Jonathan Kuttab

US Visa Waiver Program: Israel Will Not Reciprocate

Jonathan Kuttab, international human rights lawyer — Sun, 16 Jul 2023 00:02:36 +0000

The United States Visa Waiver Program (VWP) permits, on a reciprocal basis, the entry of citizens of about 40 countries for 90 days for business or tourism without applying for a visa in advance. Israel has sought to be admitted to this program in the past, but has not been eligible for consideration because its US visa refusal rate was higher than the 3 percent required to apply for this program. Other requirements, especially reciprocity, have also delayed Israel’s admission into the program.

In 2022, largely as a result of reduced travel during the corona pandemic, Israel qualified to apply, and has been working hard to obtain admission to this program which would allow its citizens to enter the United States for 90 days without obtaining a visa.

Impediments to Israel’s Entry

One of the biggest obstacles to Israel’s entry has been the widespread knowledge, and frequent complaints regarding its treatment of Palestinian Americans, as well as Arab and Muslim Americans, at its borders and at Ben Gurion Airport in particular, via which most Palestinians are prevented from entering Israel. Its policy of profiling such Americans, subjecting them to often humiliating questioning, strip searches, long waits, and outright denials of entry has been decried by Arab and Palestinian Americans for decades.

When Israel requested inclusion in the VWP this year, Arab American Organizations again protested the move and met with US government officials to raise the issue of reciprocity. They urged them to refuse admission for Israel until it clearly changes its policy and abides by the principle of reciprocity which is an integral condition for entry.

Israel has promised to ease restrictions and has proposed a new mechanism for entry of Arab Americans via Ben Gurion Airport.

In discussions with the State Department, and following political pressure from outgoing US Ambassador to Israel Thomas Nides, Israel has promised to ease restrictions and has proposed a new mechanism for entry of Arab Americans via Ben Gurion Airport. According to media reports, Israel has started a trial period of 30 to 45 days for this new mechanism in an effort to convince the Biden administration to allow it into the VWP. It has even announced that the State Department has agreed to this new mechanism, and will grant Israel entry into the program at the end of June. The State Department has neither confirmed nor denied that such a mechanism has been agreed between Israel and the United States, but said that the matter is still under consideration. On the other hand, 65 Senators have written to the State Department urging that Israel’s application be prioritized and expedited. The fear is that if Israel is not included in the program by September, the process will have to be started again, and the visa refusal figures for the current year will be included, which are expected to show a higher refusal rate than is allowed by the program, or 3 percent. In addition to a lower threshold, the program requires procedures for sharing fingerprints and personal data of all applicants, as well as the provision of reciprocity for US citizens by the foreign country involved.

According to unofficial figures, about 100,000-200,000 Palestinian Americans may be impacted by this policy as well as between 45,000 and 60,000 who live in the occupied West Bank. A smaller number live in the Gaza Strip. The number fluctuates as many Palestinian Americans visit with their families during the summer months, and they complain of unfair treatment, and are subjected to additional restrictions in that they are not allowed to travel to East Jerusalem, or fly out of Ben Gurion Airport without obtaining a special permit. The numbers of Jewish Americans living in West Bank settlements among more than half a million settlers (not including some 200,000 settlers in East Jerusalem) is unknown, but they do not suffer from any of the restrictions placed on Palestinian Americans.

Israel has informed the State department that the new procedure will facilitate the entry of Palestinian and other Americans into Israel and includes a process to be administered by the Coordinating Office for Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT). According to the plan, they can apply for a 3-month tourist visa while American citizens living in the West Bank will be allowed to freely travel out of Ben Gurion Airport.

The proposed mechanism offered by Israel is simply inadequate to meet the reciprocity requirements.

The proposed mechanism offered by Israel is simply inadequate to meet the reciprocity requirements and appears to be an effort to circumvent the intent of the law governing entry visas and to use political pressure to benefit Israel. Indeed, it is contrary to the substance of the US code that authorizes the Secretary of State to designate countries which can benefit from this program.

There obviously is no way of predicting how the process will be implemented by COGAT—considering its poor record vis-à-vis Palestinians—although it may provide some short-term relief for Palestinian Americans. Initially, under the Oslo Agreement, a number of issues of interest to the Palestinians were vested in District Coordinating Offices to be manned jointly by Palestinian and Israeli officials who had authority to issue permits jointly for a wide variety of matters, including travel within the occupied territories. Eventually this permit system was replaced by COGAT offices run exclusively by Israeli officials who have full and sole discretion to issue, deny, or indefinitely postpone decisions on the applications.

This has evolved into a system of control through permits which are frequently used to advance Israeli interests by using that authority to collectively punish or reward Palestinians, summon them for interrogation, or use it to pressure them into collaboration, or into more acceptable political behavior. It also served to enrich middlemen, or collaborators who would obtain the needed permits, for a price. For most Palestinians, therefore, COGAT is a permit system that is part of the matrix of control over their lives and freedom of movement. This situation got even worse with the recent transfer of COGAT control to Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, leader of the far-right Religious Zionist Party and Junior Defense Minister—who will monitor the appointment of officers and implementation of occupation policies.

Specific Drawbacks of the Proposed Trial Period

In terms of providing assurances to US officials who need to decide on the visa waiver application, the above-mentioned proposed solution has some major deficiencies:

