Arab-American scholars back ASA boycott as legal threats start pouring in

ActivismIsrael/PalestineUS Politics
on 53 Comments

ASA logo tiff (1) copyThe landmark decision by the American Studies Association (ASA) to boycott Israeli academic institutions has lead to legal threats, reports of intimidation aimed at pro-boycott scholars and pushback from those in support of the ASA’s decision. The latest is that a group of prominent Arab-Americans have issued a statement in support of the ASA decision, while an Israeli legal center has said that a lawsuit is in the pipeline.

Earlier this week, Palestinian and Arab-American scholars released a missive in support of the ASA boycott, which is part of the larger boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel.  The statement condemned the “hate” that the ASA has been a target of and expressed appreciation at the ASA’s “recognition that BDS is a legitimate, non-violent tool of resistance by peoples enduring settler-colonialism, occupation, and apartheid.”  Some scholars who signed the letter have already reported receiving hate mail because of it.

It was signed by dozens of prominent figures, including Rashid Khalidi, George Bisharat, Ali Abunimah, Noura Erakat, Nadia Hijab and more. Here’s more from the statement:

By broadening the possibility for critical discussion and debate about the US, Palestine, and Israel, the ASA’s stand has created a new opening that will help to challenge the attack on academic freedom that Palestinian and Arab-American scholars and our allies encounter in the US.

We strongly uphold the principles of free speech and association guaranteed in US jurisprudence and demand that the legal protections offered by these guarantees be extended to our colleagues in the ASA without delay.

We urge all of our colleagues of whatever ethnicity to support the ASA by:

-Becoming a member of the ASA and/or making a donation to the organization,

-Encouraging your department to join the ASA.

-Writing a letter of support to the ASA.

A petition has also been set up for those who agree with the statement.

(Image: Carlos Latuff)

(Image: Carlos Latuff)

Meanwhile, Shurat HaDin, an Israeli legal group, has said that they will sue the ASA if they don’t cancel their boycott.  Yesterday, the Jerusalem Post reported that Shurat HaDin, a group that has links to the Israeli government and the Mossad, sent a letter to the ASA claiming that the academic boycott violates anti-discrimination laws in the U.S. since it targets Israelis and Jews.

That threat has elicited major pushback from the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the ASA.  Today, the CCR issued a statement decrying the threat:

This threat is the latest in a pattern of legal bullying that has escalated in the U.S. as the movement for Palestinian rights has grown. An academic boycott in fact violates no anti-discrimination laws because it does not target any individual or institution based on their Jewish identity or Israeli citizenship. Rather, it is aimed at institutions with direct relationships to the Israeli government. Shurat HaDin’s attempt to paint this principled action as anti-Semitic and discriminatory against Israelis is not only legally bankrupt, but also trivializes important struggles against anti-Semitism and all other forms of racism.

The ASA also released a statement strongly pushing back against Shurat HaDin’s threat. Here’s ASA President Curtis Marez’s statement in full:

We will not be intimidated by Shurat HaDin and its legal threats.

Unlike in Israel, where criticism of the government’s policies towards the Palestinians is increasingly criminalized, our boycott decision is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Thankfully, in the United States we still have the right to speak out against Israel’s racial discrimination against Palestinians. As an organization we have the absolute right to oppose the discriminatory practices of Israeli academic institutions and their complicity in Israeli human rights abuses.  Everyone knows the First Amendment protects not just speech but conduct.  Shurat HaDin’s claims are particularly odious as our interactions with individual Israeli academics are likely to be more frequent rather than less in the years ahead.

About Alex Kane

Alex Kane is a freelance journalist and graduate student at New York University's Near East Studies and Journalism programs. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

53 Responses

  1. Justpassingby
    January 10, 2014, 1:43 pm

    Threats for supporting a boycott? Wtf is this? A tribe?!

    • Hostage
      January 10, 2014, 3:54 pm

      Threats for supporting a boycott? Wtf is this? A tribe?!

