#there are israelis who are protesting on behalf of palestinians who are being SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPACTFUL because they're actually

[snekdood]

i think the reason ppl get so uppity about you calling a scam a scam rn is bc they feel so powerless about the situation in i/p that they'll take ANYTHING to feel like they're contributing. they dont want to be the bystanders who have no real sway that they are, they want to be the heroes of the story, and if they dont at least have the scams to rely on for their image, how will everyone know how good of a person they are and praise them for saving the day???????????????

[mariacallous]

Since its start, the war in Gaza has been thought of as potentially foreshadowing a direct conflict between Iran and Israel. Hezbollah continues to threaten to open a new front in the war, and Iranian hard-liners have welcomed their country’s direct intervention. Last month, Iran’s former foreign minister, Javad Zarif, mentioned a letter written by hard-line officials to Iran’s supreme leader attempting to persuade him to engage in the conflict with Israel on behalf of Hamas.

The likelihood of an expanded regional war, however, is low. Despite the slogans echoed by Iranian hard-liners, the reality of Iran’s strategic thinking is more circumspect. There are at least seven reasons Tehran is likely to avoid starting a war with Israel on behalf of Hamas.

First, the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot rally society to engage in a new war as it did during the war with Iraq in the 1980s. It was the relentless mobilization of human waves, among other factors, that resisted the Iraqi army and forced Baghdad to withdraw from Iran’s territory. However, several decades later, society’s support for the political system has significantly declined. Following last year’s protests, coupled with the economic crisis caused, in part, by U.S.-led sanctions, discontent among the youth and the urban middle class has surged.

Second, the moderate faction in the Iranian government has been warning against Iran’s direct intervention in the war. Indeed, the war in Gaza has deepened political cleavages in Tehran. In the threat assessment of Iranian hard-liners, the destruction of Hamas is automatically associated with the subsequent collapse of Hezbollah and, ultimately, a military attack on Iran. That is why they support targeting American bases in Iraq and Syria by Iran’s Shiite proxies. This view stands in stark contrast with that of moderate officials, particularly Zarif, who has consistently warned about the destructive consequence of Iran’s potential involvement in a war with the U.S. According to Zarif, if Iran takes a more radical stance on Gaza, it could trigger a deadly conflict with the U.S., which Israel would welcome. And despite being marginalized by Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi’s government, Zarif still holds significant influence among the political elites of the Islamic Republic and even its society.

Third, Israel’s apparent failure in deterring Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7 does not alter Tehran’s strategic calculation toward Israel. Despite Israel’s reliance on high-tech defense technology like the Iron Dome missile defense system, Hamas inflicted a significant military and intelligence blow against it, thereby shattering its deterrence policy. But that does not shift Iran’s perspective on Israel or the power dynamics in the region. Though the Hamas operation rattled Israel’s long-standing credible deterrence strategy, it does not provide Iran with the opportunity to challenge Israel using missile power. Conversely, Iran may believe that Israel feels that reestablishing deterrence is an existential priority for which it’s worth taking extraordinary military or political risks.

Fourth, contrary to the conventional wisdom, neither Hamas nor even Hezbollah is Iran’s proxy; it would be more accurate to think of them as Iran’s nonstate allies. There is no top-down relationship between Tehran and Hamas. Even as Hamas aligns its actions with Iran, its approaches could diverge, as they notably did during the Syrian civil war when Hamas supported the Sunni anti-Assad rebels. American and Israeli intelligence has suggested that Iran’s top officials were not aware of the Hamas operation. In mid-November, Reuters claimed that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas, that because the Iranian government was given no warning of the attack on Israel, it will not enter the war on the Palestinian group’s behalf.

Fifth, Iran’s strategic partners in Moscow and Beijing have not declared their full support for Hamas. Iran has sought alignment with China and Russia under its Look East policy and would be loath to spoil its relationships with those countries. Tehran is, in fact, following a similar policy in Gaza to the one it adopted after observing the Sino-Russian wait-and-see approach to the capture of Kabul by the Taliban two years ago. The goal for Iran is to avoid being isolated in major international crises.

Sixth, there exists a deep belief among influential decision-makers in Iran that the Arab sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf would welcome a large-scale war between Iran and Israel. Iran may hope that Arab countries would sever their ties with Israel as a result of a wider war, but that is unlikely. Arab public opinion holds little sway over their countries’ foreign policies. And Arab leaders have long perceived Hamas as a disruptive Iranian proxy that they would be happy to see Israel dismantle once for all.

The last and the most significant factor influencing Iran’s apparent reluctance to engage in war is Khamenei’s specific point of view toward regional conflicts. Contrary to the mainstream view in the West, Iran’s supreme leader approaches responses to regional conflicts from a realist standpoint rather than an ideological one. Having served as the president of the Islamic Republic during the devastating war with Iraq, he is acutely aware of the consequences of war, especially with the U.S. This awareness led Iran to choose a relatively measured response following the assassination by the United States of Gen. Qassem Suleimani, the former leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force. Such behavior aligns with his overall strategy in handling regional crises. More than two decades earlier, when Iranian diplomats in northern Afghanistan were killed by the first Taliban emirate and public sentiment in Iran leaned heavily toward a major intervention, Khamenei and Hassan Rouhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council at the time, helped prevent escalation.

