argue, instead, that Black Lives Matter activists should not use the word “genocide” because it is divisive and that Jewish readers take offense. But with growing criticism of Zionism within the Jewish community, not all Jewish groups responded the same way.

No strings attached
Jewish Voice for Peace responded both to the vision, and to Zionist organizations’ opposition to it, by declaring that the group “endorses the Movement for Black Lives platform in its entirety, without reservation.” IfNotNow, a Jewish youth group formed in response to Israel’s 2014 attack on Gaza, and JVP’s Jews of Color Caucus, have issued similar statements of support.

Greenblatt of the ADL describes the characterizations of Israel as an apartheid state and calls for support of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement as “offensive in tone,” while Scheindlin calls on the Movement for Black Lives to “correct” the “genocide language.” Sheindlin states that “adopting slogans of certain activists” contributes to “the inevitable and understandable emotional turmoil” and that, therefore, “many now question the level of partnership and support that so many Jewish actors are eager to provide.”

Scheindlin argues, and Greenblatt suggests, that the horrific truth of Israel’s US-backed practices should be obscured in the name of tactfulness. We reject this logic entirely; the pursuit of justice should be guided by that alone, even if it makes those unwilling to acknowledge the full depths of injustice uncomfortable.

After all, there is nothing tactful about the act of genocide.

It may come as a surprise to see the ADL and +972 Magazine writers on the same side of this question.

The ADL, while purporting to defend civil rights, contributes generously to anti-Muslim and anti-Arab racism in the US and abroad and allies with the very US urban police departments on the front lines of the war against Black America. Indeed, in 2015 it commended the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department for participating in an ADL training — just shy of the first anniversary of the department’s repression of the Ferguson uprising.

The ADL characterizes any critique of Israel as anti-Semitism. +972 Magazine, on the other hand, regularly publishes criticisms of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, publicizes egregious acts taken by the Israeli military and covers Palestinian protests with sympathy.

Both camps seem to take for granted, however, Israel’s constitution as a Jewish state, one that continues to uphold the legal privileges of Jews over the rights and equality of non-Jews. Many of the +972 bloggers criticize the worst violence of the Israeli military and police forces without acknowledging that the state’s reason for being, as a country that exists for Jewish people first and foremost, makes it incompatible with equality for Palestinians — or any non-Jews.

The Vision for Black Lives proposes a movement that seeks to end global racism — with its mutually devastating effects on Palestinians, Black people in the US and around the world. In their responses to that movement, some of these organizations and individuals are saying that the value they see in Black lives is predicated on their support for, complicity in, and toleration of the crimes the State of Israel commits against the Palestinian people.

While we understand the nuanced differences between these various arguments we are responding to, and that not all of them disavow the entirety of the vision statement, we find the many points of commonality that are of great cause for concern. They have shown that their support for our liberation is conditional; that so long as we, as Black people, remain silent or reserved in the face of ethnic cleansing, we may have a right to live free of fear and oppression.

That is not the meaning of liberation. Our freedom cannot be bought at the expense of another’s oppression. Claiming solidarity to us so long as we remain silent on the oppression of our Palestinian sisters and brothers is insulting.

As the Dream Defenders recently stated in their response to this Zionist backlash, “True solidarity does not come with strings attached.”

And in these heavy days of racist violence in the US and Palestine, we are inspired to see more people and organizations making the connection. We will continue to do our parts to build the struggle for Black lives and to support the fight for Palestinian freedom.

We will build on efforts like the 2015 Statement of Black Solidarity With Palestine, and various delegations of Black activists to Palestine and Palestinian activists to the US that foster solidarity between both movements for the mutual benefit of each — and the liberation of all oppressed people.

Source: electronicintifada.net

JTA- Jewish Telegraphic Agency 

Students for Justice in Palestine, a pro-Palestinian student advocacy group, denied an Israeli report that it had collected information on Jewish students on college campuses in North America.

Two pro-Israel groups active on campus also said they had no knowledge of such activity.

Israel Radio reported Tuesday that information on the group’s alleged activities was presented to members of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee when it met to discuss efforts to boycott Israel by anti-Israel groups at American colleges. The report said the committee had vowed to work against the singling out of Jewish students.

Knesset member Anat Berko of the ruling Likud party, who was among the lawmakers who held the session, told Israel Radio that Students for Justice in Palestine had been collecting information on where Jewish students live.

Citing information from Miluimnikim BaHazit (Reservists On Duty), a pro-Israel advocacy group of Israel Defense Forces veterans, Berko said the committee was told “about the marking out of Jewish dorms, of rooms of Jewish students, for example at New York University and other campuses.”

The National Students for Justice in Palestine later told the Forward it had “never heard of such cases.” While “all SJP chapters on campuses across the country are autonomously run,” the group said, “NSJP is firmly against all forms of bigotry, including anti-Semitism.”

Officials from the Zionist Organization of America and StandWithUs, which combat anti-Semitism on college campuses, knew nothing of any such activity, the Forward reported.

On Wednesday, an aide to Berko told The Times of Israel that Berko was only reporting to Israel Radio what the committee had been told. Nonetheless, the aide said Students for Justice in Palestine was “collecting information on where Jewish students live,” and that there had been several incidents in which “eviction notices” were placed in dormitories where “there are mezuzahs.”

The aide said notices telling students to leave dorms and referencing Israeli military actions against Palestinians had been posted at NYU and on a campus in Connecticut. Israel Hayom in June quoted a Jewish student describing a similar incident on his Florida campus.

Source: www.jta.org

By Christian Sanchez Chicago Monitor “The Palestinians in Gaza are the American Indians of the Middle East.” This was the opinion of the late American Indian civil rights leader, Russell Means. In reviewing the history of the two peoples, it is clear that both Palestinians and American Indians share similar hardships. There is the common … Continued

By Editorial Board 

The Washington Post 

MUSLIM PASSENGERS are escorted off U.S.-based airlines with alarming frequency these days, and while the circumstances of each incident vary, there is also a sameness to them. More often than not, someone on the plane — a seatmate, a passenger a few rows away, a flight attendant — feels “uncomfortable.” The trigger for that discomfort is a passenger who looks or seems to be from a Muslim-majority country (even if the person happens to be Italian). And the outcome, as far as is generally known, is a bland statement from the airline setting forth its policy of nondiscrimination.

In fact, public acts of discrimination, especially against Muslims, have spiked along with Donald Trump’s venomous campaign rhetoric in this election season. That, coupled with travelers’ anxiety about the threat of terrorist attacks, has yielded repeated episodes of baseless suspicion on airplanes — in other words, profiling.

Prodded to say something, passengers and airline personnel are quick to see something, but too often what they’ve really seen is a person whose skin color or attire or language is a trigger for unfounded accusation.

The airlines have to do better. That means you, Delta Air Lines, for having removed a Pakistani American couple who were returning home to Ohio from a romantic 10th-anniversary trip to Europe on July 26. In Paris, a member of the flight crew said she felt uneasy at the gate because the woman, Nazia Ali, wearing a headscarf, was using her phone and her husband, Faisal, was sweating.

It means you, American Airlines, for having been involved in repeated instances of apparent ethnic and religious profiling. Those include an Italian economist from the University of Pennsylvania who was escorted off a plane in Philadelphia in May after his seatmate, convinced that his intent scribbling was Arabic, reported him to the flight crew. In fact, what she saw was math — a differential equation.

It means you, Southwest Airlines, for having evicted a University of California at Berkeley student from an airplane in Los Angeles in April after another passenger heard him speaking Arabic on the phone. The student, an Iraqi refugee named Khairuldeen Makhzoomi, said a Southwest employee demanded to know why he had been speaking Arabic on the plane.

That small sampling of recent senselessness raises the question of whether airline employees are getting the message from management that discrimination based on race, religion or national origin is unacceptable and illegal. If any airline employees have been disciplined for having mishandled passengers — either by indulging the prejudices of some or training groundless suspicions at others — the airlines aren’t saying.

To the contrary, it’s fair to ask, as advocacy groups representing American Muslims have done, if the airlines, with a wink and a nod, are tolerating the occasional ugly and unjustified conduct of some employees and passengers. The unfortunate truth is that, in the absence of no-nonsense enforcement policies by the airlines, deplorable acts of profiling are likely to proliferate. It’s up to the airlines to ensure that blameless passengers can travel freely, without fear of harassment, removal or reckless accusations.