A period of one month to 45 days is far too short to determine Israeli behavior, and there are no built-in assurances that the policy observed during this trial period will continue to be followed once Israel is admitted into the Visa Waiver Program. Removing a powerfully connected state like Israel from the VWP once it is admitted is difficult and could prove impossible.
No criteria have been established to evaluate the program and to determine whether it has been successful in addressing the problem of discrimination against Palestinian Americans.
The program apparently will only apply to Ben Gurion Airport, and will not be implemented, or monitored at other border crossings such as the Allenby Bridge from Jordan. Many Americans enter the West Bank after visiting relatives or sites in Jordan, and in order to avoid the expense of being flown back to the United States if they are denied entry. No mechanism exists for monitoring the behavior of Israeli authorities at bridge crossings or the denials of entry.
The system of COGAT permits has traditionally been totally discretionary. No published criteria exist to determine how that discretion is exercised. Furthermore, there is no mechanism for review or appeal of COGAT’s decisions. In theory, the Israeli High Court can review these decisions as administrative by the military government and the Defense Ministry. In the past, however, the Israeli courts have not been known to overturn any such decisions. Where serious challenges have been mounted to the administrative actions of the Israeli military government, the courts have uniformly deferred to the judgement of the Defense Ministry, or to “secret evidence” on which their decisions are supposedly based.
The trial period of 30 to 45 days does not address the other restrictions on movement of Palestinian and Arab Americans once they do enter the country. By comparison, Israeli visitors entering the United States face no restrictions and can move freely throughout the country. Reciprocity requires that Americans, once they enter Israel, should be equally entitled to free movement. In practice, Palestinian Americans who enter Israel face a variety of obstacles and checkpoints where they are treated in the same way as other Palestinians under occupation, and face checkpoints, restrictions, delays, and denials of movement where their American passports are of little or no help. Those visiting or residing in the occupied territories often report that soldiers take particular glee in dismissing or disrespecting US passports and telling Palestinian Americans that their passports are of no value in Israel.
Finally, and most importantly, far from proposing a solution, the whole permit system proposed by Israel under COGAT only affirms Israel’s intention to refuse granting genuine reciprocity and its insistence on treating Palestinian and Arab Americans in a separate and discriminatory manner. Even if the system worked smoothly and permits were given easily and generously, the very existence of the system (which only applies to certain Americans just for being Arab, Muslim, or Palestinian Americans) contradicts the principle of reciprocity and nondiscrimination embodied in the slogan “blue is blue” used by Ambassador Nides and State Department officials to describe the principle of reciprocity. It is a reference to the US passport which is blue and carried by US citizens. Basically, it is the US government’s way of saying all US citizens should be treated in accordance with the color of their passport and nothing else.

Israel may choose to conduct itself as an apartheid state, and to systematically discriminate against its citizens or its subject populations, as numerous international and Israeli human rights organizations have stated. The United States may also choose not to directly challenge those practices, but it should not allow without protest Israel’s discrimination against American citizens under any circumstances. To grant Israel exemption from US regulations and to acquiesce to a system of declared discrimination not only makes the United States complicit in that system against its own citizens, but also contradicts both the letter and the spirit of the Visa Waiver Program which requires reciprocity from countries participating in it.

The pogroms recently perpetuated by Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank, particularly in the village of Turmus Ayya, highlight the dilemma faced by US officials. The village of Turmus Ayya has a large Palestinian American population. A Michigan state legislator was present in the village with his family, and had to go into hiding when the attack took place. US officials were supposedly outraged by the attack, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken reportedly complained about it to the Israelis, yet few are expecting the US government to take serious action to protect its citizens even against such blatant attacks.

This approach does not bode well for those who are expecting serious action by this administration in dealing with the Israeli request to join the Visa Waiver Program. The supposed mechanism that Israel is testing now appears to be a fig leaf to allow it to join the program and benefit from its advantages, without providing the reciprocity mandated by US codes and regulations.

Originally published July 10, 2023, Arab Center Washington DC

Featured image credit: Shutterstock/Novikov Alex

Jonathan Kuttab Releases Memoir

Jonathan Kuttab, international human rights lawyer — Tue, 04 Jul 2023 17:42:13 +0000

June 2023.

Release of Jonathan Kuttab’s Memoir.

Read Jonathan’s story that begins as a child growing up in Palestine before the 1967 Naksa. Going to school in the US, Jonathan became a lawyer, where he worked in NYC/Wall Street. Jonathan in the late 1970s, returned to Palestine working for a church NGO, where he cofounded Al Haq in 1979, and became a member of both the Israeli and Palestinian bar. Read his story–a journey of work in international and human right law, and leadership with civil society and faith based organizations.

The book is available in paper back and e-book from Barnes & Noble, and for those outside the US you may find it easier to order from other sources.

Order:

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-truth-shall-set-you-free-jonathan-kuttab/1143664827

Friends of Sabeel North America webinar book launch:

Statement by Jonathan Kuttab regarding Khurram Parvez

Jonathan Kuttab, international human rights lawyer — Tue, 22 Nov 2022 14:54:35 +0000

” Human Rights Defenders throughout the world are in desperate need of our solidarity and support. They are the brave voices standing up for the universal principles of human rights and dignity. They have no physical or political power at their disposal, but only moral power deriving from their brave advocacy of universal principles being violated by powerful actors. Our solidarity and publicity is the only thing standing between them and the brutal power of those velating human rights.

I, and the human rights organizations I am associated with stand fully behind Khurram Parvez and call for his unconditional release from imprisonment. He has violated no laws, and his only crime is his human rights advocacy. His case is well known to us and the Indian Authorities need to know that we will not forget him nor let him lanquish in jail while they aspire to respectability and acceptance as the world’s largest democracy. He must be released forthwith”–

Jonathan Kuttab

Executive Director FOSNA

jonathankuttab@fosna.org | (267) 994-7651

A Christian Voice for Palestine

Jonathan is also co-founder of Al-Haq.

As well, he is co-founder and director of Just Peace Advocates.

Photo credit: Sameena Mir / Creative Commons

New Israeli Regulations Pave the Way for the Ethnic Cleansing of Area C of the West Bank

Jonathan Kuttab, international human rights lawyer — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 19:01:18 +0000

First published in Arab Center Washington DC – September 14, 2022

The current situation in the occupied West Bank reflects an ever-growing Israeli effort to take over large parts of Area C and to remove as much of its Palestinian population as possible. The Israeli military accomplishes this aim using a variety of measures, with both existing and new regulations providing legal cover for its actions. In addition, there has recently been a marked increase in settler violence in Area C, as well as increased attempts to confiscate land and drive Palestinian inhabitants towards Areas A and B. Two relatively new methods have been increasingly used in this campaign to ethnically cleanse Area C: the designation of areas where Palestinians live as exclusive military zones, and the establishment of farming outposts that deploy tactics amounting to a de facto seizure of Palestinian land.

The current situation in the occupied West Bank reflects an ever-growing Israeli effort to take over large parts of Area C and to remove as much of its Palestinian population as possible

The Battle for Area C

The Oslo Accords, which were signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in the 1990s, divided the West Bank into three areas. Area A is the most densely populated of the three, and constitutes 18 percent of the West Bank. It is mostly governed by the Palestinian Authority (PA), although Israel retains full external security control over the area. Area B, which comprises roughly 21 percent of the West Bank and consists mostly of village centers is under full Israeli security control, but the PA runs its civilian affairs, including health, education, and the economy. Area C, which makes up about 60 percent of the West Bank and is home to the majority of the territory’s natural resources and agricultural land, remains under exclusive Israeli control. Area C today is packed with multiple Israeli army bases, 230 illegal Israeli settlements with around 400,000 settlers whose activities are largely governed and condoned by Israel, and 300,000 Palestinians residing in 532 residential areas directly administered by the Israeli Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT)—a unit in the Israeli Ministry of Defense.

