#StandWiththe6
When the Israeli government tagged six Palestinian rights groups as terrorist groups over six months ago there was public outcry across the world. The country’s designs seemed pretty obvious. These are organizations that oppose Israeli apartheid and document its human rights abuses. It makes sense that Israel would want to suppress their work, especially in the wake of massive protests over the 2021 bombing of Gaza.
Unsurprisingly Israel has been unable to produce a shred of evidence backing up their outlandish claims. In November 2021 +972, Local Call, and The Intercept obtained the dossier which allegedly had the goods and discovered that it was a massive nothing burger. Around this time Israel officials also had a meeting at The White House where they claimed to have dropped off their proof to the Biden administration. “We received detailed information from the Israeli government. We appreciated the consultation,” State Department spokesperson Ned Price told reporters at the time. “We’re reviewing the information that they provided us.”
We are expected to believe that the U.S. government is still looking over this information. The terrorist designation, and the lack of response from Biden, has had real consequences for the groups. The Dutch government cut funding to the Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC). The European Commission suspended one of Al-Haq’s and one of UAWC’s projects, and an Israeli military court in the West Bank sentenced the President of the Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees, Khitam Sa’afin, to 16 months in prison.
One of the only mainstream reporters who seems to care about this story is Said Arikat, Washington Bureau Chief at Al Quds Daily Newspaper. Earlier this month, at a State Department briefing, he asked Ned Price whether there had been any progress on this front. “I mean, you were investigating this,” said Arikat. “You, I guess, requested the Israelis to supply you with why they listed them to begin with, and that was back in October. Where do we stand? Have you gotten a satisfactory response from the Israelis? Do you believe that these organizations should be or should remain listed as terrorist organizations?”
Price kept a straight face while answering, “Well, we have received detailed information on that very question from our Israeli partners, and it’s something that we’re continuing to review.”
This week Arikat followed up with Price again and this was the exchange:
ARIKAT: A quick question on the Palestinian-Israeli issue. Ned, it’s been six months since the six organizations were designated as terrorist organization. I know I’ve asked you this question many times before, so please indulge me, so – and I know that you requested clarifications from the Israelis and you received that clarification. So are you satisfied that these organizations – these six organizations are in fact engaged in terrorist activities? Because their funding has been cut off, the European Union is looking at maybe – there has been experts today – UN experts that said they should be funded, there’s been no evidence that they have engaged in terrorist activity. What is your assessment after the Israelis responded to you?
PRICE: As I’ve said for some time now, Said, our Israeli partners have provided us with information regarding the basis for their determination. That’s information that we’re reviewing. It’s a process that can be lengthy because it’s a process that takes place not only here —
ARIKAT: Six months – six months —
PRICE: — not only here in this building, but also across other departments and agencies across town. I can say more broadly that we’ve made it very clear to our Israeli Government and Palestinian Authority interlocutors that independent civil society organizations in the West Bank and in Israel must be able to continue their important work. We value the monitoring of human rights violations and abuses that independent NGOs undertake in Gaza, undertake in the West Bank, undertake in Israel and elsewhere. And we strongly believe that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and a strong civil society are critically important to responsive – and to responsive democratic governance.
It’s also important to note that we have already designated – we long ago designated the PFLP as an FTO. They have been designated as an FTO since 1997. And we’ve not designated, as you know, any of the six NGOs that the Israeli Government did. It’s also important to note we haven’t funded these groups.
ARIKAT: But the PFLP is one thing and these organizations is another thing altogether. I mean, I understand that you have designated the PFLP a long time ago as a terrorist organization. There is maybe a good reason for that, I don’t know. But on these six organizations, they have conducted themselves only in terms of human rights abuses, reporting on that, doing civil society organization and so on.
PRICE: That’s something we’re looking at.
Seems probable that they will be looking at this for at least another two years.
