Tag Archives: occupation

Eloquent truth-telling at the United Nations

International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People Special Meeting at UN Headquarters November 28, 2018

Professor Marc Lamont Hill at the United Nations calls for “Free Palestine from the River to the Sea” to chorus of applause.  This 20-minute video says all that needs to be said about Israel’s long-term, illegal occupation of Palestine, about human rights, about the facts on the ground today in the West Bank and Gaza.  CNN fired Professor Hill the day after he spoke the hard truth at the UN.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under People, Uncategorized, United Nations, Video

Beyond Talk: Five Ways the American Jewish Establishment Supports the Occupation

A new report was just released by If Not Now, an American organization that says it’s “building a vibrant and inclusive movement within the American Jewish community, across generations and organizational affiliations … to shift the American Jewish public away from the status quo that upholds the occupation.”

“Beyond Talk: Five Ways the American Jewish Establishment Supports the Occupation” is a short 35 pages with footnotes to back up the points made in the report.  The pdf can be downloaded for free here.

border

Thankfully, more Americans are waking up to the insidious role of the U.S. involvement in the Israeli occupation. This report focuses on the Jewish organizations in America that support and enable the occupation despite the fact that there is a growing schism between these organizations and the younger American Jews who denounce the Israeli occupation.

Some major take-away points from the report:

#1  Directly fund organizations that uphold Israel’s military, economic, and political control over Palestinians’ daily lives.

  • Between 2009 and 2013, 50 American 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations gave over $220 million in tax-deductible donations to settlements and other extreme right-wing organizations, according to an investigation of American and American Jewish organizations’ IRS tax forms by the Israeli daily Haaretz.

#2  Lobby American politicians to put unconditional support for the Israeli government and its policies above Palestinian human rights.

  • The educational arm of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and organizations such as local Jewish Community Relation Councils send regular delegations of politicians to Israel to boost unequivocal support for the Jewish state while hiding the reality of the Occupation. The limited engagement with Palestinian perspectives on such trips was described by one participant, former U.S. Rep. Brian Baird, as “a sort of token process.”
  • In addition to lobbying for Israel, the majority of Jewish institutions lobby against any and all criticism of Israel’s Occupation. Of all American Jewish organizations with large national memberships, only Americans for Peace Now, Jewish Voice for Peace, J Street, and the New Israel Fund supported the U.S. administration’s abstention in the December 2016 United Nations Security Council Resolution recognizing Israel’s settlements as illegal under international law. The mixture of condemnation and silence from every other national American Jewish organization demonstrates an investment in a status quo that benefits settlement expansion over Palestinian rights.

#3  Amplify prominent individuals and organizations responsible for deepening the Occupation.

#4  Promote a culture within the Jewish community that omits and denies the legitimacy of Palestinian narratives and rights.

  • Many Jewish youth groups promote the state of Israel while barely acknowledging the existence of the Occupation. For example, many camps and Hebrew schools use maps of Israel without the Green Line in their educational materials.
  • Hillel International, which oversees the largest network of centers for Jewish life on college campuses, maintains “standards of partnership” guidelines that prohibit Hillel-affiliated organizations and student groups from hosting or partnering with organizations or individuals that “support boycott of, divestment from, or sanctions against the State of Israel,” effectively barring engagement with Palestinians opposed to the Occupation.

#5  Silence and intimidate those who oppose the policies of the Israeli government, shutting dissent out of the mainstream Jewish community.

  • In 2014, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which was founded in the 1950s to represent all major streams of American Jewry in national affairs, voted against J Street’s membership; vocal opponents said that it was not sufficiently pro-Israel because it opposed the Occupation.
  • Mainstream Jewish organizations have refused to speak out against and even funded watchlists, like Canary Mission, that vilify individuals and organizations that speak out for Palestinian rights. Canary Mission is a database that catalogues the photos and names of Palestinian rights activists, encourages employers to blacklist them, and has been used as the basis to deny entry to Israel.