Under the Oslo Accords, it was thought that land in the West Bank would gradually be transferred from Area C to Area B, and then finally to Area A, thereby increasing the land and population directly under the control of the Palestinian Authority. This assumed outcome, along with three Israeli military redeployments that moved troops out of several Palestinian areas in 1994, 1995, and 1997, led many to believe that areas under the control of the PA would form the nucleus of a burgeoning Palestinian state once the status of Israeli settlements and the details of security arrangements were hashed out in a final agreement. But with the 1995 assassination of then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the process ground to a complete halt, and Area C remained under the full authority of the Israeli Civil Administration, which is subordinate to COGAT.

Every effort has been made to limit, or to outright eliminate Palestinian presence in Area C, and to gradually annex it into Israel

Many Israelis, and particularly Israeli settlers, consider that Area C “belongs” to them, and they therefore see no reason to transfer any more of it to the PA. And in fact, every effort has been made to limit, or to outright eliminate Palestinian presence in Area C, and to gradually annex it into Israel. In fact, some politicians have openly called for the official annexation all Area C lands, with various plans regarding what to do with the 300,000 Palestinians who still live there. However, this effort has been shelved for the time being, following international pressure.

But despite the fact that wholesale annexation has been put on the back burner, Israel’s effort to create and control a West Bank free of Palestinians continues apace, with the Civil Administration working to freeze all Palestinian growth and development in Area C. While Palestinians continue to live in many parts of Area C and to practice agriculture there, Israel’s military government in the West Bank has specifically prohibited them from planting trees (particularly in the Jordan Valley), and has restricted any and all Palestinian construction and development activities. Palestinian applications for building permits are almost never granted, and there has been no urban or regional planning, except when it comes to Israeli settlements and their “regional councils,” whose area of control has steadily expanded.

Military Designations

One way that Israel works to clear Palestinians off of their land in Area C is to declare swathes of the West Bank as Israeli military zones, thus precluding Palestinian presence in these areas. One recent example of this practice is found in the area of Masafer Yatta, a large area in the South Hebron Hills in the southern West Bank where roughly 1,150 Palestinians live in a dozen small villages. In the 1980s, the Israeli Army declared the entire area a military training and firing zone. The villagers filed suit over the matter in the Israeli courts in the year 2000, but their argument that their claim on the land predated that of the Israeli Army was ultimately rejected by the Israeli High Court of Justice on May 4, after a two-decades long legal battle. That decision paved the way for the Israeli Army to remove the Palestinian population from the area. Palestinians see this as a blatant act of ethnic cleansing, and have vehemently protested these actions. Meanwhile, the Israeli Army has moved aggressively to make the area unlivable by confiscating solar panels that were donated by the European Union, seizing water trucks and other vehicles, destroying structures, and prohibiting teachers and school children from going to school. In short, the Israeli Army is determined to make Masafer Yatta unlivable.

One way that Israel works to clear Palestinians off of their land in Area C is to declare swathes of the West Bank as Israeli military zones, thus precluding Palestinian presence in these areas. From a legal point of view, designating the area for military training entirely avoids the question of ownership

From a legal point of view, designating the area for military training entirely avoids the question of ownership. Military training is viewed as a security matter, and Israel’s High Court has made it clear that it will not interfere in the judgement of COGAT officials when it comes to military matters. In the view of the Israeli courts, the fact that Israeli settlers are present in the area and will almost certainly set up new settlements there is not relevant. And following the recent court ruling, the only remaining obstacle to Israeli settlement in the area is the physical presence of Palestinians. In order to force them to leave, the army is actively conducting live-fire exercises close to their homes. Not only does this development endanger these residents’ lives, it is also designed to slowly drive them from the area. This method, whereby Israel declares a given area a closed military zone on the grounds that it is necessary for security or training purposes, has already been frequently used to depopulate most of the Jordan Valley. And Israeli courts have repeatedly indicated that even private Palestinian land can be confiscated when there is a military or security justification. The precedent for this position came in a 1979 case regarding a proposed Israeli settlement called Elon Moreh that was to be founded on private Palestinian land, a case in which the Israeli High Court ruled that the settlers needed to be removed, but also stated that even the act of building Israeli civilian settlements on private Palestinian land is permissible if they serve a military or security purpose. Despite the fact that the court’s ruling staved off this one instance of land theft, it also provided the security justification for future appropriations of Palestinian land for the purpose of building Israeli settlements.

Israeli courts have repeatedly indicated that even private Palestinian land can be confiscated when there is a military or security justification

Farming Outposts

In the last five years or so, Israeli settlers have also started using a new technique to acquire more land in Area C: setting up farming outposts with extensive livestock operations. These outposts’ livestock graze across huge areas of land that does not belong to the settlers, and they chase out any Palestinian farmers or shepherds by force. The Amana settler organization, for example, has been a driving force behind the establishment of over 50 such farming outposts, which control some 240,000 dunams using this method, or about seven percent of the total land of Area C. The Israeli Army is fully aware of settlers’ use of this tactic, and as a rule does not interfere unless Palestinian farmers put up resistance, in which case the army moves in with force to protect the Israeli settlers and their livestock. Without exception, all of these farming outposts are illegal under both international and Israeli law, and their structures all lack construction permits. Occasionally, the Israeli Civil Administration will issue demolition orders for these illegal structures. However, it typically refrains from actually enforcing the demolition orders that it issues against Israeli settlers’ farming outposts, even though it rigorously monitors and demolishes any new Palestinian construction activity, including the installation of solar panels to provide electricity. And although the Civil Administration is nominally independent from Israeli settler activities and goals, its offices are typically located inside of Israeli settlements, where its employees often live. This, together with the fact that Israeli settler organizations actively report Palestinian construction activities that they deem “illegal” to the Civil Administration, makes clear that the settlers are firmly in control.

