The government's arrest and detention of a pro-Palestinian Columbia student (and green card holder) raises difficult questions about both technical immigration statutes and the First Amendment.
One day Donald Trump will die and we will have to remember the inhumanity his sycophants insisted on in the name of national security. I fear they may never become self aware of their assault in freedom just to advance the ego of one man.
By the time Donald Trump dies the right is going to be convinced that he was a RINO and the current Republican president/nominee is the real Republican/conservative and the left is going to be convinced that he was the greatest Republican president and the current Republican president/nominee is worse than Hitler...
Do you believe in the First Amendment – you know, the part of the US Constitution that protects freedom of expression? Let's be clear on the facts here. The person that this administration is trying to deport has not been accused or charged with any crime.
President Trump, or you, not agreeing with his political views is not a basis to deport a legal resident of this country. What kind of country do you want to live in?
Are you ready to be deported if your views don't match those of the current government?
If you think this way, maybe you don't understand America's founding principles.
He was the ringleader of a group that terrorized Jewish kids, attacked a school janitor, and brok innumerable other, smaller laws. He's not a citizen. Bye, Felicia. And let's be clear: none of you Dem, terrorist apologists gave a damn about free speech in the aforementioned years or even FIVE MINUTES AGO, when the VP lightly encouraged the EU to stop jailing people for tweets and overturning fair election results.
You, a citizen, can believe what you want, and honestly, so can this bozo, but kis actions are the issue here.
Your facts are wrong, Samhain. Sorry, but you are not entitled to your "version" of the facts. You claim that he "attached a school janitor" and broke other laws. You make these unsubstantiated assertsions but the fact remains that he has not been charged with any crimes. It seems that he has participated in some "sit-ins" and I don't think we want to be a country where that kind of protest results in being singled out and deported.
As to our illustrious VP: after publicly chastising the leader of the country (Ukraine) who has valiantly rallied his people to defend itself against a brutal invasion by Russia, he then headed to Europe – which survived the scourge of Nazism less than 100 years ago at extreme cost, including the sacrifice of American blood and treasure – to meet with the Nazi-adjacent German AFD party and lecture Europeans that the greatest threat to Europe is not hate-filled parties like this or an emboldened, expansionist Russia but rather the actions of Europe's own democratically leaders to try to marginalize and contain these racist parties.
He should STFU, as he sounds like – and is – a fool. His comments are bonkers and totally wrong and irresponsible. This administration treats our friends like enemies, and our enemies as friends. The world has become a more dangerous place as a result.
If you think that JD Vance is a font of wisdom and common sense, I suggest you do a little more reading, including the history of appeasement and isolationism that preceded World War II.
Thank you for frequently giving us the benefit of your knowledge in this horribly unique time. I hope you don't run out of gas, because it's very important for me to understand things.
> the First Amendment might require the Secretary of State to have substantial support for a personal determination that an LPR’s continued presence “would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest,”
“[T]he First Amendment mandates a ‘clear and convincing’ standard” of proof. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). Government must present “proof,” and it must have “the convincing clarity which the constitutional standard demands.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 285-286 (1964).
You write "if the government had said that 'there’s one specific LPR who is responsible for a unique amount of unlawful behavior relating to pro-Palestinian protests, and his case is special,' that would be one thing. But ...Trump’s social media post makes clear that, at least from his perspective, Khalil’s is not a special case." While I don't doubt that Trump hasn't given the case much thought, I wonder if there is any evidence that Kahlil is in fact a "special case." Is there some evidence we don't know about yet? Could he have participated in or led any of the violent activities at Columbia, such as the break-in at Hamilton Hall, for example? Curious if these kinds of assertions may be made as the case progresses. I agree though that lacking any charge more substantive "what the government has done to this point is profoundly disturbing." In fact, so far, most of what the current government generally has done is super-disturbing and this is no different.