The report’s message is clear. American Jews who stand up for human rights and oppose Israel’s occupation must make their voices heard within these organizations that purport to represent them. They must use their influence and power to pushback against the Zionist behemoth that maintains the occupation.

“Silence becomes cowardice when occasion demands speaking out the whole truth and acting accordingly.” ― Mahatma Gandhi

 

1 Comment

Filed under Peaceful, People, Politics, Uncategorized, US Policy

Truth in the New York Times

Truth

The New York Times has been waging a not-so-subtle war on Trump’s “Fake News” campaign with its full page messages, such as the one above.  Or this one.

Facts new york times

Clearly, this is a very thoughtful campaign by the Editors at the New York Times to discredit Trump’s war on facts and on the news media. Good for them.

We should be asking ourselves, however, why the NYT Editors chose to focus on “truth” and not “facts.” Some might argue that “truth” and “facts” are synonymous, there is no difference. In an ideal world, I might agree.

The wise ones know we don’t live in that utopia.

We live in a world where the media giants, the consolidated empires like the Sinclair Broadcast Group, massage and filter and repeat ad nauseum the “truth” they deem fit to share.

Few media sources disseminate outright lies and fabrications. There’s an element of “truth” in every story, whether you find it on Fox News, Rachel Maddow’s show or The New York Times.  (I can hear my liberal friends howling “you can’t compare Fox News and The New York Times in the same breath!”)

What’s new is the relatively recent attack on the “truth” our commander-in-chief doesn’t like.  He prefers the way Fox News massages the “truth” rather than the mainstream media that criticizes him, even trying to punish journalists with whom he disagrees.

But don’t be fooled.  Both Fox News and The New York Times massage the truth to fit a worldview that they want you, the news consumer, to digest and accept.

One small example.

In the Spring of 2014, I read a New York Times story online that referred to the Gaza Strip as “occupied.” This story was published years after the State of Israel had formally removed its settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005, and Israel’s position was that it no longer “occupied” Gaza.

I was shocked and pleasantly surprised that The New York Times was not parroting Israel’s line, but instead acknowledging international law in a back-handed sort of way. Under international law, since Israel maintains “effective control” over the people of Gaza, it occupies the Gaza Strip.

A few hours later I returned to that same article online and found that the Editors had removed the term “occupied” and “occupation,” followed by a short disclaimer at the bottom noting that the original version had been a mistake. Over the next month, I engaged in a volley of letters back and forth with the Editors about this change. The New York Times Editors’ response to me is here.

Anyone who has been following The New York Times’ coverage of Israel-Palestine for any length of time understands that the paper massages the facts, at times more subtly than at other times, to favor Israel’s perspective.

If Americans are interested in the “truth” as presented by Israel and The New York Times, then some facts will be highlighted and other facts ignored or deliberately buried, as in the case of Gaza.

The Gaza Strip is occupied; the State of Israel is the occupation power; the future of the Palestinians and Israelis depends on Americans understanding the facts.

A good place to begin is by watching The Occupation of the American Mind, Israel’s Public Relations War in the United States. (The video link is here.)

Then let’s tell The New York Times and every media outlet that we want the FACTS. With the facts we will be the judge of what is the truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Media, Uncategorized, Video

“Occupation” or “Colonization”?

Professor and historian Ilan Pappe is well-respected and condemned at the same time. He’s one of the new historians who has brought to light the ugly truth of the Zionists’ cleansing and colonization of Palestine.  His book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, is a must read for anyone who truly wants to learn about the history of Israel / Palestine.

Unfortunately, I must disagree with Professor Pappe’s current call to jettison the term “occupation” in favor of “colonization”.  Listen to his explanation here.

He’s absolutely correct …. an occupation should be considered a short-term, temporary state of affairs, and Israel’s 50-year occupation of Palestine has far-exceeded the limits of a lawful occupation.