Without exception, all of these farming outposts are illegal under both international and Israeli law, and their structures all lack construction permits

While in theory the lands that these farming outposts use for grazing is designated as “state land,” in reality Palestinians often own this land, and use it for agriculture and animal husbandry—at least until they are forced out by settlers and their livestock. When Israeli settlers establish these farming outposts, they do not bother getting permission from the Civil Administration; nor do they investigate the actual ownership of the land. These outposts are therefore illegal, even under Israeli rules and regulations.

The new regulations to retroactively legalize these settler farming outposts grant these outposts a semblance of legitimacy, allowing them to continue their displacement of Palestinians uninterrupted

Recently, however, the Civil Administration announced that it is promulgating new regulations to govern and retroactively legalize these settler farming outposts. Work on these new regulations started in 2020 when the Civil Administration stopped a previously planned evacuation of an illegal farming outpost called Mitzpe Yehuda. These regulations became something of a necessity for Israeli officials since there are now dozens of such outposts, all of which have been operating without official approval. The new regulations therefore grant these outposts a semblance of legitimacy, allowing them to continue their displacement of Palestinians uninterrupted. And although the regulations, which directly cover the use of land for grazing, in theory apply to both Palestinians and Israeli settlers, the actual application of the law is almost guaranteed to be biased against Palestinians, especially given Israel’s ongoing practice of apartheid against them. In the future, Israeli settlers’ farms will be legalized, while Palestinians’ livestock will be further restricted from grazing—even on their own privately held land—for lack of permits required under the new regulations, permits that are certain to be denied to them by the Israeli military administration that controls the occupied West Bank.

A Single Apartheid State

Israel’s process of achieving hegemony over Palestine remains the same regardless of where it takes place: working to control the land, one dunam and one displaced Palestinian at a time.

Israel’s continued designation of Palestinian lands in the West Bank as exclusive military zones and its recent regulatory measures supporting illegal farming outposts together confirm that the idea of a two-state solution has disappeared entirely from the Israeli calculus. Given Israel’s utter refusal to consider the transfer of land to the PA that was outlined in the Oslo Accords, and its ongoing efforts to find new ways to force Palestinians off of their land and to confiscate it for the use of both the military and Israeli settler groups, it seems that the future will only bring a single state—de facto or de jure—with Israeli sovereignty over the entirety of historic Palestine, and with an apartheid regime continuing to govern the lives of Palestinians. Within that regime, more laws and regulations will be enacted to achieve Israeli control over more and more land, with Palestinians increasingly confined within ever-shrinking areas of dense population, as they already are in the Gaza Strip and Area A of the West Bank. Meanwhile, Israeli settlers, who already enjoy the full rights of Israeli citizenship wherever they reside, will gain more and more control over the few “disputed areas” that are left in the West Bank. Although there are multiple areas in which Palestinians today are fighting to remain on their land, Israel’s process of achieving hegemony over Palestine remains the same regardless of where it takes place: working to control the land, one dunam and one displaced Palestinian at a time.

Walking into a minefield

Jonathan Kuttab, international human rights lawyer — Wed, 14 Sep 2022 19:35:31 +0000

Is insisting on universal principles of combatting discrimination and racism a denial of the uniqueness of the Holocaust?

Jonathan Kuttab / September 13, 2022 / 4 min read

First published in Canadian Dimension

https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/walking-into-a-minefield

Photo: Palestine solidarity campaign demonstration in Ireland. Photo from Flickr.

Canada recently enacted the following amendment to its criminal law. Section 319 of the Criminal Code now states:

(2.1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

I am a Palestinian whose entire existence has been impacted by the world’s reactions to the Holocaust, therefore the issue of the Holocaust and how it is viewed and interpreted is of vital importance to me. Much of the Western world, as well as the Jewish community worldwide, has been persuaded that the creation of the State of Israel was the proper and legitimate response to the horrors of that momentous event.

After the Holocaust, the Zionist movement pushed to create a Jewish state and to provide it with enough support and legitimacy to ensure its mission as a proper response to the greatest evil in modern history—and the best vehicle available to prevent its recurrence.

This view of the Holocaust would justify not only what was done to my people, but also Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, a robust arms industry that supplies some of the most notorious regimes, an aggressive military posture, as well as exemptions from the normal rules of ethics and international law that would apply to other countries. It would also justify the practice of apartheid, and would render criticism of the State of Israel, and advocacy of equality for Palestinians, to be a form of antisemitism and therefore illegitimate since it would interfere with the function of the Jewish state, and therefore imply the downplaying of its significance.

At the heart of this interpretation is that the Holocaust is a unique event that warrants singular treatment, and that by extension the State of Israel as a response to the Holocaust intended to prevent its recurrence, is exceptional, and should not be judged by standards and norms applying to other states.

The ethnic cleansing committed against my people during the Nakba, or “catastrophe,” in 1948, as well as the current apartheid system practiced in my homeland is both excused and legitimized by the need to have a Jewish state as a specific and concrete response to the Holocaust.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, including the examples issued with it, conflates opposition to Zionism and the state of Israel with antisemitism. The new amendment to the Criminal Code follows the same path and enshrines in Canadian criminal law this understanding. Drawing different lessons from the Holocaust which do not support that political mythos can be seen as “downplaying” the Holocaust and therefore runs afoul of that law.

A woman wearing a keffiyeh waves a Palestinian flag under the watchful eyes of armed Israel Defense Forces soldiers at a demonstration in the West Bank. Photo courtesy Palestine Solidarity Project/Flickr.

This is a serious problem to me. What does “downplaying” mean? Is mentioning other genocides illegal? Is drawing attention to suffering by others at the hand of Israel akin to downplaying the Holocaust? I have been specifically told by one Christian Zionist that not until six million Palestinians die can I appeal to his sympathy or support. Is insisting on universal principles of combatting discrimination and racism a denial of the uniqueness of the Holocaust?

To be sure, the Holocaust was a monumental event, and the drive to prevent its recurrence is an unquestionably worthy project to be pursued by all. The utter evil of Nazi genocide is one of the most vivid examples of man’s inhumanity to man. But the lessons we learn from it, and the consequences of our remembrance, are crucial. Is our memory to be used to empower the State of Israel and exempt it from ordinary norms, or is it to be used to urge universal respect for human rights and international law, with a fierce determination that such a calamity should never again be allowed to befall anybody?

I am a radical believer in free speech who believes false ideas should be challenged and refuted by logic, evidence, and persuasion, not censored and criminalized. Those who choose to deny the historic facts surrounding the Holocaust (or the Nakba, for that matter) are fools. Often the best response to false ideas is to subject them to the ridicule they deserve. For the record, the historical facts of the mass murder and genocide of Jews by the Nazi regime are well documented and do not need my or anyone else’s affirmation.

The mere fact that I need to make this statement to avoid criminal persecution is itself chilling and should be of concern to all Canadians, including those most eager to fight antisemitism, racism and prejudice. Criminalizing the promulgation of false ideas simply lends credibility to conspiracy theorists. The best response to such falsehoods and denials should be truth, evidence, and rational argument—not the censorship or criminalization of critical ideas.

Jonathan Kuttab is a co-founder of the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq and co-founder of Nonviolence International. A well-known international human rights attorney, Jonathan practices in the US, Palestine and Israel. He serves on the Board of Bethlehem Bible College and is President of the Board of Holy Land Trust. Jonathan was the head of the Legal Committee negotiating the Cairo Agreement of 1994 between Israel and the PLO. After graduating with his Doctor of Jurisprudence (JD) from Virginia Law School, and practicing a couple years on Wall Street, Jonathan returned home to Palestine. Jonathan was visiting scholar at Osgoode Law School at York University in Toronto in the Fall of 2017, and is a founding director of Just Peace Advocates Mouvement pour une Paix Juste, a Canadian based international law human rights not-for-profit organization. Jonathan is currently the executive director of Friends of Sabeel North America (FOSNA).

Free Mohammed El-Halabi

Jonathan Kuttab, international human rights lawyer — Thu, 08 Sep 2022 17:31:54 +0000

First published on Friends of Sabeel North America

September 8, 2022

Last week, the Israeli court finally issued a sentence in the case of Mohammed El-Halabi, former Executive Director for World Vision International in Gaza, who was convicted on a variety of charges that include diverting development money and providing additional services to Hamas. Halabi was arrested on June 15, 2016 and suffered through a lengthy trial for six years, after which he was convicted on all counts listed in the charge sheet. His conviction was on June 15. A prison sentence of 12 years was passed down just last week.

The shocking facts in his case were described by Halabi’s attorney, Maher Hanna in a special briefing conducted by FOSNA on June 22. It can be found here.

Our main concerns, which are pointed out in that briefing, are as follow:

Torture. Mohammed was tortured, suffering both bodily injuries and sleep deprivation (having only slept 6 hours in 5 days), but he still refused to confess. According to the judge, the fact that Halabi did not confess under torture just means that the fact of he was tortured is irrelevant.
Lack of evidence. The only evidence against Halabi was a supposed confession made to a fellow prisoner, a prisoner who previously had been convicted of perjury and whose secret testimony was the sole basis for conviction. World Vision records, confiscated upon Halabi’s arrest, were not even examined by the prosecution, nor was the defense even allowed access to them.
Ridiculous charges. At least three of the charges leveled against Halabi were clearly ridiculous on their face. They were plainly contradicted by evidence produced in court. Namely:
- It was claimed that Halabi photographed and reconnoitered the Erez Checkpoint for Hamas in 2010, yet it was proven by Israeli records that between 2011 and 2016 he never entered the Erez Checkpoint.
- In addition, Halabi was charged with diverting more money to Hamas than the entire World Vision budget in Gaza.
- Halabi was charged with diverting thousands of tons of iron and cement imported through Keren Shalom to Hamas, yet Israeli records clearly show that no cement or iron was ever imported by World Vision at all, and none through Keren Shalom.
Evidence of innocence. Halabi was able to prove his innocence far beyond a reasonable doubt. Two international audits show conclusively that no money was missing or diverted from World Vision offices or projects. All projects were implemented and their funds accounted for. The judge rejected all the evidence of proper procedures being followed by World Vision, stating that even the most stringent procedures could theoretically be breached, and, since Halabi is intelligent, he was therefore capable of circumventing all safeguards and procedures.
Subverting defense efforts. When the Prosecution claimed that money was diverted, Halabi’s lawyer, Maher Hanna, offered to bring in all World Vision employees to testify. However, they were refused permits to enter Israel, and their video testimony was discounted because it was not given in person. When the Prosecution claimed that farm project money was diverted to Hamas, Maher Hanna offered to bring as witnesses all farmer-beneficiaries. The Prosecution refused, stating that the World Vision’s projects were in fact implemented, that he was unable to name any projects that had not been implemented, and that the evidence was too voluminous to investigate.
Restrictions on the defense attorney. Halabi’s attorney was prevented from even taking notes, writing summaries, or composing arguments except when on a computer kept by the Secret Service. He was not allowed to have the evidence examined by experts, call witnesses from Gaza, or even to visit Gaza himself to interview witnesses and collect evidence.
Unprecedented procedures. New regulations were specifically used regarding hearsay, evidence rules, and other procedures in order to ensure conviction. Such procedures were unprecedented, but may well become standard in future cases.
Secrecy. While the Israeli court justified such secrecy as being needed for security, Maher Hanna boldly stated that the only reason he could see for “security” was the need to protect the prosecution from embarrassment at the flimsiness and silliness of the supposed secret materials.

In issuing his sentence, the judge merely compounded the injustice by stating that regardless of the evidence presented or the merits of the case, consistency with the seriousness of the charges requires that a very severe punishment be given: hence the 12 years.

Maher Hanna plans to appeal. In his opinion, however, the issue on appeal will not be the guilt or innocence of Halabi but rather the very character of the Israeli judicial system. This was not a military court, nor was it a court in Gaza or the Occupied Territories. Whatever procedures, irregularities, or outrages allowed in this case will become, if sustained on appeal, the norm for Israeli courts. Most Palestinians accused of security related charges in Israeli courts take a plea bargain. Halabi refused a plea bargain and, by doing so, exposed the injustices of the Israeli system and how that system is used to intimidate, control, and silence humanitarian organizations like World Vision. There remains hope that with sufficient publicity and international involvement the Israeli High court will be too embarrassed to validate such an outright, blatant injustice.

As such, there is every reason to redouble our efforts and rejuvenate our campaign in pursuit of #Justice4Halabi. In addition to spreading the word, please join our campaign by using the link below to contact your representatives, asking them to apply the pressure needed to overturn such an unjust sentence. Mohammed El-Halabi, who once received the Humanitarian of the Year Award, must be allowed to return to his family, his humanitarian work, and his mission.

An Update on Israel’s Terrorist Designation for Palestinian Civil Society Organizations

Jonathan Kuttab, international human rights lawyer — Sat, 06 Aug 2022 00:02:05 +0000

Aug 3, 2022 Jonathan Kuttab

First written and appeared in Arab Center Washington DC

In October 2021, Israel’s Defense Ministry issued an order designating six prominent Palestinian civil society groups and NGOs as terrorist organizations. This designation caused an international outcry, especially because the groups are quite well-known and their work in the field of human rights is broadly respected. The US Department of State said at the time that it was surprised by the move and would request information from Israel regarding the allegations. Three of the affected groups are human rights organizations with stellar records of carefully documenting human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territories. Al-Haq, of which this author was a cofounder, is the recipient of more than 40 international human rights prizes, and prides itself on its independence and meticulously careful documentation, as well as its willingness to address human rights violations by Israel, the Palestinian National Authority (PA), and Hamas. The remaining organizations are: Defense for Children Palestine (DCI-P), prisoners’ rights association Addameer, the Union of Agricultural Work Committees, Bisan Center for Research and Development, and the Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees.

The limited international response that followed was so instantaneous and widespread that Israel felt the need to justify itself, particularly to European and American diplomats. Israel declared that it had evidence that the six organizations were affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). However, this accusation does not hold water, and the real reason for the designation was to prevent these organizations from obtaining funding for their work.

Consequences of the Designation

The designation of any organization as a terrorist organization comes with serious consequences. Membership in such a group carries a hefty prison sentence in Israel. Even mere contact with a terrorist organization is a substantial offense, as is providing material aid to one, and both offenses can lead to severe sanctions and prison sentences. In effect, European donors were being warned that Israel would consider funding these civil society organizations as tantamount to support for terrorism, and that said funding would carry consequences for both donors and the organizations themselves. Since all of these organizations have their main offices in Area A of the occupied West Bank—which is supposedly under PA jurisdiction—it was not likely that Israel would raid their offices, even though it had previously raided the offices of DCI-P and seized its files and computers several months before labeling it a terrorist organization.

European donors were being warned that Israel would consider funding these civil society organizations as tantamount to support for terrorism, and that said funding would carry consequences for both donors and the organizations themselves.

Many feel that the limited international outrage over this raid was precisely what emboldened Israel to designate these NGOs as terrorist organizations. It is also likely that field researchers and other employees of these six organizations who work in Area C of the West Bank—which is fully under Israel’s control—will now be subject to arrest or harassment, and that the confidential files that Israel keeps on these individuals—which it uses in administrative detentions and travel prohibitions—will now contain reference to the terrorist designation, which will “justify” subsequent Israeli administrative measures taken against them. It is also feared that Palestinian banks will be pressured to freeze the organizations’ accounts, or even transfer their contents to Israel. From the point of view of most of the Palestinian organizations involved, cutting off funding appears to have been the main goal of the designation, the prospect of which would in fact spell the potential death of most of these organizations since they rely heavily on external financial assistance.

Civil society organizations and NGOs that operate in the West Bank and Gaza are already in a precarious position, as nearly all political activity in the occupied territories is prohibited by Israeli military orders, including that of the Palestine Liberation Organization, of which Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is the chair. But despite this situation, these organizations are typically allowed to operate openly, unless their activity involves armed operations. Meanwhile, the duality of authority in the West Bank further complicates matters. All six organizations work openly and legally in PA-administered Area A, but Israel has authority in Areas B and C, and exercises an overriding control throughout the West Bank when it comes to matters of security, which means that Israeli forces often invade Area A to carry out arrests and raids like the one it conducted on DCI-P’s offices.

Israeli Charges

Israel was forced to defend its designation by claiming that it had secret evidence that these organizations were affiliated with the PFLP, and that they were using funds supplied by the European Union to fund militant activities, rather than the human rights and charitable activities in which they actually engage. Israel also hinted that fraud was involved, suggesting that funds were being fraudulently diverted from humanitarian activities to support terrorism instead. This charge echoed the case of Mohammad El Halabi, the director of World Vision International in Gaza. El Halabi was arrested six years ago and charged with diverting millions of dollars in aid to Hamas. Separate audits by an international accounting firm and the Australian Government demonstrated that the charges were false, but El Halabi’s trial went forward regardless, taking an astonishing six years—during which time El Halabi remained in pre-trial detention—to reach a guilty verdict that was based on Israel’s alleged secret evidence and a forced confession.

Israel was forced to defend its designation by claiming that it had secret evidence that these organizations were affiliated with the PFLP, and that they were using funds supplied by the European Union to fund militant activities.

In the case of the six organizations accused by Israel in October 2021, the PA felt the need to enter the discussion. Because one of its main functions is to maintain an extensive anti-terrorism posture in its security coordination with Israel, it likely felt that Israel’s claim that terrorist organizations were operating within the authority’s jurisdiction was in essence an accusation that the PA was not doing its job. The PA therefore insisted that American and European security officials, and not just diplomats, be involved in assessing Israel’s alleged evidence. And indeed, Executive Director of Al-Haq Shawan Jabarin informed this author that for a while Ramallah saw an influx of high-level security officials from the US and the EU who had traveled to Israel and the West Bank specifically to evaluate Israel’s secret evidence of terrorist activities.

While the exact contents of Israel’s “secret” files have not been made public, if the past is any guide the files almost certainly provide little to no support for the Israeli government’s claims. European countries were previously pressured to stop funding the six organizations based on secret evidence, which the Europeans examined and found unconvincing. Nonetheless, several European states did suspend funding to some of the six organizations and conducted renewed investigations. However, the international outcry that followed the designation led to a considerable slowdown in Israel’s trend of declaring civil society organizations as terrorist groups. The campaign to reverse the October 2021 decision and the outrage over it having occurred in the first place seem to have slowed the Israelis’ efforts.

Despite Renewed Funding, A Cloudy Future

After many months, several European organizations publicly announced that they had found no merit in the materials Israel had provided them, and so resumed their funding of the six organizations that Israel had claimed were suspect. Norway recently became the latest country to renew its relations with these organizations, having announced that it will unfreeze all funds that were previously earmarked for them, bringing the number of European states and organizations that have rejected the Israelis’ claims to 10. However, Israeli laws governing “terrorist” activity still remain on the books, potentially opening up these and other Palestinian civil society organizations to similarly baseless accusations in the future.

On the legal front, lawyers representing the six organizations made a request under Israeli law to see the secret evidence on which the terrorist designation was based.

On the legal front, lawyers representing the six organizations made a request under Israeli law to see the secret evidence on which the terrorist designation was based. Although the groups are hesitant to allow Israeli courts the chance to decide whether or not they are terrorist organizations, many feel that it would be prudent to at least know what evidence the Israelis are using against them. In response to this attempted assertion of the organizations’ legal rights, Israel in recent weeks sent letters to lawyers representing the groups, reminding them that because their clients have been deemed by the State of Israel to be terrorist organizations, they are not allowed—except with special permission—to receive any legal fees from the organizations. If the lawyers did receive funds from the groups, they themselves would be subject to criminal prosecution, and could face sentences of up to seven years in prison. This tactic was quite bizarre considering that lawyers who have spent a lifetime representing defendants who belong to Hamas, Fatah, and the PFLP—all of which Israel has designated as terrorist groups—in both civil and military courts have never received such a warning. Neither this author nor the lawyers defending the six organizations have ever encountered this type of prohibition or warning in the course of their work representing defendants in cases brought by the Israeli government.

Also curious is the fact that the US State Department has not made any comment since it first asked Israel for additional materials regarding its claims against the six organizations. The Biden Administration is presumably still waiting for the evidence that Israel supposedly has, or is perhaps merely stalling for time to avoid jumping into the fray and potentially upsetting an ally with which it has long had a “special relationship.” But given that multiple European countries have now resumed their funding for these groups after having conducted independent audits and finding no evidence of malfeasance, it would behoove the United States to finally clarify its position on this matter. If the US wants to continue proclaiming itself a defender of human rights and the rule of law around the world, it must do so in all countries and in all cases, not just when it serves Israeli, or for that matter, US interests.

JONATHAN KUTTAB

Non-resident Fellow

@jkuttab

Is It Time to Talk to Hamas?

Jonathan Kuttab, international human rights lawyer — Sat, 25 Jun 2022 18:18:07 +0000

June 24, 2022

First appeared on Friends of Sabeel North America (FOSNA) site.

By Jonathan Kuttab

Last week, I lamented the failure of the world to address the siege of Gaza, which has gone on for 15 years and kept two million Palestinians trapped in an unlivable open-air prison. The real elephant in the room, however, and the justification used for failing to lift that siege is the fact that the Gaza Strip is currently ruled by Hamas—considered an illegitimate terrorist organization, hell-bent on the destruction of Israel and, as such, not a potential candidate for negotiations or peace.

The existence of Hamas is also the lame excuse given for the paralysis of peace talks. Since the Palestinians are divided and Mahmoud Abbas cannot (and is not allowed to) talk either with or for Hamas, it is said that there exists “no one to talk to” on the Palestinian side. Hamas has become a convenient excuse for indefinite occupation.

It may well be time to broach the taboo subject of talking to Hamas and seek instead a way of bringing them into the peace conversation. Certainly, there can be no peace without Hamas and its followers participating in some way or another.

Now, I must begin by saying that I am neither an apologist nor do I in any way speak for Hamas. In fact, I reject their political philosophy, and I believe they have failed the people of Gaza in many ways. Yet, the isolation, demonization, and exclusion of Hamas from the political process has not been helpful.

The situation for Hamas is in many respects analogous to the situation of the PLO before the famous handshake that took place on the White House lawn. The PLO, too, was considered a terrorist organization; its charter was unacceptable, and some of its tactics were abhorrent. Yet, it represented at the time the Palestinian people, and one makes peace with one’s enemies, not with one’s friends.

In addition, the PLO carried out many civilian functions and played an important part in the lives of the people. Its demonization was a convenient way of demonizing all Palestinian people and preventing any progress towards reconciliation.

Brave individuals, including Christians, challenged “conventional wisdom” and at great risk to themselves, their reputation, and their careers were willing to meet with PLO officials, even though doing so was against the law at the time. Andrew Young (a former pastor and associate of Dr. King) was the US representative to the UN when he lost his job and damaged his career after meeting with the PLO representative to the UN, the late Zuhdi Tarazi.

Quaker and other church officials met with Yasser Arafat, even advising and urging him to take the necessary steps to move towards negotiations. This included changing the charter of the PLO, making public statements in favor of the recognition of Israel, and abandoning armed struggle.

Is it time to do the same with Hamas? After all, they do have physical control of the Gaza Strip’s interior and enjoy the support of a sizable portion of the Palestinian population—many of whom voted for Hamas only because they were frustrated with the corruption and inefficiency of Fatah and the Palestinain Authority.

Some may argue that Hamas is an evil entity and that they have no interest in making peace, that it is a waste of time and effort to even try, that they cannot be trusted, and that their own charter calls for the destruction of Israel (referring to the old charter that has long since been amended). The same arguments once trotted out against the PLO can all be applied to Hamas. This time, however, the Arab countries, as well as the Palestinian Authority, often join the chorus of those who oppose Hamas and refuse to negotiate with them.

Those interested in lasting peace, however, cannot take such a posture. We must be willing to talk to all, seeking the common humanity and goodwill in every corner. It is far too easy to demonize our enemies and those with whom we disagree. Jesus got into trouble for his willingness to associate with sinners, tax collectors, Samaritans, gentiles, and even women. Can his followers dare to follow his example?

It is easy enough to demonize our opponents and associate only with our friends and those who agree with us. It takes great courage and patience to open ourselves to those with whom we disagree, whether it is the Jewish settlers, right wing (or left wing) extremists, Zionist extremists, religious fanatics, or anyone else who disagrees with us. Yet, this is precisely what we need to do.

I understand that this challenge may be a bridge too far for some of you. After all, it runs against the conventional wisdom of most activist organizations and individuals. It also may be against the law. But, I would like to hear from others who disagree with me. At least, let us have a conversation about a topic that has been a taboo for too long.

“You have heard that it was said, “You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who harass you so that you will be acting as children of your Father who is in heaven. He makes the sun rise on both the evil and the good and sends rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love only those who love you, what reward do you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing? Don’t even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore, just as your heavenly Father is complete in showing love to everyone, so also you must be complete.

