What are the accusations in JNF v. US Campaign for Pal Rights based on?
The dangerous claims that support for boycotts is prohibited, and that because @USCPR_ expressed support for the Great March of Return, it’s responsible for “terrorist kites” launched during the March.
The facts are: @USCPR_ is a grassroots org working for freedom & justice for Palestinians – collectively, through constitutionally-protected boycotts, public awareness raising campaigns, and other tactics. They are one of the oldest & largest Palestine solidarity orgs in the US.
Ironically, JNF lands sit on the sites of depopulated Palestinian villages, many Palestinians marching in Gaza were from those very same villages. The lawsuit also cited @USCPR_‘s participation in a campaign to #StoptheJNF.
JNF is an unofficial arm of the Israeli govt holding 13% of all Israeli land, mostly stolen from Palestinian refugees and internally displaced persons, managed under apartheid that privileges Jewish Israelis at the expense of Palestinians.
The lawyer arguing the appeal is Nathan Lewin: architect of a lawfare strategy to drain orgs defending Palestine. Lewin is on a ZOA advisory board, and has rep’d AIPAC, members of the JDL (a violent right-wing group), and the Trump election conspiracist Mike Lindell.
The allegations are laughable, but their legal theory is a huge threat to our movements: they argue that their case should still advance past the early stages just because they slapped human rights defenders with the accusation “ties to Terrorists”– without evidence.
Allowing meritless lawsuits to advance would force defendants into a chilling and draining process. This can seriously harm already under-resourced human rights organizations.
There should be no free pass for groups abusing the courts to shield the Israeli government – or Big Oil, or gun manufacturers, etc – from accountability.
An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us. We will resist lawfare together. Follow Thursday as @theCCR exposes empty allegations and dangerous theories in the D.C. Court of Appeals, tomorrow 9:30 ET!
🔗 Link: bit.ly/USCPRArguments…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Today we listened to a federal appeals court as they heard oral arguments in a lawsuit brought by the Israeli quasi-govt org Jewish National Fund alleging our partners at @USCPR_ , one of the oldest & largest Palestine solidarity orgs in the US, supports "terrorism". (🧵 1/9)
This lawsuit was rightfully dismissed in March 2021. The U.S. federal judge who dismissed it described JNF's arguments as "to say the least, not persuasive." Why? It’s based on a wild legal theory with no grounding in reality.
The lawyer for lawfare plaintiffs argues that their case should still advance past the early stages just because they slapped human rights defenders with the accusation “ties to Terrorists”– without evidence.
JNF’s lawsuit aims to shut down Palestine advocacy work of @USCPR_ by making “terrorism” claims so flimsy that a federal judge dismissed them, calling them “to say the least, unpersuasive”. But the plaintiffs appealed & @theCCR is arguing in court tomorrow to dismiss it for good.
The suit makes a ridiculous argument that @USCPR_’s speech supporting Palestinian protesters, their demands during the Great March of Return, and their work to promote constitutionally-protected boycotts of Israel = terrorism.
We are reassured to see @EDcivilrights do the right thing: #RejectIHRA, and focus on rising threats of bigotry & racist attacks by white supremacists. Antisemitism is frightening, esp. with the rise of rightwing nationalism & white supremacy, it must be fought in all forms. (🧵)
A new @EDcivilrights fact sheet describes protections covering students who are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, or of another religious group.
Ed is facing heavy pressure from the Israel lobby to attack Palestinians by adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which defines criticism of Israel as antisemitic. The newly released fact sheet focuses on real threats:
The Berkeley Law Palestine solidarity bylaw is in the news again.
An Israeli govt funded group partnered with a Florida-based attorney to file a complaint demanding a federal investigation into @UCBerkeley for allowing this solidarity action.
Here’s what you should know: 🧵
The complaint is wrong on both the law and the facts. It claims to represent the interests of Jewish students, but the lawyers who filed the complaint have no apparent ties to the @UCBerkeley community. So what do they want?
Let’s back up and look at what has happened so far: In August, Berkeley Law Students for Justice in Palestine invited several other law student clubs to stand in solidarity with Palestinians and adopt a policy against inviting speakers who have expressed anti-Palestinian views.
Read this statement from our client, George Washington University sophomore and Students for Justice in Palestine president who was forced to testify in last Friday, after he and SJP were falsely charged with damaging a concrete bench outside of Hillel. palestinelegal.org/news/2022/12/7…
Lance and SJP believe this is racist retaliation for a postering campaign critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Attorneys were not allowed to speak at the hearing, but Palestine Legal was able to listen in on Zoom.
At the hearing, 8 witnesses submitted testimony that Lance directed students partaking in the postering campaign to only posted posters in public areas where permitted by DC law. A student testified that Lance himself only stuck posters in public places.
THREAD: After a year of retaliating against university staff for providing support to Palestinian students grieving Israeli state violence last spring, @GWtweets is effectively shutting down an office that provides services to students experiencing trauma. palestinelegal.org/news/2022/7/5/…
GW severely curtailed the work of the Office of Advocacy and Support after the office announced trauma support services for Palestinian students. For the past year, OAS has been prohibited from posting to social media or communicating with professors on behalf of students.
As a result of university retaliation and the stifling of their mission to support students, OAS staff have left one by one. The hostile campus environment became too much for our client Nada Elbasha, who resigned as the last remaining OAS employee on June 24.