These seven interconnected reasons explain the Islamic Republic’s reluctance to involve itself in the war on behalf of Hamas. The war in Gaza may, however, accelerate Iran’s nuclear program. There are strong voices in Iran, predominantly in the hard-liner camp, arguing that the country’s most significant tool to prevent the destruction of Hamas hinges on its decision to fully pursue nuclear capabilities. They believe that Iran’s trump card lies in its threat to develop nuclear weapons, showcasing vital support for its allies—similar to its past support for the Assad government of Syria. This reasoning gained substantial momentum when Israeli ultranationalist Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu advocated for the dropping of “some kind of atomic bomb” on the Gaza Strip “to kill everyone” as “an option.”

None of this implies that Iran is willing to abandon Hamas, its strategic asset in Gaza. Rather than standing idly by, Tehran is likely to continue applying pressure on both Israel and the U.S.—through Hezbollah and its Shiite proxies in Iraq and Syria—without escalating the conflict to a full-scale regional war.

[nancydhooper]

The Latest Attack on Free Speech in the Israel-Palestine Debate

Congress is considering a new bill that will likely be used to silence constitutionally protected criticism of Israel.

Members of Congress last month introduced the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act.” The bill purports to address a real problem: According to the FBI, incidents of hate crimes motivated by anti-Jewish bias have significantly increased in recent years.

But anti-Semitic harassment is already illegal under federal law. The new bill does not change that fact, but its overbreadth makes it likely that it will instead silence criticism of Israel that is protected by the First Amendment.

The proposed legislation, for example, defines speech that applies a “double standard for Israel,” or denies “the Jewish people their right to self-determination,” as evidence of anti-Semitism. It also directs the Department of Education to consider such speech in its investigations, which could result in a loss of federal funding for schools. On Monday, the ACLU sent a letter to Congress opposing the bill. 

The ACLU does not take a position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it does take firm positions on efforts to stifle free speech. The threat of a federal investigation and subsequent loss of government funding will likely scare schools into suppressing speech critical of Israel. Students and teachers who criticize the Israeli government or advocate for Palestinian rights are the obvious targets. But freedom of speech will be the loser.

The bill is part of a disturbing surge of government-led attempts to suppress the speech of people on only one side of the Israel-Palestine debate. The trend manifests on college campuses, in state contracts, and even in bills to change federal criminal law, but the impact is the same: Those who seek to protest, boycott, or otherwise criticize the Israeli government are being silenced.

On college campuses, a growing number of students and teachers have been disciplined or threatened with discipline for engaging in actions in support of Palestinian rights or in opposition to Israeli policies. Student groups like Students for Justice in Palestine have been sanctioned for legitimate protests and even banned. Such attacks on free speech are likely to escalate now that the Trump administration has nominated Kenneth Marcus, who has led numerous campaigns to suppress student speech critical of Israel, to lead the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. Marcus has  urged  people to file complaints of anti-Semitism with the Department of Education in response to criticism of Israel, arguing that the mere filing of such complaints, regardless of their outcome or merit, will pressure schools to suppress anti-Israeli criticism.

Outside campus life, campaigns aimed at excluding critics of Israel from participating in public events are mounting, often with support of publicly funded institutions. A Chicago-area public library temporarily cancelled a talk about a book titled “The Battle for Justice in Palestine,” before reconsidering its decision. The Missouri History Museum cancelled a community event titled “From Ferguson to Ayotzinapa to Palestine,” after organizers refused to remove Palestinian panelists.

In Nassau County, New York, local officials tried to stop a local arena from featuring a performance by Roger Waters of Pink Floyd because he advocates for a boycott of Israel. And, earlier this year, Florida officials attempted to prevent Lorde from performing in Miami and Tampa after she cancelled a concert in Tel Aviv. (All three shows went on.)

State legislatures have joined the effort. The South Carolina Legislature recently introduced budget language forcing public colleges and universities to use a definition that equates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. The definition is almost identical to the language used in the federal Anti-Semitism Awareness Act introduced in Congress. More than 100 other bills penalizing boycotts of Israel have been introduced in state and local legislatures in the last four years, and 24 states have enacted legislation targeting the boycott movement. Congress, too, is currently considering a bill that would make it a crime to participate in certain boycotts of Israel.

Many of these efforts clearly don’t withstand legal scrutiny. Earlier this year, in response to an ACLU lawsuit, a federal court in Kansas blocked that state’s anti-boycott law, recognizing that political boycotts of Israel are constitutionally protected and that the state can’t suppress or undermine them. The ACLU is challenging a similar law in Arizona, on behalf of a lawyer who was asked to certify that he doesn’t boycott Israel in order to renew his law firm’s contract to provide legal services to incarcerated people. Fourteen other states have laws similar to those in Kansas and Arizona. These laws have rightly attracted scorn and ridicule — most famously in Dickinson, Texas, which required Hurricane Harvey victims to pledge not to boycott Israel as a condition of receiving relief aid.