—Matthew 5:43-48 (CEB)

#Justice4Halabi: An Update

Jonathan Kuttab, international human rights lawyer — Thu, 16 Jun 2022 20:42:15 +0000

By Jonathan Kuttab

First published by Friends of Sabeel North America

Yesterday, the judge in the Halabi case issued a summary of his verdict. The full decision has not yet been issued, but the judge said it is hundreds of pages long and may be classified. In his summary, the judge states that Halabi is convicted on all charges listed in the charge sheet, except on the charge of treason (since he is a Gazan and therefore cannot be charged with lack of loyalty to the state of Israel). The judge says that he based his decision on a “confession” made by Halabi to a mole, after he was tortured during an interrogation, and which he later withdrew. The judge also said that he does not accept the evidence and testimonies brought up by the defense. Sentencing will take place sometime in the future, probably in July.

According to Maher Hanna, Halabi’s lawyer, this decision is on its face incredibly unjust, since the charge sheet contains a number of accusations that have been disproven as being patently false during the trial, by evidence derived solely from official Israeli sources. The following are but three examples:

The charge sheet claims that Halabi scoped out, photographed, and gave Hamas information about the Erez crossing in 2010, when official Israeli records show that between 2006 and 2011 Halabi never visited the Erez crossing.
The charge sheet accuses Halabi of diverting World Vision money from Britain to Hamas, when the records presented at the trial show that no World Vision money was sent from Britain at all.
The charge sheet alleges that Halabi diverted thousands of tons of cement and steel shipped through the Keren Shalom crossing to Hamas for the building of tunnels, when evidence was given at the trial that World Vision never used Keren Shalom and never even imported any steel or cement into Gaza at all.

Halabi’s lawyer is convinced that the judge had not even read his summation, otherwise he would have avoided such blatant misrepresentations. He will definitely be appealing this clearly unjust decision.

For those who have been following the case, it is worth noting that the alleged millions diverted to Hamas exceed World Vision’s entire $22 million budget in Gaza for the past 10 years, and that detailed forensic audits by World Vision, as well as the Australian Government, did not find any funds to be missing at all. Halabi refused several offers for a plea bargain that would have had him released years ago, but he has insisted on his innocence throughout 160 court hearings over the past six years. While much of the trial was held in secret, the conduct of the trial by the judge and the restrictions placed on the defense are enough to thoroughly discredit the Israeli justice system when it comes to Palestinians accused before it.

Lift the Siege of Gaza

Jonathan Kuttab, international human rights lawyer — Thu, 16 Jun 2022 20:39:45 +0000

By Jonathan Kuttab

First published by Friends of Sabeel North America

For the past 15 years, since June 2007, 2 million Palestinians have lived under a strict siege in a narrow strip along the Mediterranean Sea, 20 miles long and 3 to 5 miles wide. Israel withdrew its 7000 settlers from that strip in 2005 but then surrounded it with walls, fences, and guns. No person or goods can enter or leave the Strip without Israel’s approval. Egypt also controls the one remaining opening in the South, but it does so in coordination with Israel and according to its wishes. These restrictions have turned the Strip into an open air prison, and have led to a systematic de-development of the Gaza Strip, which today has an unemployment rate of 50% and only 4-6 hours of electricity per day. 98% of its water is undrinkable. And periodic attacks by Israel (referred to as “mowing the lawn” by Israeli generals) have left thousands of buildings destroyed and unlivable. Materials for reconstruction are carefully regulated by Israelis. Even foodstuffs are strictly controlled. Only about 100 items are allowed in (at one time even spaghetti was not on the list of permitted foods). When asked whether they were planning to starve the Gazans, an Israeli general replied, “No. We just want to put them on a strict diet.” He was not joking. A report leaked that the Israeli army had calculated the number of calories needed to keep people barely alive and used those figures to determine how many truckloads of food it would allow into the Strip.

A UN study concluded that the Gaza Strip would be “unlivable” by 2020. We are two years beyond that! How is it possible that such a situation could exist, persisting with no end in sight?! When Gazans do attempt to resist, with puny and ineffective rockets, they get bombed, smashed with devastating firepower—hundreds or thousands of tons of explosives landing for every puny rocket fired. When no rockets are fired, which happens for months on end, no one cares and the suffering continues. When Gazans attempted a peaceful “march of return” in 2018, 63 unarmed protesters were coldly and deliberately shot dead in one day by snipers who “knew where every bullet went.” The entire area is cut off from the rest of the world, with Israeli drones and jets flying overhead the whole time. It is no wonder that a recent Save the Children study found that 80% of all children in the Strip suffer from “mental health distress.”

What possible justification can there be for such cruel behavior?? Apart from being collective punishment for the violent acts of a few, such punishment makes no sense from a security standpoint. How does prohibiting exports from the Gaza Strip relate to security in any way? How is the prohibition on importing glass and building materials for reconstruction justified? Israel claims to prohibit imports of cement or steel so that such materials could not be used for building tunnels. Yet, an entire population of 2 million people still needs housing, construction, and repairs from repeated heavy bombing campaigns. Incidentally, Israel also prohibits the import of pipes greater than 1 inch in diameter, so the sewage system cannot function adequately.

Gazans constitute a significant percentage of the Palestinian population, with schools, hospitals, families and a vibrant society that is being cruelly punished, bludgeoned, and forced to live in utterly inhuman conditions with no relief in sight. Israel and Egypt are not the only ones to blame for this. The Palestinian Authority, with its enmity to Hamas, as well as the entire international community is responsible for allowing this hurtful siege.

The basic argument used is that Hamas is a nefarious terrorist organization, and that the entire population of Gaza needs to be punished for voting for Hamas and for allowing them to stay in power. Even if we accept that Hamas is a nefarious, evil organization, the truth is that the most recent election was held over 15 years ago, and most Gazans living today either did not vote for Hamas in 2006 or haven’t participated in any election ever. I may not like them or their philosophy, but regardless of what one thinks about Hamas, the siege of Gaza must be lifted.

Some brave activists have tried to physically break the siege by sailing boats, with medicine, food, and supplies to Gaza. They have been attacked, some killed, others imprisoned and had their boats seized by the Israeli Navy. On the 15th anniversary of the siege of Gaza, we need to renew our commitment and redouble our efforts to break the siege and bring an end to this inhuman misery.