to report «iusnews»; A senior American political analyst says student protests in U.S. universities against Israel’s “barbarism” in the Gaza Strip are “motivated solely by shared humanitarian values.”
Yuram Abdullah Weiler also tells the Tehran Times that “any criticism of the Israeli government or its genocidal policies is now equated to anti-Semitism.”
Following is the text of the interview:
Q: Aren’t the crackdown and arrest of students at American universities by police a violation of the right to protest and freedom of opinion?
A: Due to the complexities of the American legal system, a simple yes or no answer is impossible. Technically, protests and freedom of speech should fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. constitution, which prohibits Congress from making a law abridging freedom of speech or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), people have the right to speak out from so-called “traditional public platforms,” such as parks, sidewalks, streets and other public places. However, if a protest involves a march or a parade that will be crossing streets or otherwise obstructing traffic, a permit may be required. Officials cannot deny a permit for a protest merely because it concerns something unpopular or controversial.
Police may not break up a protest unless there is a danger of a riot, interference to traffic or other threat to public safety. If police intend to break up a protest, they must give advance notice, giving protesters sufficient time to comply, as well as indicate the exit path, and consequences for failure to comply before arresting anyone.
EXCLUSIVE: Student protests motivated solely by shared humanitarian values: expert
There have been numerous cases over the years defining the limits of free speech and peaceable assembly. In some cases, such as Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court upheld a state law making it a crime to advocate or advise the overthrow of the government although disagreeing in principle with the restrictions the law placed on freedom of speech. The court ruled that “[s]uch utterances present sufficient danger to the public peace and security of the State to bring their punishment clearly within the range of legislative discretion, even if the effect of a given utterance cannot accurately be foreseen.”
Those CEOs of the merchants of death who revel in their companies’ record revenues resulting from Israel’s bloodthirsty barbarism against Palestinians cannot have even a single nanogram of humanity left in the combined volume of their circulatory systems.
Then in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the court reversed itself and ruled “that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
The crackdown on pro-Palestinian protesters at the University of Texas at Austin occurred after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott had ordered public universities to revise their freedom of speech policies, targeting pro-Palestinian groups. According to a 2019 Texas law, all common outdoor areas of public universities are “traditional public platforms,” so the students protesting were clearly within their protected First Amendment rights. The harsh crackdown with 54 arrests at the UT Austin event were in line with the desires of Abbott’s chief backer, ultra-right-wing billionaire Jeff Yass, a major supporter of right-wing Israeli think tanks including the influential Kohelet Forum.
The Supreme Court appears to be returning to the doctrine of legislative discretion by state governments, as evidenced by a recent case involving a Black Lives Matters protest leader, who is being sued by a Louisiana police officer. The effect of the case will be to stifle protest, since now the court has set a precedent to allow protest leaders to be sued for the acts of protesters, even if there is no incitement of violence on the part of the leader.
Q: Do you agree with this view that the United States is manifesting a double standard approach in this regard?
A: The double standard in the U.S. is quite striking: any criticism of the Israeli government or its genocidal policies is now equated to anti-Semitism. Speaking out against the Zionist regime, or joining the BDS movement, puts one at risk of job loss, censure and even arrest and prosecution. The U.S. House of Representatives has even gone so far as to pass a resolution, H.Res.883, which condemns the phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as anti-Semitic. Yet according to the supreme court ruling in Texas v. Johnson (1989), burning an American flag is “symbolic speech” protected under the First Amendment.
Looking at the pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University, the students were peacefully encamped on a large, grassy area when university president Nemat Minouche Shafik, who had been interrogated by pro-Zionist Republican lawmakers under the pretext of investigating the anti-Semitic character of the protests, called in the New York State police to clear the protesters. The Republicans had accused Shafik of not adequately protecting Jewish students on campus. Among the students suspended for merely participating in the event was Isra Hirsi, the daughter of Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar. For his part, Biden condemned the protests as acts of blatant anti-Semitism, while House speaker Mike Johnson demanded the protesters “go back to class and stop the nonsense.”
In another incident, the University of Southern California cancelled the traditional valedictorian address at graduation, denying Muslim bioengineering student Asna Tabassum her chance to speak. The reason given by the university was concern over safety and security risks at the ceremony. Certainly, USC had the resources to provide whatever additional security measures it may have deemed necessary to assure safety for Tabassum, but acquiesced to Zionist pressure and cancelled the speech she was to have given before an anticipated audience of 65,000 people.
Q: The brutality of Israel in Gaza has shocked the world. In response, it has so far killed about 30 people in Gaza in comparison to every person killed in the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas. However, the protestors are accused of “anti-Semitism” while a considerable number of the protestors are Jew. Why do you think politicians, including President Biden, are using such slanders against students and other opponents of the war?
A: Biden’s infamous quote, “If there were no Israel we’d have to invent one,” speaks volumes about his geopolitical outlook, which seems to be stuck in the Cold War era. His administration is complicit in the slaughter of Palestinians through daily military supplies. While voicing concern over Israeli blockage of humanitarian goods to Gaza, Biden has cut funding to UNRWA, the only agency in the Occupied Territories with adequate aid distribution capabilities; a contradiction to say the least.
