Palestine Legal stands with Fatima Mohammed, @CUNYLaw’s peer-elected commencement speaker, in the face of a racist, anti-Palestinian, Islamophobic harassment campaign exacerbated by public officials over her comments in support of Palestinian freedom and justice for all. 🧵
Yesterday, CUNY’s Board of Trustees and chancellor issued a statement condemning Mohammed’s speech as “hate speech,” a false accusation that flies in the face of the university’s First Amendment obligations and Mohammed’s principled words: www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2023/…
The BoT’s statement is particularly egregious given that the law school dean’s office reviewed and approved Mohammed’s speech in advance as part of an apparently new policy as a condition of her speaking.
In an April 28 email, CUNY Law administrators told Mohammed that “all student speeches need to be approved by the dean’s office in order to be used at graduation. Speeches that are not approved… will mean that you void your ability to give an address at commencement.”
To great applause, Mohammed’s powerful speech celebrated her peers for living up to CUNY Law’s mission and tradition of radical lawyering in service of oppressed and marginalized communities.
Mohammed highlighted injustices experienced by Black and brown communities in the US at the hands of the police and surveillance state as well as the harms experienced by Palestinians as a result of Israeli settler-colonialism.
Mohammed shared her pride that “CUNY Law is one of the few, if not only law schools to pass and endorse BDS on a student and faculty level recognizing that our mission to be in the service of human needs can no longer make exceptional the Palestinian struggle for liberation.”
Following her speech, Mohammed, as a 24-year-old first generation Arab-American and Muslim woman, faced a barrage of racist attacks from public officials, including NYC Mayor Eric Adams, who also spoke at CUNY Law’s commencement, but was booed and protested by students.
As a result of the pile on, Mohammed has been the target of a racist and vitriolic online harassment campaign:
These attacks against Mohammed are part of widespread harassment campaigns to shut down criticism of Israel by attacking Palestinians and their supporters. This is what CUNY should be condemning.
We call on CUNY to apologize to Mohammed, correct the record, and take serious measures to protect its students from such attacks that put them, their families, and their careers at risk.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
After months of Israel advocacy groups calling on the White House to adopt the distorted IHRA definition of antisemitism, today even the staunchly pro-Israel Biden administration declined to do so. Why? Because IHRA is wrong, useless, and clearly unconstitutional.
Zionist advocates like Ken Marcus have churned out op-eds as a way to build external pressure demanding how crucial it is for the Biden admin to embrace IHRA and no other definition.
These same advocacy groups are now celebrating the just released White House Strategy as a victory, when it is clearly the failure of a flawed strategy.
Tell the American Bar Association (@ABAesq): Controversial IHRA definition that targets advocacy for Palestinian rights should have no part in resolution on antisemitism! #RejectIHRA
Palestine Legal and @theCCR also wrote to @ABAesq about how IHRA is routinely used to censor Palestine advocacy—inc. efforts to shut down educational events, university classes, film screenings, divestment resolutions, and similar expressive activity: static1.squarespace.com/static/548748b…
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.
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’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: