Proud of my university!

From yesterday's local filings

Maurice Shnaider; Limor Rom; Tomer Rom; Alona Miriam Rom; Noam Rom; Ethan Kessler Halley; Adam Fischer Halley; Wendy Kessler Halley; Boaz Kessler Halley; Sadie Kessler Halley; Jane Kessler; Robert Kessler; Hal David Lubin; Robin Lynn Lubin; Alec Meyer Lubin; Eve Lapides Lubin Marx; Nathan Lubin; Alan Howard Halpern; Hellene Kalish Traub; Elad Moshe Saadon; Dvora Batya Saadon; Tamir Aharon Saadon; Harvey Solomon Lipnick; Geula Sadun; Aileen Greenberg; Harold M. Greenberg; Yonah Chava Landau Zenilman; Lisa Marta Weinsoff; Robert Alan Zenilman; Eli Dov Weinsoff Zenilman; Yonatan Meir Weinsoff Zenilman; Eitan Pinchas Zenilman; Shira Ronit Zenilman Brull; Isaac Margulies; Jacob Margulies; Ellyn Margulies; Simon Margulies; Asher Solomon Margulies; Nicholas Albert Merkin; Sharon Celine Stein; Jonathan Dov Merkin; Eytan Louis Merkin
v.
American Muslims for Palestine; Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation; United States Palestinian Community Network; National Students for Justice in Palestine; Students for Justice in Palestine Chapters; Within Our Lifetime; CodePink; Hatem Bazian; Osama Abuirshaid; Abdelbasset Hamayel; Madgi Odeh; Rafeeq Jaber; Hatem Abudayyeh; Taher Herzallah; Saleh Sarsour; Shakeel Sayed; Munjed Ahmed; Nerdeen Kiswani; Abdullah Akl
5/2/2024 8:24 cv 1067 Scriven
(Tampa)

International terrorism. Plaintiffs seek to hold defendants accountable for Hamas's attacks in Israel.
CNS Plus Download

Robert Tolchin
The Berkman Law Offfice

Not going to download the complaint. I suspect the summary may be a bit reductive. But still a stretch

 

They're seeking to hold American college students responsible for Hamas's attacks in Israel? LOL.

 

I suspect the service that summarizes the cause of action may be shorthanding. Suspect it is under the very, very loose definitions of material support.

It's really an attempt to shut down any form of advocacy, however peaceful, for the Palestinian cause

 

Did they leave out the anti-Zionist Jewish organizations? Seems a little racist (and very on brand for right-wing Zionists) if thats the case lol.

 

What’s your definition of “Zionist”? I ask because Israelis, and Jews, view it as Israel’s right to exist. It is the development and protection of a Jewish homeland/nation, to wit, Israel. Thus, the use of the word, as you used it above, is an oxymoron in that the Jewish State of Israel is Zionist by definition.

 

That’s not what Zionism is, it’s Jewish nationalism and it predates Israel. There are plenty of anti-Zionists who think Israel should exist as a secular multicultural democracy not a Jewish state - kinda like America. If you are a Zionist you are wedded to Jewish nationalism as an identity and project. A Zionist is basically the equivalent of Christian nationalists or Nation of Islam types here. They want states based on religious or racial identity. Zionism is quite simply Jewish supremacy. It’s not about Israel existing it’s about existing as a Jewish state where Jews are in charge in perpetuity.

 

This is just objectively wrong.

Dictionary.com definition: (ZIONISM Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com ):
“a worldwide Jewish movement that resulted in the establishment and development of the state of Israel and that now supports the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland.”

Same definition with American Oxford Dictionary.