That would be a criminal charge, which no one involved in the arrest or the post hoc justifications for their fuck up with that has indicated any charges have been filed anywhere, let alone any judicial determination of probable cause for detention on that basis. And even if there were, venue would have to be in SDNY for that prosecution and could only go to LA after notice and a hearing on a motion for change of venue.
Why would we, the US, allow people to come into our country and then disrup order and promote illegal activities? Had they made their intentions known before coming here would they have been granted status? If the answer is no, why shouldn't they be subject to removal?
They ARE subject to removal, Dan. But whether THIS specific case is actually promoting “illegal” activities is what is questionable. To speak out on a college campus in support of the Palestinian PEOPLE suffering under the war, is free speech protected under the first amendment. It’s very different than supporting “Hamas”… very different, which is why one thing that will be investigated is whether he took part on, or led, any bigger disruption. It’s pretty much what this article says… did we read different things? It’s all laid out here.
The activities at Columbia went beyond “speaking out”. At minimum, they included vandalism, trespassing, and harassment. Anyone involved in those activities deserves the exact same legal treatment as someone who broke into the Capitol on January 6.
Sure, but it’s deeper than that. Again, it’s all in the article. Whether he did it or not is a big cause for investigation. Even then - wouldn’t that be a criminal case? He has not been charged with a crime, and him being detained without that charge is what brings uncertainty to the legality of it all. The legal implications go much deeper in this case, it seems.
Sorry, my initial comment was a bit glib. Agree that there are much bigger implications. This case feels like an overreach, but the Trump administration does seem to be attempting to make an actual case here. I’m very interested to see how the courts resolve it.
Exactly. Detaining him the way they are doing is illegal. And should worry everyone. Maybe watch a movie this eve. "The (Torture) Report" comes to mind.
Then first it should be proven he was actively involved in these acts. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? What happened to the burden of proof? Does that all disappear because he is a not a citizen? That would be bad news for the almost 13 million Green Card holders. Not to mention the five million non-immigrant workers/business owners and their families. All tax-payers, bytheway.
This is aburd. The Jan 6yh insurrectionists were there to do, well, an insurrection.
The protests on campus were to call attention to a genocide. They used tactics of civil disobedience that have a long and proud history, including the civil rights struggle in this country, where they trespassed while protesting white supremacy and its policies. And they were 100% right to do so, just as they are here.
Those activities might have legal consequences, but that doesn't mean those consequences should be considered deserved.
But actions to overturn a democratic election? That's exactly the opposite.
The greatest threat to their criminality, depravity, and greed is the rule of law, justice, equality, hope, and freedom. They are working to destroy America and our democratic allies. America has been attacked. Russia/Trump is starting WWIII. Name it. What you are seeing and reading every day - and will continue to see and read every day - are acts of war against the USA and our allies. Trump/Russia’s intention is our destruction. It is not too late. Be brave. Name it. Warn your neighbors.
You seem like a foreign bad actor or bot. Definitely not someone who loves democracy, the USA, and our democracy-loving allies. Just more of Russia’s cyberwarfare.
That's debatable. The Trump/Netanyahu plan to permanently evict Palestinians from Gaza and turn it into a resort was "coming for Palestinians". That makes it at least plausible that Trump would like to "come for Palestinians" in the U.S., at least to the extent that he can find legal justifications for doing so.
It would seem that the statutory test: “An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable” would require a formal determination by the Secretary of State. If being a campus Palestinian protest leader is all that can be claimed, it is doubtful that Rubio can meet the burden. Such a rationale seems pretextual and a cover for deprivation of First Amendment rights of a lawful green card holder. This is especially so when Trump threatens to deport many students in similar circumstances.
Most students have J, F, or M non-immigrant visas, not Green Cards. They also have to register and stay compliant with SEVIS. But it would be good to remember that foreign students are a 35 Billion dollar industry.