      Rosa Parks was fined $14 for violating the rules governing “colored” passengers on the buses in the city of Montgomery, Alabama. In March 1956 Martin Luther King was fined $500 for conducting an illegal boycott. But in the end those laws were declared unconstitutional. link to historytoday.com

      In general, any group action in restraint of trade can be viewed as illegal under the US antitrust laws. Congress has the delegated power to regulate commerce, but the Courts have carved-out 1st Amendment exceptions for political protests, e.g. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 102 S.Ct. 3409, 73 L.Ed.2d 1215, held that the 1st Amendment prevented the government from prohibiting politically motivated civil rights boycotts.

      • pabelmont
        January 10, 2014, 6:15 pm

        Hostage — has NAACP v Claiborne been tested since decided? What about the USA’s 1977 law against participation in the Arab Boycott of Israel?

      • Hostage
        January 10, 2014, 7:58 pm

        Hostage — has NAACP v Claiborne been tested since decided? What about the USA’s 1977 law against participation in the Arab Boycott of Israel?

        NAACP v Claiborne has been cited as a controlling authority in dozens of cases, and it has not been overturned in connection with a civil rights/discrimination boycott case.

        It is really just an affirmative 1st amendment defense against laws like the Sherman anti-trust act, and it has failed in a number of strike cases where the objective wasn’t obtaining rights, but rather obtaining economic benefits using a method that the Courts held violated anti-trust laws, e.g. Federal Trade Commission, Petitioner, v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association, et al., Petitioners, v. Federal Trade Commission. link to law.cornell.edu

        The Arab boycott statute regulates and restricts boycotts undertaken by foreign states, that the US government doesn’t support. It doesn’t target boycotts by private individuals or NGOs, It’s full of loopholes. For example, there were provisions that allow companies to comply with the boycott when they are sourcing materials and etc. for delivery to one of the Arab League member states. It prohibits companies from participating in the boycott when doing business with third party states and requires them to report on efforts by Arab League member states to enforce the boycott.

  2. amigo
    January 10, 2014, 2:02 pm

    Let the zios bring on the law suits.

    Let Court TV be the venue.Imagine 65 years of zionist law breaking beamed right into dick and Jane,s living room.

    Hell , lets see the dershownit defending the guilty.He loses the plot when shown to be a liar and a fraud.

    • seafoid
      January 10, 2014, 2:34 pm

      Did shurat ha din win any of its lawsuits? Citing anti jewish discrimination is rich considering what goes on in the territories. It is the height of cowardice really, persecuting non Jews in the West Bank and then suing on the basis of anti discrimination law in the US.

      • amigo
        January 10, 2014, 3:44 pm

        “Did shurat ha din win any of its lawsuits? Citing anti jewish discrimination is rich considering what goes on in the territories. It is the height of cowardice really, persecuting non Jews in the West Bank and then suing on the basis of anti discrimination law in the US.”seafoid.

        That,s zionism for you.

        Maybe it,s the reason someone came up with the word chutzpah.

        And yes , it gets my blood boiling but I like to think it is the product of desperation rather than cowardice.Although the latter is not in short supply in zioland.

      • seafoid
        January 10, 2014, 4:01 pm

        Yeah amigo but Zionism is run by a small group with nothing to offer the rest of the world. They are vicious but they have no sustainable popular base outside Judaism and the fundi Christians. They didn’t have any land, you see.

      • Hostage
        January 10, 2014, 4:04 pm

        Did shurat ha din win any of its lawsuits?

        No those cluless morons are just toothless ankle biters out for a headline.

        They don’t even seem to realize that private law firms don’t have any legal standing or basis to initiate actions in the International Criminal Court and that it doesn’t handle “lawsuits”, e.g. Israeli NGO to sue PA for terrorism: Organization urges terror victims to testify on Facebook for ICC lawsuit in ‘Terrorizing Terror’ campaign. Chairwoman: PA starting war against soldiers, we’ll defend them link to ynetnews.com

      • seafoid
        January 10, 2014, 4:27 pm

        I’d love to go on the Shurat Hadin ultimate mission to Israel before it all disappears.

        link to israellawcenter.org

      • amigo
        January 10, 2014, 7:16 pm

        “Did shurat ha din win any of its lawsuits?”seafoid

        According to the article on y,net they have successfully sued for 1 billion and have collected 120 million.I could not find any info to support their claim or refute it.I think they are lying scuzz.

        Maybe our resident Law experts can come up with some answers.

        Good night from Rainy Ireland.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 10, 2014, 11:44 pm

        ireland? yeah! i love ireland.