In 1943, Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson famously wrote, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” In other words: The First Amendment stands as a bulwark against government attempts to suppress dissent.

These efforts to  censor criticism of the Israeli government and advocacy for Palestinian rights do a disservice to the real problem of anti-Semitism in the United States. Addressing anti-Semitism is important and necessary, particularly in the current climate, but it does not require silencing constitutionally protected protest or expression.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247012 https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/rights-protesters/latest-attack-free-speech-israel-palestine-debate via http://www.rssmix.com/

[nancydhooper]

The Latest Attack in the Campaign to Silence Criticism of Israel

Congress is considering a new bill that will likely be used to silence constitutionally protected criticism of Israel.

Members of Congress last month introduced the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act.” The bill purports to address a real problem: According to the FBI, incidents of hate crimes motivated by anti-Jewish bias have significantly increased in recent years.

But anti-Semitic harassment is already illegal under federal law. The new bill does not change that fact, but its overbreadth makes it likely that it will instead silence criticism of Israel that is protected by the First Amendment.

The proposed legislation, for example, defines speech that applies a “double standard for Israel,” or denies “the Jewish people their right to self-determination,” as evidence of anti-Semitism. It also directs the Department of Education to consider such speech in its investigations, which could result in a loss of federal funding for schools. On Monday, the ACLU sent a letter to Congress opposing the bill. 

The ACLU does not take a position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it does take firm positions on efforts to stifle free speech. The threat of a federal investigation and subsequent loss of government funding will likely scare schools into suppressing speech critical of Israel. Students and teachers who criticize the Israeli government or advocate for Palestinian rights are the obvious targets. But freedom of speech will be the loser.

The bill is part of a disturbing surge of government-led attempts to suppress the speech of people on only one side of the Israel-Palestine debate. The trend manifests on college campuses, in state contracts, and even in bills to change federal criminal law, but the impact is the same: Those who seek to protest, boycott, or otherwise criticize the Israeli government are being silenced.

On college campuses, a growing number of students and teachers have been disciplined or threatened with discipline for engaging in actions in support of Palestinian rights or in opposition to Israeli policies. Student groups like Students for Justice in Palestine have been sanctioned for legitimate protests and even banned. Such attacks on free speech are likely to escalate now that the Trump administration has nominated Kenneth Marcus, who has led numerous campaigns to suppress student speech critical of Israel, to lead the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. Marcus has  urged  people to file complaints of anti-Semitism with the Department of Education in response to criticism of Israel, arguing that the mere filing of such complaints, regardless of their outcome or merit, will pressure schools to suppress anti-Israeli criticism.

Outside campus life, campaigns aimed at excluding critics of Israel from participating in public events are mounting, often with support of publicly funded institutions. A Chicago-area public library temporarily cancelled a talk about a book titled “The Battle for Justice in Palestine,” before reconsidering its decision. The Missouri History Museum cancelled a community event titled “From Ferguson to Ayotzinapa to Palestine,” after organizers refused to remove Palestinian panelists.

In Nassau County, New York, local officials tried to stop a local arena from featuring a performance by Roger Waters of Pink Floyd because he advocates for a boycott of Israel. And, earlier this year, Florida officials attempted to prevent Lorde from performing in Miami and Tampa after she cancelled a concert in Tel Aviv. (All three shows went on.)

State legislatures have joined the effort. The South Carolina Legislature recently passed budget language forcing public colleges and universities to use a definition that equates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. The definition is almost identical to the language used in the federal Anti-Semitism Awareness Act introduced in Congress. More than 100 other bills penalizing boycotts of Israel have been introduced in state and local legislatures in the last four years, and 24 states have enacted legislation targeting the boycott movement. Congress, too, is currently considering a bill that would make it a crime to participate in certain boycotts of Israel.

Many of these efforts clearly don’t withstand legal scrutiny. Earlier this year, in response to an ACLU lawsuit, a federal court in Kansas blocked that state’s anti-boycott law, recognizing that political boycotts of Israel are constitutionally protected and that the state can’t suppress or undermine them. The ACLU is challenging a similar law in Arizona, on behalf of a lawyer who was asked to certify that he doesn’t boycott Israel in order to renew his law firm’s contract to provide legal services to incarcerated people. Fourteen other states have laws similar to those in Kansas and Arizona. These laws have rightly attracted scorn and ridicule — most famously in Dickinson, Texas, which required Hurricane Harvey victims to pledge not to boycott Israel as a condition of receiving relief aid.

In 1943, Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson famously wrote, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” In other words: The First Amendment stands as a bulwark against government attempts to suppress dissent.

These efforts to  censor criticism of the Israeli government and advocacy for Palestinian rights do a disservice to the real problem of anti-Semitism in the United States. Addressing anti-Semitism is important and necessary, particularly in the current climate, but it does not require silencing constitutionally protected protest or expression.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247012 https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/rights-protesters/latest-attack-campaign-silence-criticism-israel via http://www.rssmix.com/