Source: www.washingtonpost.com

by Noura Erakat, Ingrid Jaradat Gassner, Diana Buttu, Nur Arafeh

Al-Shabaka

Israel has been cracking down on human rights defenders. Top Israeli officials have targeted activists in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, calling for “targeted civil eliminations” of BDS leaders and declaring that they should “pay the price” for their work. BDS co-founder Omar Barghouti has been cited by name.

Within Israel, the High Court in 2015 upheld a 2011 law that penalizes organizations and persons who call for the boycott of Israel or its illegal settlements and allows suits against them. Israel has also been investing considerable resources in fighting the BDS movement abroad.

How far will Israel go in carrying out its threats against human rights defenders? What should Palestinians and the international solidarity movement do in order to protect themselves and to safeguard the progress of the movement? In this roundtable, Al-Shabaka Policy Advisors Noura Erakat, Ingrid Jaradat, and Diana Buttu examine specific threats to the BDS movement and other human rights defenders in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), Israel, and beyond. Al-Shabaka Policy Fellow Nur Arafeh served as the roundtable’s facilitator.

Noura Erakat provides an historical and legal overview of the “targeted killings,” or extrajudicial assassinations, that have killed hundreds of Palestinians over the years, particularly recently in the West Bank due to an uptick in Palestinian armed resistance. Ingrid Jaradat outlines trends and specific Israeli attacks on BDS activists and other human rights defenders as well as Western country complicity in these attacks. 1 Diana Buttu provides more evidence of Israeli attacks and argues that they are currently increasing in frequency and hysteria.

Noura Erakat: Israel’s Extrajudicial Assassinations

Israel has used extrajudicial assassinations – the taking of someone’s life without a trial to determine guilt – for decades. 2 The government first took public responsibility for these assassinations during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, specifically in November 2000, when it termed them “targeted killings” and created a legal justification for their use against Palestinians. 3

Israel argued that it is engaged in an “armed conflict short of war” with Palestinians in order to define the conflict as one against “terrorists.” This move has permitted Israel to use military force, defined by law, without affording Palestinians the status of combatants or soldiers. Instead, Palestinian use of force is regarded as terroristic regardless of whether it targets civilians or military installations; in effect, all Palestinian use of force is considered illegitimate and illegal.

Israel thus created a legal framework whereby Palestinians do not have the right to use force but Israelis have the right to kill them even when they are posing no threat and without due process. This framework aims to incapacitate any kind of resistance from Palestinians and expand Israel’s right to use force. It is within this context that Israel also changed the terminology of the violence: “assassination” became “targeted killing.”

This practice is illegal, as the arbitrary taking of a life denies the suspect the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. International law also restricts the use of intentional lethal force “during law enforcement operations to situations necessary to protect life” – that is, police can only shoot to kill when it is clear that the suspect is going to kill someone and there is no other means to detain them. In regard to an occupation, the law is even clearer. Because an occupying power is no longer at war, its force is limited to law enforcement authority. This means that the occupying power cannot use lethal force as a measure of first resort.

“Israel [has] created a legal framework whereby Palestinians do not have the right to use force but Israelis have the right to kill them even when they are posing no threat and without due process.”

In 2000, in line with international law, the international community, including the George W. Bush administration, opposed Israel’s use of excessive force and insisted that it should only use law enforcement power vis-à-vis Palestinians. However, after the United States’ adoption of the same policy of “targeted killing” in the aftermath of September 11, its condemnation of the practice diminished. Israel and the United States have since been working together on global counterterrorism programs that elide the distinctions between the United States’ war against non-state actors and Israel’s ongoing settler-colonial ambitions toward Palestine.

For example, when the UN Security Council authorized the use of force against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in 2001, Israel attempted to apply the same logic to its use of force against Palestinians. The International Court of Justice rejected this in its 2004 Advisory Opinion because Israel, as the occupying power, has sole jurisdiction in the territories from which these threats emerge, in contrast to the United States, which did not already exercise jurisdiction over Afghanistan. Israel therefore cannot claim to use self-defense against a population over which it already has military and law enforcement authority.  