      • SQ Debris
        January 11, 2014, 12:38 pm

        Toothless? Get real. All shurat ha din needs to do is file suit in a state that lacks a SLAP law (preventing frivolous litigation) and it can vampire bleed ASA for years. In today’s America, right and wrong are irrelevant in the courts. It comes down to who can afford to litigate the longest. Think Adelson and the political campaigns. ASA is looking at a potentially very costly “price tag” attack.

      • Hostage
        January 11, 2014, 4:10 pm

        Toothless? Get real. All shurat ha din needs to do is file suit in a state that lacks a SLAP law (preventing frivolous litigation)

        Once again, there is a Supreme Court ruling that says the 1st Amendment preempts any state law designed to prevent a civil rights or political boycott. So there will be an obvious problem keeping all this litigation going, i.e. failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

      • Hostage
        January 12, 2014, 7:37 am

        Yeah, they have won lawsuits. Big ones.

        They haven’t won a single case against a US citizen engaged in BDS.

        Even when they lose the legal harassment is enough to scare people, which is the point. Lawfare.

        Again, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government and the states cannot adopt any law aimed at preventing political or civil rights boycotts. It doesn’t pose a credible threat in the USA.

      • Mike_Konrad
        January 10, 2014, 8:07 pm

        Yeah, they have won lawsuits. Big ones.

        link to israellawcenter.org

        Even when they lose the legal harassment is enough to scare people, which is the point. Lawfare.

        The threat of Lawfare is what stopped the 2011 flotilla.
        link to commentarymagazine.com

        They got cellphones cut off. They got port rights withdrawn. They got insurance shut off.

        The brought down the 2011 flotilla without firing a shot. With no deaths like the Mami Mavara, the media was not outraged.

        Give them credit.

        Are they guilty of overreach.

        You bet! But they are effective.

  3. Sycamores
    January 10, 2014, 5:30 pm

    gathering info on Professor Lynch the BDS supporter in Austrialia who is also under attack by Suhrat Hadin.

    the university of sydney has bascically turn it back on Professor Lynch. The University has also recently signed a research collaboration agreement with Technion University in Israel. 10 January 2014 link to sydney.edu.au

    Professor Jake Lynch Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies link to sydney.edu.au

    In 2012, Professor Lynch refused the permission to use his name on an application under the Sir Zelman Cowan fellowship program. He refused to sponsor Professor Don Avon of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem which is heavily involved in occupation and colonisation. link to transcend.org

    BDS supporter denied ARC grant
    link to honisoit.com

    link to twitter.com since early december he’s tweeting in Russian

    • Les
      January 11, 2014, 12:13 pm

      The Australian government does what it can to shut off Professor Lynch’s free speech rights. Where’s the outrage?

  4. Mike_Konrad
    January 10, 2014, 7:23 pm

    The Ribicoff Amendment of 1976 is almost airtight.

    New York State law is even more comprehensive and adds Criminal as well as civil penalties.

    Certain groups have already stated that they will sue in NY State courts first to get a precedent set. Only then will they go to Federal Courts.

    (Israel Law Center Report)

    As an example, the law in New York, where so many ASA members reside and work, defines boycotts as “unlawful discriminatory practice” and, that any decision to “refuse to buy from, sell to or trade with, or otherwise discriminate against any person, because of…creed…[or ]national origin”, is unlawful and even places secondary actors, aiding the policy, under liability. Even calling for or inciting a boycott against someone because they are Israeli could subject you to criminal prosecution.

    Whoever framed these laws were quite thorough.

    You might win in Ohio, but there is no way you will win in New York. New York’s Laws are tougher – and just try making your case before a jury that will have a considerable number of Jews or born-again Christians.

    THE ASA BOYCOTT – apart from its hypocritical state – WAS JUST DUMB.

    The ASA will be destroyed over this. Some officers might be jailed.

    Essentially, Free Speech is NOT allowed in this matter since the laws define any free speech in this arena as either conspiracy to restrain trade, or promote discrimination.

    The USA is not Europe. Anti-Israel will not sell.

    Any jury will have either born-again Christians or Jews. Acquittal is impossible. And they will have the deep pockets to keep re-trying you till a judgement is made.

    The laws are very, very thorough.

