October 7 survivors are suing pro-Palestinian groups. But what is the aim?
Nine survivors of the October 7 attacks on southern Israel have filed a civil suit against pro-Palestinian groups in the United States, alleging their advocacy work on college campuses constitutes “material support” for “terrorism”. But the defendants have pushed back, warning that the case is part of a pattern of legal attacks meant to put pro-Palestinian groups on the defensive and curtail free speech at US universities. “It is absolutely a threat to free speech, and it’s a threat to free speech on any front, on any issue, not just on Palestine,” said Christina Jump, a lawyer for American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), one of the two defendants in the case. The lawsuit, filed on May 1 in a federal court in Virginia, describes how the nine plaintiffs dodged gunfire and lost loved ones during the October 7 attacks, led by the Palestinian group Hamas. It then alleges that AMP and another campus group, National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP), acted as “Hamas’s propaganda division”, targeting US students. The lawsuit says that AMP and NSJP worked to “recruit uninformed, misguided and impressionable college students to serve as foot soldiers for Hamas on campus and beyond”. The result, it argues, was “mental anguish and pain and suffering” for the nine survivors. But pro-Palestinian groups and free-speech advocates fear lawsuits like this one seek to silence student protesters by equating nonviolent political activity with “terrorism”. “There are legal outfits, whether set up as nonprofit or quasi-governmental organisations or private firms, who engage in the use of legal claims to intimidate political opponents,” said Yousef Munayyer, head of the Israel-Palestine programme at the Arab Center Washington DC, a think tank. “We see this in a lot of different contexts but especially in Israel-Palestine, where it has become part of a strategy aimed at silencing dissent.” Debate over campus speech The October 7 attacks killed an estimated 1,139 people, with nearly 250 more taken captive. In response, Israel launched a war in Gaza, bombing the narrow Palestinian enclave and cutting off critical supplies like food and water. More than 36,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s assault, many of them women and children, with human rights experts warning of a “risk of genocide”. The United Nations has also declared a “full-blown famine” in parts of Gaza, sparked by Israel’s siege and efforts to block humanitarian aid. College campuses have been central to the antiwar movement. Schools like Columbia University in New York have seen students erect encampments and occupy buildings to raise awareness for the plight of Palestinians. A study by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), a group that collects data on protests and political violence around the world, found that 97 percent of the college protests have been peaceful. But the backlash has been intense. Some pro-Israel groups and elected officials have called on universities to use a hard hand against pro-Palestine protestors in the name of combatting anti-Semitism. Universities like Columbia have responded by calling in police, resulting in the arrests of thousands of protesters across the country. Other students have been suspended or denied diplomas for their participation in the protests. In at least one case at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), demonstrators were physically attacked with metal pipes and mace by pro-Israel counterprotesters as police largely stood by. Aaron Terr, the director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), said the backlash has, in some cases, amounted to censorship. “Free speech on campus has really taken a pounding over the last few months,” Terr told Al Jazeera. “The majority of the cases of censorship we’ve seen have involved pro-Palestine individuals, although there are some cases on the pro-Israel side as well.” String of lawsuits Advocates also see this month’s lawsuit as part of a broader trend of using the legal system to stifle media and advocacy perceived as critical of Israel. The case is the latest in a series of lawsuits brought by pro-Israel groups in recent months. In March, survivors of October 7 sued an American nonprofit that supports the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), alleging complicity in the deadly attack. Israel, however, has failed to provide evidence that UNRWA was involved, and an independent investigation cast further doubt on those allegations. Then, in April, relatives of October 7 victims petitioned the court system in Canada to block the country’s government from restoring funding to UNRWA, which provides critical aid to Gaza. Another federal lawsuit, filed earlier this year, took aim at a journalism organisation: The Associated Press (AP). It claimed The Associated Press hired members of Hamas as freelancers in its news-gathering activities. The same organisation that sued The Associated Press is also involved in May’s case against AMP and NSJP: the Jewish National Advocacy Center (JNAC). The Associated Press has called the complaint against it “baseless”. The Jewish National Advocacy Center has claimed that the organisations named as defendants in its lawsuits have ties to Hamas. “This case is very simple: When someone tells you they are aiding and abetting terrorists — believe them,” Mark Goldfeder, the centre’s director, said in a press release announcing the lawsuit against AMP and the NSJP. Goldfeder did not respond to questions from Al Jazeera regarding the May lawsuit or the case against The Associated Press. But Jump, the lawyer for AMP, said the case against her organisation contained misrepresentations and falsehoods. She said AMP operates entirely within the US — not, as the lawsuit indicates, in conjunction with foreign entities like Hamas. She also added that the NSJP is not a subsidiary of AMP, as the lawsuit claims. “It’s a lot of talking points, a lot of buzzwords, a lot of generalisations and leaps,” Jump said of the lawsuit. ‘Stress and intimidation’ Some critics believe certain pro-Palestinian groups should be scrutinised for the content of their messaging — although they too dismiss the recent lawsuit as overly broad. Many pro-Palestinian organisations have