Global protests against Israel’s use of assassinations led to an almost complete halt of its practice in the West Bank, until recently. However, Israel continued to use extrajudicial assassinations in the Gaza Strip, where it claims it no longer has authority since its unilateral disengagement in 2005. At the same time, Israel does not claim that the Gaza Strip has gained independence or status as a state. It continues to describe Gaza as a “hostile entity” – a concept that has no grounding in international law. The significance of that status is that while a state has the right to build an army and use force, a “hostile entity” does not. Israel has therefore claimed since 2005 that the Gaza Strip is neither occupied nor independent but has the unprecedented status of a hostile entity, against which force can be used but whose population does not have the right to self-defense.

Thus, Israel has further expanded its right to use military and lethal force while further diminishing the Palestinian right to resistance, despite the fact that international law legitimates the use of force by people under foreign colonization. 4 Israel used this argument in killing Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi in Gaza and hundreds of  Palestinians between 2000 and 2005.

Today, Israel uses lethal force in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as well as the Gaza Strip with little to no global protest. Its shoot-to-kill policy toward Palestinians accused of wielding knives is a prime example of extrajudicial assassination: Society is expected to take the Israeli government’s word that the Palestinians who were killed had a knife and were threatening to use it against a soldier who reasonably feared for his life. The entire process of inquiry has been removed and Israel behaves as judge, jury, and executioner, rendering Palestinian life even more precarious.

Ingrid Jaradat: Israel’s Local and Global Campaigns Against BDS

Israel has always oppressed human rights defenders, not only in the OPT but in historic Palestine and beyond, as part of its effort to suppress activity for justice and freedom of Palestinians, including nonviolent resistance and advocacy. This oppression has included armed violence, arbitrary restrictions on freedom of movement, travel bans, forcible (temporary) removals, arrest, imprisonment, and torture.

At least three tactics are intended to stifle human rights activism under Israel’s increasingly right-wing government.

First is the increase in violent threats and attacks, especially in the OPT. They are caused mainly by aggressive Israeli colonization, incitement by Israeli officials against Palestinians who are resisting and indeed anyone criticizing Israeli policy, and impunity granted for assaults on Palestinian property and persons. These give soldiers, settlers, and others license to issue death threats and beat and kill Palestinians, particularly human rights defenders.

Second is Israel’s launch of an overt attack on freedom of expression and related civil and political rights in the OPT as well as inside Israel. This has been done explicitly because of activists’ advocacy for international accountability measures for the state and those responsible or complicit in its unlawful and oppressive policies. This is a new development, as historically Israeli governments led by the Zionist center/left have avoided such visible attacks on civil liberties that undermine the claim of Israel being “the only democracy in the Middle East.” Instead, previous governments had used pretexts related to “security” and “counterterrorism,” which are available under Israel’s emergency regulations and the unaccountable military regime in the OPT, to silence such Palestinian resistance as peaceful protests and human rights advocacy.  

More recently, Israeli governments are claiming that freedom of expression, when exercised to promote Palestinian human rights – particularly calling for or carrying out boycotts – is an offense against “security” that must be suppressed. In addition to publically endorsing violence against human rights defenders, Israeli officials and lawmakers are adopting more restrictive and intimidating legislation. Israeli authorities have also stepped up intelligence surveillance and cyber attacks on human rights defenders, while delivering punishment through administrative measures, such as travel bans and revocation of Israeli residency permits for “lack of center of life in Israel” or, more recently, “breach of loyalty to the State of Israel.”

Third is the extension of these Israeli attacks to other countries and the complicity of some Western countries in them. In seeking to thwart BDS not only at home but also abroad, Israel is leading a McCarthy-style campaign against anyone taking a stand for the Palestinian people. This is occurring particularly in Europe and North America, where it is undermining citizens’ civil liberties and civil society space.

False allegations of anti-Semitism are at the heart of these attacks. Israel and its lobbies have invested substantial resources to distort the meaning of racial discrimination as adopted in international conventions. So-called working definitions of anti-Semitism promoted by Israel and Israel-sponsored lobbies declare any opposition to Zionism and Israeli policies to be a form of racial discrimination against the “Jewish people” and thus anti-Semitic.