    It is a crime to even FAIL TO REPORT a request for boycott. Not alone join a boycott, but to even fail to report a request to join a boycott.

    • Mike_Konrad
      January 10, 2014, 7:55 pm

      link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

      The EAR requires U.S. persons to report quarterly any requests they have received to take any action to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott.

      The TRA requires taxpayers to report “operations” in, with, or related to a boycotting country or its nationals and requests received to participate in or cooperate with an international boycott. The Treasury Department publishes a quarterly list of “boycotting countries.”

      It is a crime to even fail to report a boycott request.

      The Ribicoff Amendment is borderline totalitarian. NY State law is even stronger where it may be a crime to even suggest a boycott.

      Anyone who advocates for a boycott of Israel is taking their life (by virtue of prison time), their fortune (by virtue of civil penalties), and their career (by virtue of disenfranchisement from professional organizations after conviction) in their hands.

      Right or wrong, the law is that severe in this matter.

      I am not in favor of boycotts; but even I admit the laws are borderline totalitarian in this matter – and by design.

      Any American who gets involved in a public boycott of Israel is really acting stupidly.

      ======================================
      BTW: How come my posts are not archived

      • LeaNder
        January 12, 2014, 11:35 am

        Mike Konrad, it feels that your linked jewishvirtuallibrary article or the subject mainly concerns trade, exports. Legal definition company.

        Would a professional association be defined as company at all?

        Here are some examples of boycott requests.

        “Wikipedia at the moment still claims” that the law also concerns “unincorporated associations”, but thes source given does not confirm that in any way. Here is the document given as reference in this context.

        Thanks Hostage, as a nitwit on US affairs I simply interested in what he really alluded to.

      • American
        January 12, 2014, 12:51 pm

        ”Any American who gets involved in a public boycott of Israel is really acting stupidly.”’…..Mike_Konrad

        lol….you have no idea how stupid we Americans can get. The same ones that unquestioningly accepted the pro Israel propaganda of the past will be the same ones who also adopt the anti Israel message when the worm turns.
        If there’s one thing you can count on its Americans following whatever the newest and latest trend is.

    • Hostage
      January 12, 2014, 9:12 am

      The Ribicoff Amendment of 1976 is almost airtight.

      LOL! The Ribicoff Amendment to the 1976 Tax Reform Act (TRA) doesn’t contain a single legal prohibition. It simply contains tax penalties. It doesn’t apply to non-government civil society initiated boycotts at all, and doesn’t provide a private right of action for Shurat HaDin to initiate enforcement. It only applies to boycotts initiated by Arab League member state governments against the State of Israel.

      President Abbas has a trade agreement with Israel that was endorsed by the Arab League and has very wisely refused to join or publicly endorse the Palestinian civil society boycott of Israel in any way that would subject it to US government sanctions. He only boycotts the illegal settlements in his own country, not Israel, so the Ribicoff Amendment does not apply to supporters of his boycott campaign.

      Certain groups have already stated that they will sue in NY State courts first to get a precedent set. Only then will they go to Federal Courts.

      The New York Statute, Section 296(13) of New York State Executive Law Article 15 (Human Rights Law) stipulates that it does not apply to:
      (a) Boycotts connected with labor disputes; or
      (b) Boycotts to protest unlawful discriminatory practices.
      link to dhr.ny.gov

      FYI, the Palestinian civil society boycott was initiated because nothing had been done about the findings contained in the ICJ advisory opinion. Among other things, that included violations by the State of Israel of the Palestinians fundamental right to work and to obtain an education. Those acts of illegal discrimination were specifically addressed in the ASA resolution.

      Furthermore, the US Secretary of State and the State Department Legal Counsel have authored memorandums and advisory opinions that say the establishment of Jewish-only settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, is illegal. Expropriation of Palestinian land and property for the private use of Jewish settlers is a war crime in accordance with Article 28 of the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention and 18 U.S. Code § 2441 – War Crimes. link to law.cornell.edu

      I doubt that any Court in New York will ever put the issue of the ASA boycotting other Americans who live illegally in Little Scarsdale (the Etzion Bloc) and elsewhere in the occupied territories on trial as a violation of New York human rights statutes. If they ever do, I’d pay to watch that one unravel.