Here’s the opening paragraph from Wikipedia: “Zionism (/ˈzaɪ.ənɪzəm/ ZY-ə-niz-əm; Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, romanized: Ṣīyyonūt, IPA: [tsijoˈnut]; derived from Zion) is a nationalist[1][fn 1] movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century aiming for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people, particularly in Palestine,[4][5][6] a region roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition.[7][8][9][10]Following the establishment of the State of Israel, Zionism became an ideology that supports the development and protection of Israel as a Jewish state.[1][11][12] It has also been described as Israel's national or state ideology.[13]”

Here’s the opening discussion from the ADL, a Jewish organization that defends against hate and discrimination, and who probably has a good understanding of what Zionism is: “Zionism is the movement for the self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel. The vast majority of Jews around the world feel a connection or kinship with Israel, whether or not they explicitly identify as Zionists, and regardless of their opinions on the policies of the Israeli government.” You are being redirected...

 

I know you know, but this is likely the legal principle involved.

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010), was a case decided in June 2010 by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the Patriot Act's prohibition on providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations (18 U.S.C. § 2339B). The case, petitioned by United States Attorney General Eric Holder,[1]represents one of only two times in First Amendment jurisprudence that a restriction on political speech has overcome strict scrutiny.[2] The other is Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar.

The Supreme Court ruled against the Humanitarian Law Project, which sought to help the Kurdistan Workers' Party in Turkey and Sri Lanka's Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam learn how to resolve conflicts peacefully.[3] It concluded that the US Congress had intended to prevent aid to such groups, even for the purpose of facilitating peace negotiations or United Nations processes because that assistance fit the law's definition of material aid as "training," "expert advice or assistance," "service," and "personnel." The finding was based on the principle that any assistance could help to "legitimate" the terrorist organization and free up its resources for terrorist activities.[4]

The court noted that the proposed actions of the Humanitarian Law Project were general and "entirely hypothetical" and implied that a post-enforcement challenge to the application of the "material support" provisions was not prevented.

This is the kind of “aiding terrorists” those groups are likely being sued for

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project - Wikipedia

 

Many people out there hate Jewish people. It's on both sides of the political spectrum. Sad

 

Nothing in this definition conflicts with what I said at all. A bunch of ideological zealots decided to colonize Palestine in the late 19th century, and the British ended up backing it. It was basically a more successful version of what Marcus Garvey (a black nationalist) tried to do with his Black Star lines (have North American blacks 'return' to Africa). The Jewish Zionists had the support of Britain and a lot of their own money to fund it. Its all just blood and soil nonsense. Their connection to "Israel" was a fairytale. There were hardly any Jewish people living there until the early 20th century.

 

For starters:

Nonsense. I strongly advocate for Israel’s right to exist. It’s not my identify, and it’s not my project. To be sure, I don’t identify as Israeli; I’m an American first and foremost.

 

Your definition literally says its Jewish nationalism. If you think Israel should exist as an explicitly Jewish state, you are a Zionist - that means you are wedded to Jewish nationalism as an identity and project. If you think Israel should exist as something else (or I guess not at all), then you are an anti-Zionist. Its pretty clear cut to me. When people say "Israel has a right to exist" it seems pretty obvious to me they mean it as a Jewish state that is a stand in for Jewish identity everywhere, not just as a country like any other. Very few people are against the latter.

 

When I see someone refer to the land currently known as Israel as “Palestine,” it makes me curious where they “learned” the information. The land most certainly was not called “Palestine” on any map or by any people in the late 1800’s.

Additionally, your understanding of the birth of modern day Israel (“Jewish Zionists had the support of Britain”) is grossly flawed and misinformed.

For others, who care about facts and it propaganda, here’s a helpful timeline on the governance of the land through time:



And talk of “blood and nonsense” … as the great pacifist, what did every country (all Arab) surrounding every inch of the minute sliver of land granted to the Jews as their State, following the almost complete annihilation of the Jewish by the Nazis, instantly do? I’ll do the honors —they attacked the new country on every border and surrounded the new state in every side. Nobody in the planet gave Israel’s chance to survive. But they managed to defend itself and defeat every attacking country, then and repeatedly throughout its short history. How many times must a country come under attack?

“Blood and nonsense,” indeed.