Top US lawmakers invite Israel’s Netanyahu to Congress amid Gaza war
Israeli prime minister set to deliver address to Congress despite growing anger over his government’s abuses in Gaza. The top legislators in the United States have issued a formal invitation for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to deliver a speech to Congress in the latest show of support for Israel amid its war on Gaza. The invite by Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives on Friday came as the International Criminal Court considers issuing an arrest warrant for Netanyahu over alleged war crimes. “To build on our enduring relationship and to highlight America’s solidarity with Israel, we invite you to share the Israeli government’s vision for defending democracy, combatting terror, and establishing a just and lasting peace in the region,” the letter said. It did not specify a date for the speech. I am honored to invite Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of Congress. pic.twitter.com/rYKx0Z1p93 — Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) May 31, 2024 The letter was signed by House Speaker Mike Johnson, Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. If he accepts the invitation, Netanyahu would surpass the late former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill as the foreign leader who has delivered the most speeches to a joint session of Congress. Churchill – who led his country through World War II and helped defeat Nazi Germany – and Netanyahu have each addressed Congress on three separate occasions. Netanyahu has been facing global outrage over Israel’s apparent abuses in Gaza, where the Israeli military has killed more than 36,000 people and destroyed large parts of the territory. Israel has also imposed a strict blockade in Gaza, bringing the territory to the verge of famine. Netanyahu’s government defied its Western allies, including the United States, this month by launching a major assault in Rafah in southern Gaza, where nearly 1.5 million Palestinians had been sheltering. The offensive has displaced one million Palestinians. An Israeli bombing of a camp for displaced people in Rafah earlier this month killed 45 Palestinians and sparked international outrage. But the US Congress remains staunchly pro-Israel although some Democrats have been increasingly critical of Netanyahu. In March, Schumer called for a new election in Israel and described Netanyahu as an obstacle to peace, citing the Israeli prime minister’s opposition to the two-state solution. The congressional invite on Friday brought anger from Palestinian rights advocates. Actor Cynthia Nixon called it “shameful” in a social media post addressing Schumer. “Perhaps Netanyahu can be arrested for his war crimes on the Senate floor,” she wrote. Earlier on Friday, US President Joe Biden outlined a proposal that he said would lead to an “enduring” ceasefire in Gaza. The three-phase plan would see the release of Israeli captives in the territory, as well as hundreds of Palestinian prisoners held in Israel, Biden said. The initiative, which Biden said was put forward by Israel, marks a shift in the position of the US administration, which had only sought a temporary truce while backing Israel’s goal of eliminating Hamas. “President Biden understands that having this war drag well past his election is not going to be something that actually works for him politically,” Palestinian-American analyst Omar Baddar told Al Jazeera. “It’s incredibly costly and damaging for him, and I think that this is why he’s putting his foot down at this point and placing enormous pressure upon Israel to accept the ceasefire deal.” Adblock test (Why?)
Asia’s top security summit is under way in Singapore
As US and China defence chiefs meet in Singapore, attention turns to rising tensions over the future of Taiwan. Defence chiefs from around the Asia Pacific are in Singapore to discuss security challenges facing the region. The three-day summit, known as the Shangri-La Dialogue, attracts high-level ministers, military heads and global security analysts. The focus will be on foreign policy, with sensitive diplomatic talks taking place behind closed doors. But relations are already frosty between the world’s two superpowers – China and the United States. Beijing has warned Washington against interfering in its affairs after their defence ministers met to discuss Taiwan. While that relationship sees no sign of thawing, others are trying to find common ground. So, which alliances might be strengthened and could new ones be established? And how is all this affecting the balance of power around the globe? Presenter: Sohail Rahman Guests: Andy Mok – Senior research fellow at Center for China and Globalization. Samir Puri – A visiting lecturer in war studies at King’s College London David Des Roches – Professor at the Near East South Asia Center for Security Studies. Adblock test (Why?)
