Activism

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

Statement by the heads of WFP, UNHCR, UNICEF, and IOM
“Today the World Food Programme, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organization for Migration and UNICEF completed an urgent relief operation to provide a one-month ration of desperately-needed food and hygiene supplies to more than 75,000 people who are trapped along a land embankment, or berm, at the Syria-Jordan border.  

“Unable either to cross the border or turn back, the situation facing these women, men and children has grown more dire by the day.  Sheltering in makeshift tents in harsh desert conditions with temperatures of up to 50 degrees Celsius and sudden sand storms, they are without sufficient food and have barely enough water to survive. Life-saving health care is also urgently required. Pregnant women, children, the elderly and the sick are especially vulnerable.   

“We thank the government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan for supporting this critical operation, and we look forward to further efforts to reach people at the berm with humanitarian assistance in time to save their lives.”

Background:
An estimated 75,000 people fleeing conflict in Syria are living in makeshift shelters along the border area, or the berm, that runs along the Syria-Jordan border. Jordan sealed the berm area more than a month ago following an attack at a Jordanian border post. Before the border closure, UN agencies and aid organizations regularly delivered aid from Jordan’s territory to Syrians stranded on the other side of the berm. 

Source: www.wfp.org

By DANIA TANUR 

Jerusalem Post 

While the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement against Israel has picked up steam in recent years on campuses across the US, those observing the phenomenon may have come to ask themselves what draws activists to one side or the other of the issue.

The BDS movement encourages economic and cultural boycotts of Israel in an effort to advance their pro-Palestinian political demands while isolating the Jewish state.

As the heated debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages, a mix of Jewish, Israeli and Palestinian students from US colleges sat down with The Jerusalem Post to discuss the escalation of the BDS student movement, and their involvement in the campaign or the battle against it.

With such contentious discourse surrounding the conflict, here is a breakdown of some of the major sticking points in the emotion-packed dispute that has taken American institutions of higher education by storm.

The labels

Are the ‘pro-Israel’ and ‘anti-Israel’ labels mutually exclusive with the ‘pro-Palestinian’ and ‘anti-Palestinian’ ones?

Not necessarily.

Whether the discussion is about identifying with or defining the actions of one side or the other, such labels and the underlying stances they encapsulate have become increasingly more complicated to define for both sides. With controversial issues like religion, security, human rights, and apartheid–all issues that have come up when discussing BDS–there is a vast spectrum of positions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

When asked about labels regarding the conflict, most students interviewed agreed that labels do more to confuse students and drift them away from the actual issue.

“I think my labels are relatively accurate, though these terms can mean different things for different people,” Jason Epstein of the University of Texas at Austin told JPost. “Some will skew these definitions to align with their political views, some will skew these to bash the other side, and some may focus these definitions on a group of people, rather than a country.”

For American University student Noa Banayan, these labels create further division that deter from peace.

With an Israeli father, she said, “I’m pro the culture and my family, but I’m not against anything or another people. I’m just pro-peace. These labels create a bigger division that isn’t going to lead to peace.”

For many students, when discussing Israel’s actions, the issue comes down to human rights and security.

Some students, like Jessica Markowitz from New York University, feel as though siding with the pro-Israel platform means, “supporting Israel and its decisions and advocating for its needs and safety.”

On the other hand, for Palestinian-American student, who asked to be called Leila as she plans on visiting the Palestinian territories soon, being pro-Israel can mean anything from “complacency, pro-occupation, illegal settlements, and impunity” to individuals “who genuinely believe in self-determination and who desperately want to see Israel improve itself as a country, to uphold international standards and respect human rights policies.”

It goes both ways, and labeling the issue only escalates the tensions, misunderstandings and controversy spewing from the BDS conversation. 
 
The movements

The most notable form of dialogue on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been facilitated through student activist groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), J Street U and Students for Justice and Palestine (SJP). Although they allow for discussions of the conflict, student groups continue to be polarized, which often creates a one-sided and unproductive conversation, especially regarding BDS.

For student Leila being a part of SJP entails being an activist and voice for her Palestinian community. She said that the mission of SJP at her school is “to stand in solidarity with the demands of the Palestinian people and support their basic human right to self determination.”

For University of Michigan student Lauren Siegel, her involvement with student groups also comes down to her “deep connection to Israel” and belief that student support outside of Israel is “vital to the survival of the State.”

For others, like Gabriella Levy from American University where political and social activism drives the student body, this conversation seems to be the most taboo. She said, “I feel like [the conflict is] one of the only things that I would not necessarily feel comfortable bringing up depending on who I’m with.”
 
College campus BDS

Understanding the roots of activist movements on each side is just as essential to the conversation as learning about the conflict.

For some students, BDS has had a direct impact on their daily lives. A report released by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), titled BDS on ‘American College Campuses: 2014-15 Year-In-Review,’ cited studies that showed 520 explicitly anti-Israel events and programs took place nationwide on college campuses, representing a 30% increase from the previous academic year, and that over 50% of those events focused on various aspects of the BDS movement.