But jettisoning the term “occupation” is not the answer. Under international law, the occupier has responsibilities and duties to those subjected to his occupation. Under international law, the victims of occupation have rights and claims against the occupier.

The State of Israel has been waging a stealth lawfare campaign for many years to convince the world that it is not occupying Palestine.

The answer is not to cave and agree with Israel that there is no occupation.

Instead, Professor Michael Lynk has the answer.  He’s the U.N. special rapporteur for the Palestinian territories.  Professor Lynk is urging the United Nations to examine Israel’s prolonged occupation to determine if it is an unlawful occupation.  This is the right strategy to pursue in my opinion.  I hope Professor Pappe and others concerned about Israel’s prolonged occupation will read Professor Lynk’s report, and join his effort.

michael_lynk

Special Rapporteur S. Michael Lynk

Professor Lynk recommends:

The Special Rapporteur recommends that the Government of Israel bring a complete end to the 50 years of occupation of the Palestinian territories in as expeditious a time period as possible, under international supervision.

The Special Rapporteur also recommends that the United Nations General Assembly:

  • Commission a United Nations study on the legality of Israel’s continued occupation of the Palestinian territory;
  • Consider the advantages of seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the question of the legality of the occupation;
  • Consider commissioning a legal study on the ways and means that UN Member States can and must fulfill their obligations and duties to ensure respect for international law, including the duty of non-recognition, the duty to cooperate to bring to an end a wrongful situation and the duty to investigate and prosecute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.
  • Consider the adoption of a Uniting for Peace resolution with respect to the Question of Palestine, in the event that there is a determination that Israel’s role as occupier is no longer lawful.

3 Comments

Filed under Israel, Occupation, People, Uncategorized, United Nations, Video

Prolonged Occupation or Illegal Occupant?

michael_lynk

Special Rapporteur S. Michael Lynk

Professor Michael Lynk’s commentary was first published on May 16, 2018 on EJIL: Talk! …. the Blog of the European Journal of International Law.  He raises a novel argument — that the international legal community should consider whether or not Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestine has crossed some legal line, resulting in an illegal occupation. Professor Lynk posits a 4-part test to determine the answer. His commentary is reprinted below in full.*

Michael Lynk is an associate professor at the Faculty of Law, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. He teaches labour law, human rights law and constitutional law. In March 2016, the United Nations Human Rights Council appointed him as Special Rapporteur for the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967

“An unresolved question in international humanitarian law is whether an occupying power – whose authority as occupant may have initially been lawful – can cross a bright red line into illegality because it is acting contrary to the fundamental tenets of international law dealing with the laws of occupation.  This question has become especially relevant in light of several prolonged occupations in the modern world, including the 50-year-old Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territory.

The principal instruments of international humanitarian law, including the 1907 Hague Regulations, the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention and the 1977 Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, are silent on this question. However, a purposive reading of these instruments, together with the foundational tenets of international humanitarian and human rights law, leads to the conclusion that an occupying power whose intent is to turn occupation into annexation and conquest becomes an illegal occupant.

In my October 2017 report to the United Nations General Assembly as Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, I argue that a four-part test can be derived from general principles of international law, including the laws of occupation, to determine whether the status of an occupying power has become illegal. Violating any one of these four parts of the test could establish the occupying power as an illegal occupant. This builds upon previous studies done by E. BenvenistiO. Ben-Naftali, A. Gross & K. Michaeli; and A. Gross.

Before laying out the four-part test, it is important to note that some international law commentators have advanced the proposition that a lengthy period of occupation – a prolonged occupation – should qualify as a special category under the laws of occupation. In the circumstances of a prolonged occupation, it has been said by these commentators that the laws of occupation may have to be modified to enable the occupying power to maintain an effective rule over the territory in light of evolving administrative needs and emerging social and economic developments. As such, they opine that the conservationist principle at the heart of occupation law would need to be interpreted flexibly.

While prolonged occupation may be a useful descriptive term to capture the existence of a lengthy occupation, it is not appropriate as a distinct legal category within the laws of occupation in the absence of an analysis as to why the occupation has lasted so long and whether the occupying power is still administering the occupation in good faith and with a steady determination to hand the entire occupied territory back to the sovereign – the people – in as short and as reasonable a time period as possible. Otherwise, the concept of prolonged occupation may well become a legal guise that masks a de facto colonial exercise and defeats the transient and exceptional nature which occupations are intended to be.

The four parts of the proposed test are:

(i) An Occupying Power cannot annex any of the Occupied Territory

In the modern world, an occupying power cannot, under any circumstances, acquire the right to conquer, annex or gain sovereign title over any part of the territory under its occupation. This is one of the most well-established principles of modern international law and enjoys universal endorsement. According to Oppenheim, belligerent occupation does not yield so much as an atom of sovereignty in the authority of the occupant: A. Gross: The Writing on the Wall (2017), at 8.

Beginning with UNSC resolution 242 in November 1967, the Security Council has endorsed the principle of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory” by war or by force on at least nine occasions, most recently in December 2016. The United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed this principle in the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States. In the Wall Advisory Opinion in 2004, the ICJ held, at para. 87, that the: “…illegality of territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force” has acquired the status of customary international law.

Israel’s de jure annexation of East Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank in 1967 (by a Cabinet decision) and 1980 (by a Knesset vote) is, ipso facto, a violation of the non-annexation principle, as reflected in the laws of occupation. Shortly after the Knesset vote, the United Nations Security Council in August 1980 censured Israel “in the strongest terms” for the Knesset vote, affirmed that Israel’s actions were in breach of international law, and that Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem was “null and void” and “must be rescinded forthwith.” Israel remains non-compliant with all of the United Nations’ resolutions on the annexation of Jerusalem, there are presently about 210,000 Israeli settlers living in East Jerusalem and Prime Minister Netanyahu has stated that Israel intends to keep all of Jerusalem permanently. Beyond Jerusalem, Israel is actively establishing the de facto annexation of parts of the West Bank through its thickening settlement enterprise, as noted by the ICJ in para. 121 of the Wall Advisory Opinion and by Professor Omar Dajani.

Israel’s predominant reply-arguments are that it has a superior title to East Jerusalem and the West Bank because they were acquired in a defensive war and because Jordan was never the true sovereign at the time of the 1967 war. In response, the absolute rule against the acquisition of territory by force makes no distinction as to whether the territory was occupied through a war of self-defence or a war of aggression; annexation is prohibited in both circumstances: S. Korman, The Right of Conquest (1996), pp. 259-60. And, as the 2016 commentary of the International Committee of the Red Cross states, in para. 324, the legal status of occupation does not require the existence of a prior legitimate sovereign over the territory in question.

(ii) An Occupation is inherently temporary, and the Occupying Power must seek to end the occupation as soon as reasonably possible.

Occupation is by definition a temporary and exceptional situation where the occupying power assumes the role of a de facto administrator of the territory until conditions allow for the return of the territory to the sovereign. In the words of Jean Pictet, at p. 275, this is what distinguishes occupation from annexation. Because of the absolute prohibition against the acquisition of territory by force, the occupying power is prohibited from ruling the territory on a permanent or even an indefinite basis. While the laws of occupation do not set out a specific length of time for the lawful duration of an occupation, the purposive conclusion to be drawn is that the territory is to be returned to the sovereign power – the people of the territory – in as reasonable and expeditious a time period as possible, so as to honour the right of those people to self-determination. (As  UNSC Resolution 1483 (22 May 2003), dealing with the American-led occupation of Iraq, noted, the occupying powers committed to return the governance of Iraq to its people “as soon as possible.”) Indeed, the longer the occupation, the greater the justification that the occupying power must satisfy to defend its continuing presence in the occupied territory.