  5. Talkback
    January 10, 2014, 7:34 pm

    Oppressing and silencing Palestinians is not enough for the antigentile Apartheid Junta (aka “Jewish state”) and its shepherd dogs.

    • bilal a
      January 10, 2014, 9:44 pm

      Some people do actually talk in this manner:

      Are non-Jews/gentiles permanent slaves to Jews in Olam Habah?
      In the Messianic era the nations will recognize and facilitate Israel’s role as a priestly nation. The imagery used by the Bible suggests servitude, “Foreigners will stand and tend your locks and the sons of the stranger will be you plowmen and your vineyard workers. And you will be called ‘priests of Hashem”‘ “ministers of our G-d” will be said of you. You will eat of the wealth of nations and will pride yourselves in their glory.” (Isaiah 61:5-6, Artscroll)
      link to judaism.stackexchange.com

    • Les
      January 11, 2014, 12:19 pm

      For other Israelis, the crux of a Jewish state lies instead in its adherence to religious principles. Yet here, too, it is difficult to reconcile Israelis’ sense of identity with their government’s actions. Exodus 12:19, 12:48-49; Leviticus 16:29, 17:15, 18:26, 19:34, 24:16; Numbers 9:14-15, 9:19, 9:29-30; Joshua 8:33; and Ezekiel 47:22 all reiterate the assertion that there shall be no distinction between the foreigner and the Israelite: “One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.”

      link to mondoweiss.net

  6. Mike_Konrad
    January 10, 2014, 8:02 pm

    The laws, like them or not, are thorough. They were framed that way.

    The ASA was stupid.

    • Hostage
      January 12, 2014, 7:47 am

      The laws, like them or not, are thorough. They were framed that way.

      The ASA was stupid.

      WTF are you blathering about? The Supreme Court has ruled that political or civil rights boycotts are protected by the “any law” clause of the 1st amendment. That means the federal and state governments can’t “frame” any law to prevent a political or civil rights boycott, because they are a protected form of speech. The ASA was engaged in the exercise of a legally protected right.

  7. abu afak
    January 10, 2014, 9:07 pm

    I’m shocked I tell you, Shocked!

    Would the Arab scholars back a boycott of Egypt for the current Coup de etat?
    Of Saudi Arabia for too many Human Rights violations to name?
    Of SUDAN for either Genocide?
    Of Russia for Carpet-Shelling Chechnya?
    Of Syria for Obvious reasons?
    Of Iran for it’s persecution of Other religions and Gays? (the last prez denying there were any)
    In summary, the Laughable members of the UNHRC!

    What I see is ‘Israel’ (cough) obsessed ‘academes’.
    `

    • aiman
      January 11, 2014, 2:29 am

      The academic institutions in none of these countries is entrenched in the policies of the govt. but are the victims of oppressive rule.

    • RoHa
      January 11, 2014, 3:11 am

      “(the last prez denying there were any [Gays])”

      It seemed to me that he was denying Iran had Gay marches, etc., in the way the West does. He could hardly have ben unaware that his government gave free sex-change operations to those who asked, and hanged some of those who didn’t.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 11, 2014, 11:29 am

        yeah, hasbrats always chop off the end of his statement to twist the meaning (paraphrasing, ‘don’t have gays the way you do’). iran leads the pack in transgender operations, funded by the state. i’m not advocating the way gays are dealt with by the state in iran (at all) but he didn’t deny their existence.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 11, 2014, 6:42 pm

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        Beginning in the mid-1980s, however, transsexual individuals were officially recognized by the government and allowed to undergo sex reassignment surgery. As of 2008, Iran carries out more sex change operations than any other nation in the world except for Thailand. The government provides up to half the cost for those needing financial assistance, and a sex change is recognised on the birth certificate.[1]

        again, i overwhelmingly don’t advocate for the way iran deals with gay people (including persecution), but i think to interpret his words (your think progress link, thanks jon) as denying they exist, is not accurate.

    • Ecru
      January 11, 2014, 3:51 am

      Would the Arab scholars back a boycott of..[insert distraction attempt here]

      Why don’t you get in touch with them and ask?

    • Hostage
      January 11, 2014, 5:40 am

      Would the Arab scholars back a boycott of Egypt for the current Coup de etat?