Biden’s true feelings about Israel, however, can be deduced from his consistent military support of the Gaza genocide. When he spoke to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee after the Zionist regime attacked Lebanon in 1982, his unabashed enthusiasm for the invasion and blatant indifference to the civilian casualties, attempting to downplay the killing of women and children, even shocked then ultra-hawk Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin. Similarly, self-proclaimed Zionist Biden has expressed no regrets over the civilians being killed daily in Gaza, and has even remarked that “it’s the price of waging war.” It is therefore no surprise that Biden, given his views toward Israel, would not hesitate to use slander as a weapon against protesters and opponents.
There is a political dimension to Biden’s blind support of Israel, casting doubt on death tolls in Gaza and labeling pro-Palestinian protests as anti-Semitic, as this is an election year with a probable rematch between Biden and Trump. Given that Trump moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and pushed the UAE, Morocco, Bahrain and Sudan to recognize the illegitimate Tel Aviv regime, Biden may simply be trying to outdo Trump’s pandering to the Israel lobby by turning a blind eye to the Gaza genocide. However, the scheme has backfired politically due to the massive numbers of students and young people demonstrating in support of Palestinians and against Biden’s backing of the Israeli Wehrmacht.
Q: Some hardline Congress persons have signed a letter calling on the administration to carry out criminal prosecutions and deportations for participants in the demonstrations. House Speaker Mike Johnson has also accused protesters of intimidating and threatening Jewish students and suggested withholding funding to universities that allow pro-Palestinian protests. What is going on in the minds of these lawmakers?
Pro-Zionist lawmakers like Mike Johnson “are getting it completely wrong because they want to get it wrong, and they want to label us as anti-Semitic when it couldn’t be further from the truth.”
A: Perhaps Sherif Ibrahim, a Columbia University student and organizer of the Columbia University Apartheid Divest, clarified the thinking of the pro-Zionist lawmakers when he said politicians like Mike Johnson “are getting it completely wrong because they want to get it wrong, and they want to label us as anti-Semitic when it couldn’t be further from the truth.” Ibrahim explained that Johnson, who is described as a Christian nationalist, went to speak at Columbia strictly for political gain. Despite being a devout Christian, Johnson is a rabid supporter of 2nd Amendment gun rights, and sees prayer as an antidote to America’s addiction to gun violence.
The Israel lobby, which was documented by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their 2007 book of the same name, consists of numerous pressure groups, including AIPAC, Anti-Defamation League, Conference of Presidents, Americans for a Safe Israel, Zionist Organization of America, United Jewish Communities, Jewish Council for Public Affairs and numerous others, as well as Christian Zionist organizations such as Christians United for Israel, National Christian Leadership Conference, Unity Coalition for Israel and the list goes on. The combined reach of these organizations is such that no American politician can risk open criticism of Israel or its policies without facing, at a minimum, a barrage of political pressure, and possibly the end of his or her career. The Spanish newspaper El Pais captured the political reality in the U.S. when it wrote, “If a country’s weight is measured by its degree of influence on events, the superpower is not the USA but Israel.”
Q: The students are calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and asking the universities and colleges to stop doing business with Israel or any companies that support Israel in its ongoing war against Palestinians in the coastal enclave. Do such demands deserve arrests and threats?
In the eyes of those who stand to profit by the continuation of the war, apparently the answer is yes. The arms manufacturers, the largest of which include Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing and General Dynamics, have seen their profits and stock prices increase to record levels since the start of the Israeli war on Gaza. The tens of billions that Washington has lavished upon the criminal cartel in Tel Aviv ultimately flow back to U.S. arms merchants, making the inhumane atrocities of genocide into a form of corporate welfare. Hence, no incentive whatsoever exists within the greed-driven U.S. military-political-financial-technology continuum to curtail this profitable pandemic of murderous martial malfeasance.
The tens of billions that Washington has lavished upon the criminal cartel in Tel Aviv ultimately flow back to U.S. arms merchants, making the inhumane atrocities of genocide into a form of corporate welfare.
For those who defend human rights and demand social justice, however, the answer is a definitive no. Those CEOs of the merchants of death who revel in their companies’ record revenues resulting from Israel’s bloodthirsty barbarism against Palestinians cannot have even a single nanogram of humanity left in the combined volume of their circulatory systems. That more than 900 students have been arrested only demonstrates the moral turpitude of the American corporate-dominated political system.
Q: PM Netanyahu has likened the protests at leading universities to his regime’s behavior in Gaza to those that preceded the Nazi Germany. What is your opinion?
A: There is no comparison between the protests against the Gaza genocide and the mass rallies staged by the National Socialists in Germany. In fact, Trump’s campaign rallies bear more of a resemblance to those Nazi rallies of the mid-1930s, which were held for the purpose of spreading Hitler’s message of fascism and intolerance. Motivated solely by shared humanitarian values, the protesters at the leading universities are calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and divestment of university funds from companies profiting from the carnage being carried out by Israeli Occupation Forces in Palestine.
Q: Regarding the approach of police against students and professors, can the U.S. lecture other countries about human rights and freedom of opinion?
A: Given that the United States was founded on the genocide of millions of Native Peoples, who had lived within the country’s geographical boundaries for eons, whose expansion from coast to coast was accomplished by illegal, armed land seizures, forced transfers of indigenous populations, and whose capital was amassed as a result of institutionalized slavery, it is a moral outrage to suggest that such a country could lecture other countries on human rights and freedom of opinion. By supporting the Gaza genocide and viciously cracking down on pro-Palestinian demonstrations, the U.S. has shown the entire world the stark emptiness of its set of alleged moral values.
Source: Tehran Times