The duration of the 50-year-old Israeli occupation is without precedent or parallel in today’s world. Modern occupations that have broadly adhered to the strict principles of temporariness, non-annexation, trusteeship and good faith have not exceeded 10 years, including the American occupation of Japan, the Allied occupation of western Germany and the American-led occupation of Iraq. Every Israeli government since 1967 has pursued the continuous growth of the settlements, and the scale of the financial, military and political resources committed to the enterprise belies any intention to make the occupation temporary. As Professor Gershon Shafir has observed at pp. 155 and 161 in A Half Century of Occupation(2017): “temporariness remains an Israeli subterfuge for creating permanent facts on the ground”, with Israel able to employ a seemingly indeterminate nature of the occupation’s end-point to create a ‘permanent temporariness’ that intentionally forestalls any meaningful exercise of self-determination by the Palestinians.

(iii) During the Occupation, the Occupying Power is to act in the best interests of the people under Occupation

The occupying power, throughout the duration of an occupation, is required to govern in the best interests of the people under occupation, subject only to the legitimate security requirements of the occupying military authority. This principle has been likened to a trust or fiduciary relationship in domestic and international law, where the dominant authority is required to act in the interests of the protected person or entity above all else: A. Gross, The Writing on the Wall (2017), at pp. 26-29. The 1907 Hague Regulations, the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention and modern body of international human rights instruments contain a number of provisions which protect the lives, property, natural resources, institutions, civil life, fundamental human rights and latent sovereignty of the people under occupation, while curbing the security powers of the occupying power to those genuinely required to safely administer the occupation. Accordingly, the occupying power is prohibited from administering the occupation in a self-serving or avaricious manner and it must act in a manner consistent with its trustee responsibilities.

The pervasive barriers and restrictions in the civil and commercial life of the Palestinians have created a disfigured territorial space, resulting in a highly dependent and strangled economy, mounting impoverishment and receding hope for a reversal of fortune for the foreseeable future. According to recent reports by the World Bank, the United NationsB’Tselem, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Badil, the Palestinians in the West Bank endure distinctly inferior civil, legal and social conditions compared to Israeli settlers; they suffer from significant restrictions on their freedom of movement and a denial to access to water and natural resources; Israel has imposed a deeply discriminatory land planning and housing permit system to support its settlement enterprise; and a number of West Bank communities live under the threat of forcible transfer and land confiscation. Palestinians in East Jerusalemand Gaza also endure distressing living conditions occasioned by the occupation.

(iv) The Occupying Power must act in good faith

The principle of good faith is a cardinal rule of treaty interpretation in the international legal system and has become an integral part of virtually all legal relationships in modern international law. The principle requires states to carry out their duties and obligations in an honest, loyal, reasonable, diligent and fair manner, and with the aim of fulfilling the purposes of the legal responsibility, including an agreement or treaty. Conversely, the good faith principle also prohibits states from participating in acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the obligation or engaging in any abuse of rights that would mask an illegal act or the evasion of the undertaking.

Accordingly, an occupying power is required to govern the territory in good faith, which can be measured by its compliance with the following two obligations: (i) its conformity with the specific precepts of international humanitarian law and international human rights law applicable to an occupation; and (ii) its conformity with any specific directions issued by the United Nations or other authoritative bodies pertaining to the occupation.

Israel has been deemed to be in breach of many of the rules of international humanitarian and human rights law throughout the occupation. Apart from its illegal annexation of East Jerusalem, its settlement enterprise has been repeatedly characterized as illegal by the United Nations Security Council. As well, the prohibited use of collective punishment has been regularly employed by Israel through the demolition of Palestinian homes of families related to those suspected of terrorism or security breaches, and by extended closures of Palestinian communities. Additionally, it is in non-compliance with more than 40 resolutions of the United Nations Security Council adopted since 1967 with respect to its occupation.