Back when Israel originally made the designations, there was a small amount of political backlash in the United States. Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) introduced a resolution and it was cosponsored by some big names. Basically The Squad and the usual Squad-adjacent lawmakers who show up on these kinds of bills. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) wasn’t one of the co-sponsors, but he did send Secretary of State Tony Blinken a letter calling for action. “Mr. Secretary, it is not enough to have expressed an initial leeriness regarding Israel’s decision to designate these six organizations as terrorist groups,” it reads. “It is now time to firmly and unambiguously denounce the actions taken and urge the Israeli government to reverse its decisions.”
There hasn’t been much fuss about the issue within Washington lately however. We’ll see if anything develops as the duration of Biden’s alleged investigation becomes increasingly more ridiculous. At any rate, here’s what Defense for Children International – Palestine’s Miranda Cleland told me a couple weeks ago: “The Israeli government’s designation of DCIP as a terrorist organization is a blatant attempt to outlaw and eliminate our work documenting human rights violations against Palestinian children. Just this week, our team has documented three cases where Israeli forces shot and killed Palestinian children with live ammunition. Last year was the deadliest year for Palestinian children since 2014, and despite the Israeli government targeting our lawful human rights work, we’re committed to protecting and defending Palestinian children’s rights, regardless of how long the U.S. takes to review unfounded accusations by the Israeli government that has already been rejected by other states and UN experts.”
Brown vs Turner
It’s Round 2 in Ohio’s 11th district, where Shontel Brown and Nina Turner will square off for the Democratic nomination once again. The major difference between this time around, and last year’s special election, is that Brown is the incumbent now. However, some things remain the same. Israel lobbying groups are targeting the race, the same way they did the first time. DMFI is running an ad that praises Brown’s political record as a congresswoman and AIPAC’s super PAC, The United Democracy Project, has an ad where they attack Turner. Neither mention Israel and recent polling shows that’s a good election strategy as Democratic voters aren’t really passionate about the issue.
At The Forward Jacob Kornbluh writes about how Turner has pushed back on the idea that she is “anti-Israel.” At a recent event she told the crowd, “I believe that Israel has a right to exist as a democratic nation in the Middle East. I believe in justice and security for Israel, and justice and security for Palestinians.” She also took out an ad in the Cleveland Jewish News aiming to clarify some of her views on the subject. In the ad she makes it very clear that she opposes the BDS movement.
“I know many of us disagreed with the Trump administration,” the ad reads. “but our disagreement with a particular elected official in no way lessened our affection for America or its people. The same is true of Israel.”
“That is why I do not endorse BDS,” it continues. “Just as I would not support sanctions on us because of the actions of our government, it is not appropriate in this circumstance to place sanctions on Israelis for their government’s actions. Needless to say, like so many, I do believe that a resolution of the long-standing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is long overdue. America must do whatever is possible to create a future peace, and mutual economic and physical security for all people of the region. Just as a our destiny as neighbors is shared so is the destiny of all people in the Middle East.”
There’s a lot to unpack here, but a big takeaway is that Turner fundamentally misunderstands what the BDS movement is. For starters, she doesn’t address the “boycott” or “divestment” parts of the acronym. Instead she focuses exclusively on sanctions, but her vision of sanctions is akin to the brutal economic warfare that the United States has waged against Iran. It’s completely disconnected from the goals of BDS. The movement clearly states that it’s pressuring Israel to meet its obligations under international law. Here’s how they are defined on the The Palestinian BDS National Committee’s website: ” Sanctions campaigns pressure governments to fulfill their legal obligations to end Israeli apartheid, and not aid or assist its maintenance, by banning business with illegal Israeli settlements, ending military trade and free-trade agreements, as well as suspending Israel’s membership in international forums such as UN bodies and FIFA.”
This is the South African anti-apartheid model. It’s not about crippling an economy or sanctioning individual people based on their nationality, despite what critics of BDS insist. In a Twitter thread on this very distinction from March AJ+ host Sana Saeed wrote, “BDS does not advocate for the freezing of central bank assets of Israel that would destroy the shekel, for sending those who live within Palestine/Israel into severe destitution – because that would also most heavily hit the most marginalized: Palestinians.”