In the same report, the ADL released a list of 19 universities that considered divestment resolutions or referenda this year, including the results of these votes. Included in the list are prestigious schools, such as Stanford and Northwestern–two colleges where the student governments decided to pass a BDS resolution. Others on the list, like University of Texas at Austin, Princeton University and University of Michigan, either came close to passing a boycott resolution or passed referenda similar to or associated with the BDS movement.

For University of Texas at Austin student Sam Reichstein, the topic of the BDS movement has become all too familiar, as BDS legislation was pushed for on UT’s campus through its Student Government, though ended up losing in the spring of 2015. Recalling this moment in her campus’s history, Samantha felt nervous and worried, and at times unsafe wearing an Israeli t-shirt or a Hebrew necklace.

For Josh Woznica, head of the Jewish Student Union at Berkeley University, who attends a school that has been known for its strong anti-Israel sentiments and successful BDS movements, the feeling is similar, and added that he feels that BDS is not conducive to any product dialogue.

Leila said, however, that, BDS is “one of the main peaceful means of protest that appeals to conscience and employs non-violent measures,” so groups on campus should continue to be allowed to advocate for the movement.

The media and education

While the amount of formal discussion in classrooms on the topic varies by campus, those who have not visited the Middle East or lack personal ties to the conflict are generally misinformed by the media.

What adds to the contention on campuses is that the majority of students seem to know, or care, relatively little about the conflict.

As Woznica said, “It’s to get the sort of 70% of students who really know nothing about the conflict and walk by and see a demonstration or a protest–it’s to really get them to understand the conflict.”

In response to this indifference and misinformation, some students suggest speaking to actual Palestinians and Israelis who have lived and spent time in the region, and others go further to recommend that courses on the conflict be required on campus.
 
Future possibilities

Whether genuine dialogue on the Middle East conflict  is possible depends largely on the students who choose to engage; most students are hopeful that it is.

“The only way to bring new ideas to light is to keep talking about the conflict. Strong dialogue is the best way to inform and be informed,” said American University student Niv Avneri.

On the center of his campus, Woznica has witnessed small groups of students come and sit down and discuss. Though it often becomes very personal, and naturally so, “at least they’re hearing each other’s sides on a one-to-one basis,” he said.

Leila pointed to a critical matter, stating, “To overcome the differences that exist between the opposing sides, one must be brave enough to confront the ugly and brutal realities that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict produces both in the Middle East and here in the United States.”

“We cannot continue to silence critical debates because of fear for this coming at the expense of ‘civility,” she added.

Source: www.jpost.com

TeleSUR

Black Lives Matter argues that police violence and killings of Black people in the U.S. are connected to the decades-long Israeli oppression of Palestinians.

Activists from the Black Lives Matter movement in the U.S. joined a protest in the Palestinian village of Bilin near Ramallah city in the West Bank in an effort to put an international spotlight on the Israeli oppression, occupation and “genocide” of Palestinians.

“Today, delegates from the Movement for Black Lives join organizers and activists in Bil’in, a territory in occupied Palestine where resistors are engaged in nonviolent protest,” the Black Lives Matter movement said in a statement through its official Facebook page Friday.

“In the fight for dignity, justice and freedom, the Movement for Black Lives is committed to the global shared struggle of oppressed people, namely the people of occupied Palestine and other Indigenous communities who for decades have resisted the occupation of their land, the ethnic cleansing of their people, and the erasure of their history and experiences.”

At least two people were arrested during the peaceful protest by Israeli forces as they crack downed on the demonstration, which takes place every week. Palestinian news agency Ma’an said those arrested were taken to an unknown location and their citizenship remained unidentified.

Bilin has become a well-known site for action against Israeli occupation and settlement activity in the region and its residents have been organizing a weekly Friday protest for the past 11 years. Protests at the village are often met with tear gas, rubber-coated steel bullets and stun grenades from occupation forces.

Meanwhile, the Black Lives Matter movement argued that police violence and killings against Black people in the U.S. are connected to the decades-long Israeli oppression of Palestinians.

“In this violent, political climate, it is urgent that we make clear the connection between violence inflicted on Black people globally that is encouraged and permitted by the state and the profiling, harm, and genocide funded by the United States and perpetrated by Zionist vigilantes and the Israeli Defense Forces on Palestinian people.”

The group further stressed its support for the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement, or BDS, and its work “to fight for freedom, justice and equality for Palestinian people and to end international support of the occupation.”

In recent weeks BLM activists has been intensifying their international efforts against the killings of Black people and other non-white minorities around the world.

Last week the group joined activists in Brazil to protest police killings as they joined a ceremony at Candelaria cathedral, the infamous site of a 1993 massacre in which a death squad, including off-duty policemen, killed eight children and adolescents who slept on the church steps.

Also last week, BLM activists traveled to France to join more than 1,000 protesters against the the death of a young Black man in police custody July 19.

Source: www.telesurtv.net