Namibia Advisory Opinion

In 1971, the International Court of Justice, in its Namibia Advisory Opinion, stated that annexation by a mandatory power is illegal, the mandatory must act as a trustee for the benefit of the peoples of the territory, it must fulfil its obligations in good faith, and the end result of the mandate must be self-determination and independence. It also held that the breach of the mandatory power’s fundamental obligations under international law can render its continuing presence in the mandate territory illegal, notwithstanding that the Covenant of the League of Nations (Article 22) was silent on this issue. The ICJ found South Africa to have become an illegal mandatory as a result of its aspirations for annexation, its prolonged stay, its failure as a trustee, and its bad faith administration.

The same reasoning would apply, mutatis mutandis, to a determination as to whether an occupying power is still the lawful occupant. Although mandates are governed by the Covenant and occupations are regulated primarily by the Fourth Geneva Convention, they are different branches of the same tree. Both South Africa (as a mandatory power) and Israel (as the occupying power) were/are prime examples of alien rule, the governing power in both cases was/is responsible for respecting the right to self-determination, annexation in both cases was/is strictly prohibited, and the international community on both cases was/is responsible for the close supervision of the alien rule and for bringing this rule to a successful conclusion.

Conclusion

A determination that Israel – or any occupying power whose administration of the occupation has breached one or more of the fundamental principles – has become an illegal occupant would elevate the duty on the international community to bring the occupation to a successful and speedy close. Among other benefits, such a determination would re-establish the framework of international law as the principled path to a just and durable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

*     I didn’t ask permission to republish this commentary, preferring to ask forgiveness later if I’ve overstepped.  The original commentary can be accessed here.

2 Comments

Filed under Israel, Occupation, People, Uncategorized, United Nations

District Court slaps anti-boycott state law

A big day for Americans who believe in peaceful, non-violent protest such as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

A teacher from Kansas is standing up for her right to boycott Israeli products, and taking the State of Kansas to federal court.

The following excerpts are from the district court’s opinion.

First, STATE OF KANSAS PASSES ANTI-BOYCOTT LAW:

In June 2017, Kansas enacted House Bill 2409 (“the Kansas Law”). This law requires all state contractors to certify that they are not engaged in a boycott of Israel. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 75-3740f(a).

The Kansas Law defines a “boycott” as:  [E]ngaging in a refusal to deal, terminating business activities or performing other actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with persons or entities doing business in Israel or in territories controlled by Israel, if those actions are taken either: (1) In compliance with or adherence to calls for a boycott of Israel other than those boycotts to which 50 U.S.C. § 4607(c)1  applies; or (2) in a manner that discriminates on the basis of nationality, national origin or religion, and that is not based on a valid business reason . . . .

Second, KANSAS TEACHER DECIDES TO BOYCOTT ISRAEL:

In May 2017, plaintiff Esther Koontz began boycotting Israeli businesses. She first became motivated to boycott Israel in 2016 when she saw a presentation about conditions in Israel and Palestine. And on July 6, 2017, Mennonite Church USA passed a resolution calling on Mennonites to take steps to redress the injustice and violence that both Palestinians and Israelis have experienced. Ms. Koontz is a member of a Mennonite Church organization. Specifically, this organization’s resolution called on Mennonites to boycott products associated with Israel’s occupation of Palestine. As a consequence, plaintiff decided she would not buy any products or services from Israeli companies or from any company who operates in Israeli occupied Palestine.

Esther Koontz Kansas teacherEsther Koontz, Kansas teacher, credit to ACLU

Ms. Koontz was qualified to train math teachers and accepted for employment, but when she refused to sign the state’s certification that she would not boycott Israel, Kansas wouldn’t hire her.

Twenty-two states—Maryland, Texas, Florida, Arizona, Illinois, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, New Jersey, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Alabama, Colorado, Indiana, California, Michigan, Texas, Nevada, Kansas, and North Carolina—have so far passed some form of legislation against boycotts of Israel.  Wisconsin makes it twenty-three.