      In fact, plenty of the Arab Americans who signed the letter were outspoken critics of authoritarian Arab regimes and did complain about human rights violations during the protests in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, and elsewhere. Many of them have demanded the cutoff of foreign assistance funding under the Leahy Act when armed forces anywhere commit the human rights violations you mentioned. Conversely, it’s impossible to get existing sanctions in the law imposed on Israel when it uses US supplied equipment for offensives against neighboring civilians or operates a secret nuclear program in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.

      In summary, the Laughable members of the UNHRC! . . . What I see is ‘Israel’ (cough) obsessed ‘academes’.

      Couldn’t find anything relevant to say about the Arab American scholars, so you put a little boilerplate in there about the UNHRC? You might try Google if you want their opinions on human rights violations during the Arab Spring and before in the places you’ve mentioned:

      Signed:

      Rabab Abdulhadi, Associate Professor, San Francisco State University
      Lila Abu-Lughod, Columbia University.
      Bashir Abu-Manneh, Visiting Assistant Prof., Brown University.
      Ali Abunimah.
      Samer Alatout, Associate Professor.
      Evelyn Alsultany, University of Michigan.
      Paul Amar, University of California Santa Barbara.
      Sam Bahour, Co-editor, Homeland: Oral History of Palestine and Palestinians and political pundit at ePalestine.com
      Riham Barghouti, Teacher, NYC and Founding Member, Adalah-NY
      Moustafa Bayoumi, Associate Professor, Brooklyn College, City University of New York.
      Hatem Bazian, University of California Berkeley and American Muslims for Palestine.
      George Bisharat, Professor of Law, UC Hastings College of the Law.
      Lara Deeb, Scripps College, Department of Anthropology
      Noura Erakat, Freedman Fellow, Temple Law School
      Samera Esmeir, Associate Professor, Department of Rhetoric, University of California Berkeley.
      Leila Farsakh, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Massachusetts Boston.
      Nadia Guessous, Rutgers.
      Layla Azmi Goushey, doctoral student in Adult Education, Teaching and Learning Processes, University of Missouri; Assistant Professor of English, St. Louis Community College.
      Bassam Haddad, Director, Middle East Studies Program, Associate Professor, Department of Public and International Affairs, George Mason University.
      Toufic Haddad, senior teaching fellow, School of Oriental and African Studies.
      Elaine Hagopian, Prof. Emerita of Sociology, Simmons College, Boston.
      Lisa Hajjar, Professor of Sociology, University of California Santa Barbara.
      Wael Hallaq, Columbia University.
      Nadia Hijab, Co-Founder and Director, Al-Shabaka: The Palestinian Policy Network.
      Amira Jarmakani, Georgia State University.
      Rania Jawad, Assistant Professor, Birzeit University.
      Suad Joseph, University of California, Davis
      Nour Joudah, Institute for Palestine Studies.
      Rhoda Kanaaneh, Visiting Researcher, Center for Palestine Studies, Columbia University.
      Remi Kanazi, poet and writer.
      Ahmed Kanna, University of the Pacific
      Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies, Department of History, Columbia University
      Lisa Majaj, Independent Scholar.
      Saree Makdisi, professor of English, University of California Los Angeles.
      Dr. John Makhoul.
      Nadine Naber, Associate Professor, Gender and Women’s Studies, Asian American Studies, University of Illinois, Chicago.
      Dena Qaddumi, Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies; Policy Member, Al-Shabaka: The Palestinian Policy Network.
      Steven Salaita, Associate Professor, Virginia Tech.
      Therese Saliba, Evergreen State College.
      Aseel Sawalha, Department of Anthropology, Fordham University
      Sherene Seikaly, Director, Middle East Studies Center, The American University in Cairo.
      Julie M. Zito, PhD, Professor of Pharmacy and Psychiatry, University of Maryland, Baltimore.

      • abu afak
        January 11, 2014, 10:53 am

        Nice Dump of names withOUT showing what they signed.
        Looks merely like the list for THIS specific topic, NOT anything else you claimed.

        The Arab League, in fact, expressed Solidarity with Sister country Sudan during the First (of Christians/Animists) and early Second (Darfur) GenocideS in Sudan.

        and Israel is Not in violation of any Int’l Law on Nukes.
        Israel’s Nukes were Grandfathered before the NPT even existed, much less signed.