According to a recent BDS National Committee report, these attacks, which are occurring from Austria to the United States, include:

• Media campaigns led by Israeli foundations, lobby groups, and affiliated journalists and newspapers targeting BDS activists;
• Lawsuits sponsored by Israel and affiliated groups against BDS activists, unions, and local councils;
• Pressure on banks, often involving “investigative” Israeli journalists and threats of financial damage, resulting in the closure of bank accounts of groups and organizations defending Palestinian human rights;
• Pressure on owners of public events facilities, including municipalities and NGOs, to deny venues to BDS human rights defenders;
• Anti-BDS motions brought to parliaments by Israel lobby groups and supportive MPs;
• Spying and sabotage against BDS activities by pro-Israel groups pretending to be Palestinian human rights activists.

Authorities in the countries in which these attacks are taking place have largely failed to protect their citizens who are targeted. Even more worrisome, in some Western countries governments and other authorities have responded to Israeli lobbying by adopting their own measures to suppress BDS campaigning.

In France, for example, some 30 BDS activists have faced criminal charges, and several have been convicted by French courts that falsely interpreted the call for a boycott of Israeli products as discriminatory against a “nation,” which is a criminal offense under French law. Moreover, French authorities apply such court rulings to all forms of BDS activism, even when they do not involve calling for a boycott of Israeli products. French police have repeatedly suppressed pro-BDS demonstrations.

In the UK, senior members of the conservative government have repeatedly put forth allegations that the BDS movement is anti-Semitic. The government has also permitted the channeling of funds for anti-BDS initiatives through public institutions. Further, the UK College of Policing adopted an Israel-promoted “EU working definition of anti-Semitism,” even though the EU clarified that it had not issued the document containing the definition.

In addition, the UK government issued a policy note on public procurement in February 2016  that restates the existing British law and WTO rules that public bodies are not permitted to exclude a company from tenders and contracts due to its “country of origin.” The government also announced a consultation in November 2015 concerning local government pension funds. It states that local governments’ investment decisions “should not pursue policies which run contrary to UK foreign policy” and includes a proposal that would give the national government veto power over investment decisions of local councils.

Canada recently signed a cooperation agreement with Israel that includes an explicit commitment to help Israel repress the BDS movement. The Canadian government – both the conservative opposition and the ruling liberals – then adopted a motion to condemn all BDS actions by Canadian citizens. Canadian politicians also frequently denounce campus BDS activism as anti-Semitic.

“In seeking to thwart BDS not only at home but also abroad, Israel is leading a McCarthy-style campaign against anyone taking a stand for the Palestinian people.”

In the United States, anti-BDS bills and laws have been introduced in more than 20 states and in Congress. All seek to withhold public funds, contracts, and/or investments from entities that endorse BDS. Most recently, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo adopted one of these bills per decree, bypassing the lawmaking process in which the bill had been challenged and establishing a precedent for other governors.

These attacks have had a negative impact on the ability of civil society to carry out BDS activities, and have been especially challenging in Europe. The diversity of national law, politics, and culture makes it hard to provide Europe-wide support to BDS campaigners. Until today, BDS activists in many European countries lack effective legal support. Nevertheless, the effort of the BDS National Committee (BNC) and many European partners in jointly defending the right to and legitimacy of BDS has helped overcome initial frustration. Moreover, human rights defenders in Europe have proven that they possess both the resilience and creativity required to carry out proactive BDS activism despite Israeli attacks and complicit national authorities.

In the United States, leading civil rights associations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the National Lawyers Guild, coordinate with each other and with the organization Palestine Legal to protect the civil and constitutional rights of Americans who speak out for Palestinian freedom. All the associations have clarified that the right to boycott for social and political change is protected under the Constitution, and that infringements against this right will not stand up to legal challenge.

Diana Buttu: Israeli Threats to Activists in an Increasingly Fascist State

The Israeli government has been threatening human rights defenders in Israel, both Palestinian citizens as well as Israeli Jews, directly and through proxies. Late last year, Israeli authorities attacked the funding of Baladna (the Association for Arab Youth), which was protesting the recruitment of Palestinian youth in the Israeli Army. In March 2016, former Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon described Breaking the Silence – an organization of Israeli soldiers who expose Israeli actions in the OPT – as comprised of “traitors.” In addition, death threats have been made against a B’Tselem volunteer who filmed the extrajudicial assassination of a Palestinian in Hebron in March 2016.