The Intercept noted that the attempts to punish and repress speech and activism aimed at ending the Israeli occupation are so widespread that the Center for Constitutional Rights has dubbed this movement “the Palestine Exception” to free speech rights in the U.S.  Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md) wanted to send violators of his anti-boycott legislation to prison.

Ms. Koontz — with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union — decided to sue Kansas claiming its anti-boycott law violates the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.  Along with her complaint, she asked the Federal District Court to enjoin the State of Kansas from enforcing its anti-boycott law while the case is pending.

The attorneys for Kansas argued her request for an injunction shouldn’t be granted because Ms. Koontz had never requested a waiver from the anti-boycott law. If she had, the state says it would have granted her a waiver.

The Court ruled January 30, 2018 that a person doesn’t have to apply for a waiver in this type of case because of the chilling effect the Kansas law has on our First Amendment liberties.  And Judge Crabtree decided that Ms. Koontz is likely to win her case!

The conduct the Kansas Law aims to regulate is inherently expressive. It is easy enough to associate plaintiff’s conduct with the message that the boycotters believe Israel should improve its treatment of Palestinians. And boycotts—like parades—have an expressive quality. Forcing plaintiff to disown her boycott is akin to forcing plaintiff to accommodate Kansas’s message of support for Israel.

I wonder if any of the other anti-boycott state laws have been challenged in court. Maybe this challenge from Kansas will send a sobering message to states that may be considering adopting such laws.  “Think twice before you get on AIPAC’s and Israel’s bandwagon. Don’t tread on Americans’ First Amendment rights!” 

Read the court’s opinion in full. This is a case to watch closely. Thank you Ms. Koontz!

3 Comments

Filed under People, Politics, Uncategorized, US Policy

Dystopia

A question for my friends who are history buffs.

Were there any journalists in Germany in the 1930s writing about the shocking and disgusting actions occurring in the concentration camps? I’m talking about contemporaneous reporting that provided the truth behind the barbwired fences.

Dachau

Inmates in Dachau line up. This photograph was on the cover of the Munchen Illustierte Press edition on July 16, 1933. Photo credit: USHMM Photo Arhives

Although I found this photo published in 1933, my hunch is that the German people were not informed about the atrocities occurring in the camps — the medical experimentation, the severe deprivations of food and other basics of life, and the gas chambers.  The Germans didn’t know about all of that, right?  (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

In Israel today, thanks to journalists like Gideon Levy and Amira Hass, the average Israeli has access to the brutal facts about Israel’s occupation and 10+ years blockade of Gaza, the largest open air prison on the planet.

Although Israel has prevented Israeli journalists from entering Gaza for many years, reports are getting out, like this report [Gaza Kids Live in Hell: A Psychologist Tells of Rampant Sexual Abuse, Drugs and Despair] from Israeli psychologist, Mohammed Mansour.

Mohammed Mansour

Mohammed Mansour, a psychologist who volunteers in Gaza with Physicians for Human Rights. Tomer Appelbaum – Hareetz

Gideon Levy writes: Mansour describes dystopia, a society that is falling apart. Devastation. Gazans demonstrate astonishing endurance, spirit and solidarity in their families, villages, neighborhoods and camps, after all the plagues they have suffered: refugees, children of refugees, grandchildren of refugees and great-grandchildren of refugees, are falling apart.

Mansour described an all-out struggle for survival, with addiction to painkillers as the last refuge. Nothing is left of the Gaza we knew. Nothing reminds us of the Gaza that we loved. “It will be difficult to restore Gaza’s humanity. Gaza is hell,” says Mansour.

This is a man-made, evil catastrophe just as Hitler’s concentration camps were …. there is no difference, and no justification.

Maybe Germans didn’t know what their leader was doing to an entire generation of Jews secreted away in those concentration camps. The Israelis today have no excuse for the state’s inhumane cruelty perpetrated on several generations of Palestinians. History will judge Israel, its leaders and its people harshly, as it should.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Gaza, Israel, Media, Occupation, People, Uncategorized