Trump turns conviction into cash, spotlights record fundraising in wake of guilty verdict
Donald Trump is touting “record shattering” fundraising fueled by his convictions in the first trial of a former or current president in the nation’s history. The former president’s campaign announced on Friday morning that it had hauled in $34.8 million in fundraising from 6 p.m. ET to midnight on Thursday, immediately after Trump was found guilty of all 34 felony counts in his criminal trial in New York City. And on Friday evening, the Trump campaign announced an update — nearly $53 million raised in the 24 hours following the verdict through their online digital fundraising platform. The campaign touted that the fundraising was “nearly double the biggest day ever recorded for the Trump campaign on the WinRed platform” and emphasized that the guilty verdicts “have awakened the MAGA movement like never before.” HOW TRUMP GUILTY VERDICTS MAY IMPACT THE 2024 REMATCH WITH BIDEN The surge in contributions comes as Trump aims to close the fundraising gap with President Biden as they face off in a 2024 election rematch. “From just minutes after the sham trial verdict was announced, our digital fundraising system was overwhelmed with support,” Trump campaign senior advisers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles wrote in a statement on Friday morning. WHAT TRUMP TOLD FOX NEWS DIGITAL FOLLOWING THE VERDICT They spotlighted that “not only was the amount historic, but 29.7% of [Thursday’s] donors were brand-new donors to the WinRed platform.” And pointing to the autumn election, LaCivita and Wiles reiterated that “President Trump is fighting to save our nation and November 5th is the day Americans will deliver the real verdict.” Minutes after the verdict was read in the first trial of a former or current president in the nation’s history, Trump’s team put out a fundraising appeal to supporters. “Friend: Is this the end of America?,” Trump asked in the email. “I was just convicted in a RIGGED political Witch Hunt trial. “My end-of-month fundraising deadline is just DAYS AWAY!” Trump emphasized in the email, which included a photo of the former president labeling him a “political prisoner.” WinRed, the GOP online fundraising platform used by Trump’s campaign, among others, briefly shut down within an hour of the verdict. Trump campaign senior adviser Chris LaCivita advised donors encountering a WinRed error message to sign up for Trump’s text messaging list or log back onto the site and try again. “If you are one of the millions of American Patriots wanting to donate to Donald Trump’s campaign and you get an error message from @WINRED …don’t give up! Log back on and try again ! or Text TRUMP to 88022,” LaCivita wrote in a tweet. BIDEN CAMPAIGN QUICKLY POUNCES ON TRUMP TRIAL GUILTY VERDICTS Trump’s campaign website also directed donors to Anedot, another fundraising platform used by various GOP campaigns. Trump’s team also fired off a warning shot to the campaigns of down-ballot Republicans not to try and raise money directly off of the former president’s conviction, to prevent the “siphoning” of donations headed to Trump’s coffers. Meanwhile, the former president’s top pollsters put out a memo on the eve of the verdict arguing that a conviction would not have any electoral consequences. Trump holds a trio of top dollar fundraisers in California at the end of next week. Biden’s re-election campaign also quickly sent out fundraising appeals following the verdict. “Despite a jury finding Donald Trump guilty today, there is still only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office: At the ballot box,” the Biden campaign wrote in a fundraising text to supporters Thursday evening. And it urged that “if you have been waiting for the perfect time to make your first donation to Joe Biden’s reelection campaign, we’re here to tell you today is the day.” Trump has been aiming to close his fundraising gap with Biden. In April, his campaign and the Republican National Committee for the first time out-raised the Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee. While Trump has stepped up his fundraising, the Biden campaign still enjoyed an $84 million to $49 million cash-on-hand advantage at the end of April. Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.
From Aadhar card to driving license: New rules to come into effect from June 1; check details
These new rules will result in significant changes which will have an impact on almost every citizen. Some of the important changes are related to Aadhar updates, and driving license.
Lok Sabha Elections 2024 Phase 7: Voting in 57 seats today, check full list of key candidates, constituencies
According to the Election Commission guidelines, voting will commence at 7 am and conclude at 6 pm.