        IF the UNSC has subsequently passed any Resolutions in re Israeli Nukes, one certainly wouldn’t be surprised. That’s the Main business of the UN (and 57 Nation OIC Bloc): Passing ex post facto ‘violations’ against Israel.
        Any serious debater knows the game and grotesque bias of the UN which has been expressed even by Two UN Secretary Generals.

      • Hostage
        January 12, 2014, 10:48 am

        Nice Dump of names withOUT showing what they signed.

        Nice dump of a hypothetical question that didn’t require you to do any legwork. The rest of us have no trouble finding their websites, courses, letters, and editorials. Do your own homework. You could start by acknowledging that Ali Abunimah has written editorials at EI, Al Jazeera, & etc. and delivered lectures from one end of the country to the other on the subject of the Arab Spring and human rights violations under various authoritarian Arab and Muslim regimes.

        and Israel is Not in violation of any Int’l Law on Nukes.
        Israel’s Nukes were Grandfathered before the NPT even existed, much less signed.

        The UN Security Council condemned the premeditated attack on Iraqi nuclear facilities as an act of aggression in clear violation of the UN Charter and international norms by a vote of 15-0. At the same time it called for Israel to immediately place its own nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the IAEA. See S/RES/487 (1981)

        In the Namibia case, and a number of other subsequent cases, the ICJ advised that all UN member states have a binding treaty obligation under Articles 24 and 25 to accept decisions adopted on their behalf by the Security Council and carry them out. It also pointed out that, under the terms of Articles 2(5) and 103:

        In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

        So any alleged conflict with the NPT would be a moot question.

        The Arab League, in fact, expressed Solidarity with Sister country Sudan during the First (of Christians/Animists) and early Second (Darfur) GenocideS in Sudan.

        No, they questioned the validity of the charges that a common plan was formulated at the highest levels of the Government of the Republic of the Sudan to commit genocide and wondered out loud why the ICC charged Bashir with genocide, while the Sudanese minister of defense was not.

        The ICC member states, Jordan, Comoros, Algeria, and Djibouti, indicated that they would arrest Bashir in any event, if he came to their territories in the meantime, e.g. Jordan dissents from Arab position on ICC warrant for Sudan’s Bashir link to sudantribune.com

        In any event a UN Commission, chaired by Judge Antonio Cassese, investigated and determined that, while gross violations of human rights had occurred, Sudan had not pursued a policy of genocide. link to un.org

        IF the UNSC has subsequently passed any Resolutions in re Israeli Nukes, one certainly wouldn’t be surprised. That’s the Main business of the UN (and 57 Nation OIC Bloc): Passing ex post facto ‘violations’ against Israel.

        But the Security Council still managed to find time to write criminal statutes and establish three international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Lebanon as its own subsidiary organs.

        Any serious debater knows the game and grotesque bias of the UN

        Yeah they’ve put lots of other people in jail and help fund criminal tribunals for Sierra Leon, Cambodia, Senegal, & etc. They’ve enacted sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program, but not Israel’s. They’ve been really rough on poor little Israel (not!). Any serious debater would have kept his big mouth shut about the UN Security Council. It gives Israel a free pass.

      • Walid
        January 12, 2014, 11:55 am

        “The Arab League, in fact, expressed Solidarity with Sister country Sudan during the First (of Christians/Animists) and early Second (Darfur) GenocideS in Sudan.”

        Abu afak, would that be the same AL that threw Libya to the dogs and followed it up by doing likewise to Syria and going further by suspending its membership?

      • talknic
        January 12, 2014, 1:07 pm

        abu afak(e) “Any serious debater knows the game and grotesque bias of the UN which has been expressed even by Two UN Secretary Generals”

        Uh huh. Biased in Israel’s favour. The UNSC has given Israel hundreds of OPPORTUNITIES to abide by the binding Laws and binding Articles in the UN Charter that are reaffirmed and emphasized in those resolutions. Israel has failed dismally and claims bias?

        Some ‘serious debaters’ have been shooting up copious amounts of ziocaine laced Hasbara

        Question: What other country has for 60 odd years been in breach of UNSC resolutions?

        Answer: NONE!

        When Iraq occupied Kuwait, the UNSC took action within months.