In July 2016, Israel passed a law requiring NGOs that receive more than half their funding from foreign governments to declare in all publications their sources of foreign funding. The law does not require disclosure of funds by private donors. The law affects human rights NGOs, as they often receive funds from foreign governments, while right-wing NGOs tend to obtain resources from ideologically-motivated private donors.

Further, by using NGOs that are largely sponsored by the Israeli government, Israel has targeted the work of these human rights organizations by pressing for foreign funding cuts. The Israeli-sponsored organizations only challenge NGOs that are critical of Israel’s actions; they do not question the funding of human rights organizations that are critical of the Palestinian Authority.

Such attacks have been a mainstay of Israel’s colonial rule since as early as 1948. However, the difference now is that these attacks are increasing in frequency and hysteria, creating an atmosphere of “us” versus “them” wherein anyone who is not “us” (that is, right-wing Zionist Jewish-Israeli) is a legitimate target for attack.  Hence, B’Tselem and Breaking the Silence – neither of which is an anti-Zionist organization – now fall within the “them” category. Essentially, any criticism of Israel, even as mild as Israeli human rights organizations often mete out, is seen as a “threat” to Israel. A rise in fascism naturally follows, when, for example, Israeli politicians, including current Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, labels Palestinian children “little snakes.” These and other pronouncements by Israeli leaders reflect the rise in support for fascist policies in Israeli society, and they also fuel that fascism.

“[The Israeli government’s attacks against human rights defenders in Israel] are increasing in frequency and hysteria, creating an atmosphere of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ wherein anyone who is not ‘us’ (that is, right-wing Zionist Jewish-Israeli) is a legitimate target for attack.”

Avigdor Lieberman’s recent appointment as defense minister and Yehuda Glick’s entry into the Knesset are reflections of this rising fascism. Lieberman supports Israeli war crimes, whether the bombing and blockade of the Gaza Strip or the accelerated expansion of settlements. He advocates ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Israel (euphemistically termed “transfer”) and has said that Palestinians who do not declare loyalty should “have their heads chopped off with an axe.” He has also called for Palestinian prisoners to be drowned. Lieberman is running on a platform that includes instituting the death penalty for Palestinians who resist Israel’s rule – those who Israel conveniently deems to be “terrorists.”

Despite being a settler and openly advocating these policies, Lieberman was welcomed in foreign capitals when he was foreign minister. Now, as the minister in charge of Israel’s wars, he will have the opportunity to put his beliefs into practice. Lieberman’s latest ascendance is obviously alarming, yet what is more alarming is that it appears to be business as usual for the international community, with the United States already declaring that his new role in the government will not affect an unprecedented U.S. military assistance package for Israel: likely $4 billion per year for 10 years.  

What Must be Done?

This concluding section draws on ideas put forward by roundtable participants Noura Erakat, Ingrid Jaradat, and Diana Buttu.

In the case of Omar Barghouti who, in addition to being threatened was recently denied the right to travel outside the country amidst reports that his residency may be revoked, some limited protection may have been achieved as a result of his adoption as a human rights defender by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Federation for Human Rights, and Euromed Rights, as well as the wide media publicity of the attack on him. However, more effective protection for Barghouti requires public condemnations of the Israeli attack and interventions on his behalf by senior representatives of Western governments, the EU, and the UN. All have been called on to do so. Follow-up advocacy in the OPT, Israel, and abroad is needed to ensure that they will take the necessary steps.  

Meanwhile, even more aggressive colonization of the OPT, including East Jerusalem, and more repressive measures against human rights defenders may broaden international support for those who advocate for the Palestinian people. This would accelerate the process of isolation of Israel’s regime of settler colonialism, apartheid, and occupation. However, sustained and proactive BDS campaigning and action supporting the defense of civil and political rights, including the right to BDS, will be required from human rights defenders. This is particularly true at present, with powerful Western governments launching yet another Oslo-type “peace initiative” to protect Israel’s regime and the oppressive status quo. To that end, the wider pro-justice movement can lobby, invite Palestinian human rights defenders targeted by Israel to speak in their country, and join local or regional efforts for effective legal support of BDS campaigners.