 

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia

 

And? The Balfour Declaration was written after the Ottoman’s defeat in WW1 (which according to the books I read, took place in 1917, not the late 1800s). We can certainly have another discussion on the Declaration itself, a document and policy warped with conflict and indecisive corruption, but that is a far different topic.

 

Zionism predated Balfour, I mean Herzl died before the Balfour Dec! Balfour just legitimized the project, and jumpstarted settlers moving to the Palestianian mandate. Went from very few Jewish people, to significant minority post-WWI. Not sure how there is an Israel without that stuff happening.

 

This is all true. But the purpose of Zionism in the late 1800s was to create a Jewish State. We have a Jewish State,nobody is advocating for the creation of more Jewish States (as opposed to the scores of Muslim and Christian States). Zionism has naturally evolved from wanting to CREATE a Jewish State to PROTECTING the right for a Jewish State to continue to exist.

 

Very nice opinion piece from the Jesuit Magazine America

Some key passages:

At Yale, for instance, the encampment emerged after Yale’s Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility said it would not divest from military weapons manufacturers because the investments did not meet their criteria for “grave social injury.” The student protestors find this claim absurd. For what it’s worth, Pope Francis would agree, as he has called weapons manufacturers “merchants of death.”


Last week, a mass grave with nearly 400 bodies was discovered under a hospital complex in Khan Younis, a city in southern Gaza. Some bodies were found with their hands tied behind their backs. The United States and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights have both called for an independent investigation. But rather than focusing on this unfolding horror, many in the American press were transfixed by Ivy League protests.

As of this writing, we are at a critical juncture. Against the warnings of a united international community, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has proceeded with a ground invasion of Rafah, where more than one million Palestinians are sheltering. Over 100,000 people have been told to leave or face overwhelming military force. We should not mince words: The invasion of Rafah will be a deadly humanitarian disaster.

These are the facts that sparked protests. I agree with many of the people who have criticisms about the protests, and there is a part of me that is tempted to throw up my hands and say that every side is in the wrong. We must resist that urge. There is a point at which nuance turns into analysis paralysis, and our desire to say the perfect thing keeps us from saying anything at all. If we are not laser-focused on doing something to bring this madness to an end, we are doing something wrong. It is easy to find flaws—big ones, even—in large social movements, but we would do well to step back and remember why these protests are happening in the first place. Facing an urgent international crisis, students are trying to do something—anything—to stop it.

 

That history of Palestine is largely not true. While there were largely Islamic empires that rules the area of Palestine from 700-1917, they often had an administrative unit called "Palestine." Your argument is essentially that Northern Ireland is not a place that exists because it is not a separate country but rather an administrative unit of a larger Kingdom.

It is important to actually think about the history here. Palestine was an administrative unit of larger empires for much of its history (as was Israel prior to the Islamic conquering of the area).

The concern here is largely the role of religion in the foundation of the state. Essentially, the question is whether the state should be founded explicitly to be majority Jewish or should it be some combination of religions, as had been common in the area.

There is a real argument for the foundation of a majority Jewish state, especially in the mid-20th century, as Jewish populations, which had been minorities in many countries for a very long time, had endured substantial prejudice, up to an including things like the Holocaust, but even before that, the Pogroms and even things like the Inquisition.

But the Israeli argument is not made stronger by essentially attempting to erase Palestine, in the same way that the Palestinian argument is not made stronger by ignoring Jewish claims to the land or to the notion that their religion in particular needs a state where they are not subject to the whims of other religions.

 

Yes, not just a state (like an autonomous piece of Germany or Poland), a Jewish state in a mythical homeland to be colonized with a Jewish identity, that's the point, its an ideological nationalistic colonial project, not just people wanting self-governance where they lived already. You just laid out another thing that makes Israel both unique and problematic, no other state has decided they speak for or represent all Christianity or Islam around the world (in fact, splinters in those religions have basically meant states that have those identities have found themselves in competition if not outright hostile) or have they dared to say opposing their state policy is a kind of serious bigotry that will result in annihilation if allowed to flourish.