        Question: What UNSC action has been taken against Israel for more than half a century of illegal facts on the ground in Occupied Arab territories?

        Answer: NONE!

        Question: Is the power company biased when it issues reminders to a customer who fails to meet their contractual obligations?

    • amigo
      January 11, 2014, 8:07 am

      abu afak, the latest dispatch from hasbara centyral gets his/her toes burned on first post.

      Careful where you tread.There are anti Semites everywhere here at MW.

      Take Hostage for instance.He will gobble up all hasbara agents but especially enjoys a Hasbara virgin like yourself.

      • abu afak
        January 11, 2014, 11:30 am

        um amigo, Perhaps you would like to point out Specifically where I “got my toes burned”?

        You can’t mean by the ‘Hostage’ redundantly posting/spamming of the Arab ASA supporters. (instead of a more respectable list of their other Human rights ‘triumphs’ I challenged) .

        A list of Arabs supporting an anti-Israel petition is 100% predictable, and a non-event. (like the Arab League’s support of Genocidal Sudan).

        And what is this “awaiting moderation” nonsense? Does it go on forever (and protect the MW overall drift and harassing contentLess trolls like you who accuse others of being Hasbara agents?), or a trial period?

      • Hostage
        January 12, 2014, 10:55 am

        Perhaps you would like to point out Specifically where I “got my toes burned”?

        Why should we waste time on researching hypothetical charges that only amount to per se libel in the first place? You aren’t very clever or well informed like some of the other ankle biters we host here.

      • Sumud
        January 12, 2014, 11:14 am

        And what is this “awaiting moderation” nonsense?

        Read the comments policy, link at top of page. Comments are moderated.

      • ahhiyawa
        January 12, 2014, 11:48 am

        abu afak, you need to wake up, and fast. Its finally, but ever so slowly sinking into some Israeli heads (possessors of the densest brain matter in the universe) that the game is more or less up, that its only a matter of time between having some version of a Jewish home in Palestine or nothing. Of course, fanatics of all persuasions can deny and rail against the facts, but as John Adams observed: ‘facts are stubborn things.’

        The tragedy of 9/11 and the supreme stupidity of 19 Mar 2003 is as much an Israeli FUBAR as an American screw-up, and its been a worsening geo-political climate for both ever since. If it should prove there are no Mandela’s or de Klerk’s in Israel and Palestine, if Israeli intransigence and racism in the end prove as insanely stubborn as had white Rhodesians, than Israelis have no right to expect any outcome other than a Zimbabwean result, or maybe worse.

      • amigo
        January 12, 2014, 11:54 am

        “And what is this “awaiting moderation” nonsense? Does it go on forever (and protect the MW overall drift and harassing contentLess trolls like you who accuse others of being Hasbara agents?), or a trial period?”abu afak

        I see you brought your boilerplate sledge hammer zio hasbara diplomacy with you.

        Don,t worry too much about the moderator or trial periods,yours will be a short tryst,

      • talknic
        January 12, 2014, 10:02 pm

        abu afak “what is this “awaiting moderation” nonsense? Does it go on forever .. .. “

        Until one proves by example that they do not indulge in antisemitism, hatred, Nakba and/or Holocaust denial etc. Quite a reasonable policy.

        Propagandists like yourself are easy to spot BTW. You afford the opportunity to show readers the holes in your Hasbara.

        Keep up th’ good work!!

  8. Sammar
    January 11, 2014, 6:52 am

    Hostage – I stand in awe ;)

  9. Betsy
    January 11, 2014, 9:58 am

    I just joined the American Studies Association, to show my solidarity with their important stand against discrimination (legal & structural) against Palestinian academics & people.

    • SQ Debris
      January 11, 2014, 12:46 pm

      Go Betsy GO! Action instead of kvetching. Join ASA. Urge the Stones to join boycott. Howl at your repz and senators. Anything but responding ad infinitum to the predictable distortions and lies that ziotrolls piss into this list. Responding to that crap doesn’t score points. It wastes human energy.

    • American
      January 12, 2014, 12:34 pm

      @ Betsy

      Good for you!

    • ritzl
      January 12, 2014, 1:57 pm

      You’re a gem, Betsy.

  10. Castellio
    January 11, 2014, 12:40 pm

    Betsy, fantastic!

Leave a Reply