Turner’s ad obviously has an even deeper problem. It hits all the standard beats about how the United States should work to bring the two sides together, but it never mentions the billions in U.S. taxpayer money that Israel uses to continue the occupation and demolish Palestinian homes. Turner’s whole argument about disagreeing with the policies of the Israeli government completely obscures this relationship and implies that Zionism can somehow be halted at the ballot box, a fundamental misunderstanding of what Israel’s objectives have always been. During the Trump-era many Democrats liked to bang on about “Netanyahu’s Israel”, attempting to draw some sort of specific connection between the right-wing government and Israel’s treatment of Palestine. Now we have Naftali Bennett, who recently went on CNN to declare that Israelis aren’t killing Palestinians and Palestine isn’t occupied. Trump’s buddy is finally gone, but what’s changed?
Will Turner’s efforts bolster her reputation among voters? It’s hard to say, but Kornbluh mentions an interesting data point in his Forward piece. Recent redistricting has added some neighborhoods in Cleveland’s West Side that have a large Palestinian population. Maybe some of those people were in Willard Park last year, when hundreds showed up in downtown Cleveland to protest Israel’s attack on Gaza.
Of course AIPAC sees Turner’s ad as antisemitic bilge, despite all the concessions. “Decode Nina Turner’s op-ed, and you’ll see that what she doesn’t say, says it all,” the lobbying group tweeted. “What’s missing: Pro-Israel. U.S.-Israel relationship. If or how she’d support Israel. Opposing BDS. Jewish state. End the deception. Stop the pro-Israel virtue signaling. Nina Turner is anti-Israel.”
That stuff is missing, I’ll give them that.
Odds & Ends
?? At Responsible Statecraft Anatol Lieven writes about the terrible danger of a proxy war in Ukraine: “How long would Russia accept such a Western strategy before it decided to escalate, in an effort to terrify the Europeans in particular into splitting from America and seeking a peace settlement? Even if direct war between Russia and the West could be avoided, how long would Western unity survive in these circumstances? So far, Russian attacks aimed at interdicting Western weapons supplies have been confined to Ukrainian territory. What would be the consequences if they are extended to Polish territory? What if Ukraine uses Western weaponry to launch attacks on Russia itself — as the British deputy defense minister has (with almost insane irresponsibility) suggested?”
? Eighteen professors have submitted a brief in support of Texas’s anti-BDS law, which is currently being reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. No surprise that Alan Dershowitz is involved in this effort.
? Amid the usual BDS calls, 50 Cent is set to play a concert in Israel.
? Marquette University has reportedly passed a BDS resolution and the vote was unanimous. “No one voted against it and we’re incredibly over the moon and happy that this has been able to go through,” a student told a school website. “This is the first time in Marquette history that we’ve had something like this and we’re happy to see that there’s progress being made … this is the first step.”
?️ An update on the Princeton BDS vote, that called on the school to stop using Caterpillar equipment because of its connection to Israeli apartheid. In the last newsletter we detailed how the referendum passed, but pro-Israel students objected to the way in which absentee ballots were counted. This now from The Daily Princetonian:
Princeton University will not pursue any actions in response to Referendum No. 3, which calls for a boycott of Caterpillar Inc. due to alleged Palestinian human rights violations, according to an email from President Christopher L. Eisgruber ’83 to Undergraduate Student Government (USG) President Mayu Takeuchi ’23 and USG Secretary Charlotte Selover ’25 in the morning of Friday, April 22.
His email came in response to the Paper on Referendum No. 3, which USG sent to Eisgruber and other administrators in the afternoon of Thursday, April 21.
In other words, the school wont be disassociating from Caterpillar.
❄️ Jewish Insider reports that Alaska is set to adopt the controversial IHRA working definition of antisemitism, which includes some criticisms of Israel.
?? The French insurance company AXA is holding its Annual General Meeting, which is being protested over its connection to Israeli apartheid. “Israel is only able to maintain its oppressive regime over the Palestinian people because of international complicity,” reads a petition from the Palestinian BDS National Committee, “AXA is one of these complicit international companies. The French insurer claims to be committed to fighting climate change and positions itself as a champion of sustainability in its business sector. However, these claims are laughable given AXA’s complicity in apartheid Israel’s environmental destruction and war crimes against Palestinians.”
? At Jewish Currents Isaac Scher has a piece about three states that are working to codify the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
?? Twitter thread from Palestine Legal: “Following an email exchange on a school-wide discussion forum, members of NYU Law’s Students for Justice in Palestine are being smeared in the right-wing press for speaking out against the illegal occupation of Palestine. Zionists are now falsely alleging that the group – nearly half of which is Jewish – is engaged in antisemitism despite the fact that LSJP’s statement makes no reference to Judaism whatsoever. Instead of protecting the free expression of its students, NYU is endorsing this harmful and exclusionary conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism by investigating the matter as an act of discrimination.”
?? Defense attorneys have toured the United States’s infamous Camp 7 at Guantanamo, where they are trying to challenge evidence and reduce sentences based on the conditions. Here’s Carol Rosenberg in the New York Times:
Susan Hensler, a defense lawyer, visited Camp 7 for two hours last month with her client, an Iraqi accused of war crimes. She described it as “chilling” and “akin to being entombed.”
Ms. Hensler; the prisoner, who uses a wheelchair; and other members of her entourage crammed inside his former cell and pulled the door nearly shut. “It was like being buried alive,” she said, calling it “clearly a facility custom-built for exploitation.”
She was not allowed to explain any further because, even though the prisoners are gone, something about the place is still classified. The legal teams that have visited in recent months were allowed to describe their impressions of the facility but not specific features.
Neither military nor C.I.A. spokesmen would discuss the conditions. The U.S. government has consistently refused to say what Camp 7 cost, what contractor built it or what makes its design so special, adding to its mystery.
?? Nick Turse in TomDispatch:
Until the Defense Department overhauls its airstrike policies, civilians will continue to die in attacks. “The U.S. military has a systemic targeting problem that will continue to cost civilians their lives,” said Marc Garlasco, formerly the Pentagon’s chief of high-value targeting — in charge, that is, of the effort to kill Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein in 2003 — and now, the military adviser for PAX, a Dutch civilian protection organization. “Civilian deaths are not discrete events; they are symptoms of larger problems such as a lack of proper investigations, a faulty collateral-damage estimation methodology, overreliance on intelligence without considering open-source data, and a policy that does not recognize the presumption of civilian status.”
Such “larger problems” have been revealed again and again. Last March, for example, the Yemen-based group Mwatana for Human Rights released a report examining 12 U.S. attacks in Yemen, 10 of them airstrikes, between January 2017 and January 2019. Its researchers found that at least 38 Yemeni noncombatants had been killed and seven others injured in those attacks.
?️ Reps. Haley Stevens and Andy Levin had their first debate for the Democratic nomination in Michigan’s 11th district and Israel came up. Here’s Austin Ahlman describing the moment at The Intercept:
Local media dubbed the “most tense exchange” of the night a moment when Levin, who is Jewish, asked Stevens to explain why she has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, a political organization that has endorsed dozens of Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 election along with many establishment Democrats. Federal Election Commission reports reveal that AIPAC’s newly minted PAC has spent more than $300,000 in support for Stevens — far more than the fledgling PAC has directed to any other candidate. (Stevens, who is not Jewish, has also been endorsed by the Democratic Majority for Israel PAC.)
“I have been endorsed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee alongside all members of Democratic leadership, including whip Jim Clyburn, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer,” Stevens responded after an audience question, reading from a prepared statement. “In addition to these leaders of the Democratic Party, twenty members of the House Progressive Caucus also received this endorsement, representing over a third of Democrats endorsed by AIPAC. This endorsement is solely about members of Congress supporting Israel, and I am proud to unequivocally support the Jewish state.”
? AIPAC has raised $16 million in the last few months and their new super PAC got a million from Haim Saban.
?? I reviewed Boycott, a new film about anti-BDS laws from director Julia Bacha.
Stay safe out there,
Michael
