A U.S. court in Oakland dismissed a lawsuit accusing the Biden administration of failing to prevent in a genocide in Gaza. However, it also called on The White House to reflect on its “unflagging support” for Israel’s assault and said the genocide charges were “plausible.”
The conclusion of the court’s decision makes it clear that the case was reluctantly dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
“There are rare cases in which the preferred outcome is inaccessible to the Court,” wrote U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White. “This is one of those cases. The Court is bound by precedent and the division of our coordinate branches of government to abstain from exercising jurisdiction in this matter. Yet, as the ICJ has found, it is plausible that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide. This Court implores Defendants to examine the results of their unflagging support of the military siege against the Palestinians in Gaza.”
The decision also acknowledges that testimony from the case was compelling, and it cites the International Court of Justice’s recent ruling on Israel.
“The undisputed evidence before this Court comports with the finding of the ICJ
and indicates that the current treatment of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli military may plausibly constitute a genocide in violation of international law,” reads the decision. “Both the uncontroverted testimony of the Plaintiffs and the expert opinion proffered at the hearing on these motions as well as statements made by various officers of the Israeli government indicate that the ongoing military siege in Gaza is intended to eradicate a whole people and therefore plausibly falls within the international prohibition against genocide.”
On January 26 the federal court began hearing testimony in Defense for Children International – Palestine v. Biden, a historic legal effort launched by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) on behalf of the two Palestinian human rights organizations and eight Palestinians living in the United States.
The organizations Defense for Children International–Palestine (DCIP) and Al-Haq, have both documented Israeli human rights violations for years. Every Palestinian plaintiff has lost multiple family members as a result of Israel’s assault on Gaza.
In December, the administration filed a motion to dismiss the case, insisting that a ruling would be outside jurisdiction, but they did not push back on the claim that they’re potentially complicit in a genocide.
The court was ultimately receptive to Biden’s argument. “Because any determination to challenge the decision of the executive branch of government on support of Israel is fraught with serious political questions, the claims presented by plaintiffs here lie outside the Court’s limited jurisdiction,” wrote White.
However, while advocates are disappointed in the decision, they point out it is far from a victory for the administration.
“The court affirmed that what the Palestinian population in Gaza is enduring is a campaign to eradicate a whole people – genocide – and that the United States’ unflagging support for Israel is enabling the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians and the famine facing millions,” said Center for Constitutional Rights Senior Staff Attorney Katherine Gallagher. “While we strongly disagree with the court’s ultimate jurisdictional ruling, we urge the Biden administration to heed the judge’s call to examine and end its deadly course of action. Together with our plaintiffs, we will pursue all legal avenues to stop the genocide and save Palestinian lives.”
“It is important that the court recognized the United States is providing unconditional support to Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza and that a federal court heard Palestinian voices for the first time, but we are still devastated that the court would not take the important step to stop the Biden administration from continuing to support the slaughter of the Palestinian people,” Plaintiff Mohammed Monadel Herzallah. “Currently, my family lacks food, medicine, and the most basic necessities for survival. As Palestinians, we know this is a hard struggle, and as plaintiffs we will continue to do everything in our power to save our people’s lives.”
The United States government provides Israel with more than $3.8 billion in military aid every year and Biden is seeking congressional approval for an additional $14 billion.
This presentation of the court situation focusing on jurisdictional limits really needs to be questioned. I think of Julian Assange who is accused by the US of espionage who is am Australian citizen, a professional journalist, has not worked in the US, and only printed material independently provided to him but heavily vetted to ensure no security issues would be compromised. Further, he did this with the NY Times and London Guardian both of which published some of it.
If the US cannot be brought to justice here at home for using our tax money to support unconstitutional abuses; ie, genocide, then how can it charge a foreigner who has done nothing illegal in his professional capacity with something as critical as espionage simply because it is embarrassed. Sounds like Israel’s criminal reaction to being embarrassed on Oct 7 with its over reaction. Oh, yes, the goal has nothing to do with the issue but was used as a False Flag to carry out destruction of civil liberties here in the US (freedom of speech and the press) and the long term goal of ethnic cleansing in Palestine. Both these countries operate with the same totalitarian and nefarious values and practices despite all the hasbara on both sides.
We need more discussion of this issue calling out the hypocrisy!
It became very clear to me while watching the hearing, that the “Political question” doctrine would likely preclude civil action. I hope the CCR will appeal this ruling, however, the State Department attorney, Lin, advised us that the US has incorporated the Genocide convention into US criminal law. That turns out to be 18 U.S. Code § 1091.
Let us all consider just how we can get this statute enforced. Can any jurisdiction, other than the DOJ, enforce this statute? Could, for example, the Washington, D.C. police arrest Blinken, Biden or Kirby, et al? Could any other local jursidcition within which one or more of them were to visit be subject to arrest? Could citizens arrests be used? Could they be part of protest actions? Could Chicago, during the Democratic Convention, authorize the Chicago police department to arrest them? Even if not arrest, then could they issue arrest warrents?
I think there must be something that can be done to ensure that this important statute can’t be rendered meaningless simply because the charging agency is the arm of those who need to be charged. I feel certain that interested minds can find a way to make sure the efforts of that past Congress, which enacted this, did not do so in vain.
Does Biden, being a Catholic, go to confession? And if yes, what lies does he tell?