Weather update: These states to get respite from severe heatwave from today; check full forecast
This year’s Monsoon onset is two days earlier as the usual date of the onset is on June 1
Kansas Constitution doesn’t include right to vote: state high court majority
The Kansas Supreme Court offered a mixed bag in a ruling Friday that combined several challenges to a 2021 election law, siding with state officials on one provision, reviving challenges to others and offering the possibility that at least one will be halted before this year’s general election. But it was the ballot signature verification measure’s majority opinion — which stated there is no right to vote enshrined in the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights — that drew fiery dissent from three of the court’s seven justices. The measure requires election officials to match the signatures on advance mail ballots to a person’s voter registration record. The state Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s dismissal of that lawsuit, but the majority rejected arguments from voting rights groups that the measure violates state constitutional voting rights. KANSAS GOV. KELLY TO CALL SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE SESSION OVER TAX CUTS In fact, Justice Caleb Stegall, writing for the majority, said that the dissenting justices wrongly accused the majority of ignoring past precedent, holding that the court has not identified a “fundamental right to vote” within the state constitution. “It simply is not there,” Stegall wrote. Justice Eric Rosen, one of the three who dissented, shot back: “It staggers my imagination to conclude Kansas citizens have no fundamental right to vote under their state constitution.” “I cannot and will not condone this betrayal of our constitutional duty to safeguard the foundational rights of Kansans,” Rosen added. Conversely, the high court unanimously sided with the challengers of a different provision that makes it a crime for someone to give the appearance of being an election official. Voting rights groups, including Kansas League of Women Voters and the nonprofit Loud Light, argued the measure suppresses free speech and their ability to register voters as some might wrongly assume volunteers are election workers, putting them at risk of criminal prosecution. A Shawnee County District Court judge had earlier rejected the groups’ request for an emergency injunction, saying that impersonation of a public official is not protected speech. But the high court faulted the new law, noting that it doesn’t include any requirement that prosecutors show intent by a voter registration volunteer to misrepresent or deceive people into believing they’re an election official, and it thus “criminalizes honest speech” where “occasional misunderstandings” are bound to occur, Stegall wrote in the majority opinion. “As such, it sweeps up protected speech in its net,” Stegall said. Because the lawsuit over the false impersonation law’s constitutionality is likely to succeed, the state Supreme Court ordered the lower court to reconsider issuing an emergency injunction against it. “For three years now, Kansas League of Women Voters volunteers have been forced to severely limit their assistance of voters due to this ambiguous and threatening law,” said Martha Pint, president of the chapter. “The League’s critical voter assistance work is not a crime, and we are confident this provision will be quickly blocked when the case returns to the district court.” Loud Light executive director Davis Hammet said he hopes the lower court “will stop the irreparable harm caused daily by the law and allow us to resume voter registration before the general election.” Neither Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab nor state Attorney General Kris Kobach responded to requests for comment on that portion of the high court’s ruling. Instead, in a joint statement, Schwab and Kobach focus on the high court’s language bolstering the signature verification law and its upholding of a provision that says individuals may collect no more than 10 advance ballots to submit to election officials. “This ruling allows us to preserve reasonable election security laws in Kansas,” Schwab said. Supporters have argued the ballot collection restriction combats “ballot harvesting” and limits voter fraud. The GOP-led Legislature passed it over a veto by Kansas Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly. Critics have said it’s a Republican reaction to baseless claims that the 2020 election was not valid, which prompted a wave of misinformation and voter suppression laws across the country. Last year, the Kansas Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit challenging the ballot collection limitation and the signature verification, saying both impair the right to vote. But the high court upheld the limit on ballot collections, saying “voters have numerous avenues available to deliver their ballots” and that ballot collecting doesn’t fall within the parameters of free speech. Kobach defended the majority’s opinion as “well-reasoned” and confirms that the Legislature has the constitutional authority to establish proofs “to ensure voters are who they say they are.” “And that is exactly what Kansas’s signature verification requirement is,” Kobach said.
Majority of incoming Texas House Republicans calls for end to Democratic committee chairs, narrowing path for Phelan
House Speaker Dade Phelan has stuck to the tradition of appointing chairs from the opposing party, drawing fierce pushback from the GOP’s right wing.
Vermont Gov. Scott vetoes ‘safe injection site’ proposal
Vermont’s governor has vetoed a bill that would have allowed the creation of a pilot overdose prevention center in the state’s largest city of Burlington, including a safe injection site where people could use narcotics under the supervision of trained staff and be revived if they take too much. Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, wrote in a letter to lawmakers on Thursday that while such sites are well-intentioned “this costly experiment will divert financial resources from proven prevention, treatment and recovery strategies.” The Democratic-controlled Legislature is expected to attempt an override next month. VERMONT LEGISLATURE PASSES ONE OF THE STRONGEST DATA PRIVACY MEASURES IN THE COUNTRY The legislation — an act relating to a harm-reduction criminal justice response to drug use — would have allocated $1.1 million in fiscal year 2025 to the Vermont Department of Health to award grants to the city of Burlington to establish such a center. The money would have come from the Opioid Abatement Special Fund made up of Vermont’s share of a national settlement with drug manufacturers and distribution companies. Before then, the bill required the Health Department to contract with a researcher or consultant to study the impact of the overdose prevention center pilot program. The center would have provided referrals to addiction treatment as well as medical and social services. It would also have offered education about overdose prevention and distributed overdose reversal medications. Senate President Pro Tem Phil Baruth, a Democrat, said a statement on Thursday that “the dramatic rise in fatal overdoses over the past ten years is one of the most pressing crises facing our state.” He said overdose prevention centers save lives, connect people to treatment while reducing pressures on emergency departments and Emergency Medical Services and decreasing drug consumption in public. The governor vetoed a similar bill two years ago.