On the Palestinian side, activists should draft diplomatic initiatives asking EU governments to condemn extrajudicial assassinations and hold Israel accountable for its crimes. Palestinians also need a media strategy and a legal team to pursue cases against Israeli soldiers. Although several human rights organizations and activists are working on this, their efforts are usually uncoordinated and sporadic; there is a need to achieve cohesion through collaboration. In addition, human rights NGOs should work together to address the restrictions on their funding, whether due to the new Israeli law mandating disclosure of foreign funds or the coordinated attacks on their funding by Israel and Israeli-backed NGOs.

Source: al-shabaka.org

All out for September 22nd federal court hearing in Detroit

Attorneys representing Palestinian American icon, Rasmea Odeh, are pushing back against a new legal attack by federal prosecutors.

In a July 21 filing, Rasmea’s defense team went on record as “strongly opposing” an attempt by prosecutors to subject her to questioning at a “mental examination” prior to an already scheduled Daubert hearing, which itself determines if an expert witness can testify at trial.  This is especially important in Rasmea’s case, because the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that trial Judge Gershwin Drain erred in deciding that expert testimony concerning her mental state was irrelevant to her defense. That error led to Rasmea’s unjust conviction in 2014.

On November 29, Judge Drain will hear arguments as to whether Dr. Mary Fabri’s testimony is scientifically valid and applicable to the facts of the case. Recall that before the 2014 trial, Dr. Fabri, a nationally renowned clinical psychologist who has worked with torture survivors for over 25 years, was prepared to testify as to how Rasmea’s Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), caused by the torture and rape she experienced at the hands of Israeli military interrogators in 1969, affected her answers to questions on complex immigration forms decades later in the U.S.

The move by prosecutors to separately “examine” Rasmea before Judge Drain has even ruled on the admissibility of Dr. Fabri’s testimony is outrageous and meant to intimidate Rasmea. Such an examination is irrelevant as to whether Dr. Fabri’s testimony is reliable and applicable. Nothing asked of Rasmea would change Dr. Fabri’s credentials as an internationally recognized expert on PTSD, or her ability to opine on how Rasmea’s PTSD affected her mental state during any of the dates in question.

Because the government’s request to examine Rasmea is in no way relevant to the admissibility of Dr. Fabri’s testimony, it is obviously designed to aggravate the symptoms of Rasmea’s PTSD and the suffering they cause her. The government knows that it cannot credibly attack Dr. Fabri, so it has instead chosen to harass Rasmea by seeking to subject her to this interrogation.

In the defense filing, Rasmea’s attorneys write that there is a “grave risk that such a fundamentally adversarial interrogation—obviously designed to debunk her earnest PTSD defense—would gravely threaten a serious aggravation of her symptoms and the suffering they cause her.”

The government’s request is also basically a challenge to Rasmea’s story, an attempt to claim that she does not have PTSD and that she did not get brutalized by the Israeli authorities almost 50 years ago.  This is a dirty political move by the prosecution, but Rasmea remains steadfast and strong, and will not allow the government to punish her for exercising her constitutional right to assert a meaningful defense. While the prosecution will renew its request to examine Rasmea if Judge Drain orders a new trial, we will continue to oppose such underhanded and transparent scare tactics.

From the very beginning, the Rasmea Defense Committee has pointed out that the legal proceedings aganst Rasmea are nothing but a pretext to intimidate those who fight hard to realize a free Palestine.  Demonstrations in support of her have taken place across the U.S. since her arrest in 2013, and we are again going All Out for Detroit on September 22nd.

We will rally at the courthouse at 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., in downtown Detroit, Michigan, on Thursday, September 22nd, 2016, at 10 AM Eastern Time, and then pack the courtroom at 11 AM, as Judge Drain decides whether to allow the government to “examine” Rasmea.

Continue to support #Justice4Rasmea by donating to the defense, organizing educational events in your communities, and staying in touch through justice4rasmea.org and justice4rasmea@uspcn.org.

We will not rest until the charges are dropped.

The Rasmea Defense Committee is led by the U.S. Palestinian Community Network and the Committee to Stop FBI Repression

Source: us8.campaign-archive2.com