I am surprised that I have yet to see anyone mention the only case to address the "serious adverse foreign policy consequences" provision that appears to be the basis for Khalil's deportation: Massieu v Reno, 915 F Supp 681, rev'd 91 F3d 416. The district court found the statute to be void for vagueness, but the appellate court reversed on exhaustion grounds, without reaching the merits. But here is the really interesting part. The judge who authored the appellate decision? Samuel Alito. And the district judge who struck down the statute? None other than Maryanne Trump Barry, the president's late sister.
Is the 2nd legal basis (endorsing or espousing views of a terrorist organization - like distributing Hamas propaganda) an independent basis for removal or in addition to the 1st legal basis (adverse to US foreign policy interest)?
Doesn’t at least one prong of the case rather beg the question of whether being against the treatment of Palestinians is somehow Pro Hamas or any other terrorist. I for one am far from being pro Hamas and wish they’d just get the hell out of the whole thing. What Hamas is, is just what tRump is—pro power for themselves. They’ve been feeding on the people of Gaza since they won by a small plurality —not much smaller than tRump’s—and then took over all by a violent coup. And Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians long predated Hamas. Those beliefs of mine about what Hamas is do not preclude active, actually quite passionate, support of the Palestinian people in this conflict.
So far we know he was a negotiator between protestors and Columbia, that Columbia suspended him briefly and reinstated him. Rubio has presented no evidence that he was pro Hamas. So we have a few agreed facts on one side and none on the other. What H Security has said is activities "aligned with Hamas." That's pretty broad and could be anything. If Hamas objects to a kid getting killed, and so do I, am I aligned with Hamas?
Palestinians have been living for decades in apartheid conditions and the last election for leadership of Palestinians was 18 years ago. the history is complex; the prior leader, Yassar Arafat of the PLO had been unsuccessful in efforts to have humane conditions. Israel wanted Arafat to no longer be constantly bothering them and Israel funded Hamas to have them win the election, then denying humane conditions anyway. all this to say although there was grievous violence by Hamas, the overkill (ahem) of 47,000 or more Palestinians, decimation of hospitals, educational facilities, water and sewer pipes, markets and housing has been declared International War Crimes. Palestinians are of Muslim, Christian, and Jews. to exercise our free speech is demonstrated when i say not all Palestinians are Hamas. there are Jews who are also pro-Palestinian. fyi Reagan as governor hated the Students for a Democratic Society who were using free speech to query / protest the American War - as it was called in Vietnam. he and Nixon began the fight, including when the National Guard killed six students at Kent State University. as president Reagan carried further the end of teaching via critical thinking skills. the battle amped as during political rallies 47 said he loves the uninformed. WE THE PEOPLE need to fill in the education as it has been greatly reduced, and work to prevent further erasure. i truly hope this young man is allowed to remain here with his American wife and that their child is safely born to both their parents. to stand up for peace, to decry bombs and direct shooting of innocent civilians is brave. may we all be brave and work to uphold The Constitution.
Zeteo last night article stated there is an anti-palestinian person who has laid statements against him. truth is truth yet proving it can be challenging. was hoping we’d outgrow this once we’d seen the pics of Earth from space, such a tiny rock hurling around the sun which is in a ‘arm’ of this single galaxy…. i wish peace for all regardless. meanwhile we gotta take care of our hearts and figure out which/how to leverage forward.
"Palestinians have been living for decades in apartheid conditions"
No. They are stateless persons who have been offered a state but don't want one unless it means eradicating Israel. They have been living for decades with the delusion that one day the will succeed in killing all of the Jews. They would live in humane conditions if they abandoned their genocidal goal and chose to live in peace, as did Jordan and Egypt.
historians speak of times prior to Britain imperialism. since the 1948 with the European nations convincing Britain to give up a portion of land for the establishment of Israel, the Palestinians have been reduced to living in second class apartheid conditions with military encampments and minimal freedom. this does not give anyone the rights to declare that all Palestinians should have their water, sewers, hospitals, schools reduced to such rubble there will not ever be a full accounting of their dead.
Do you think they stashed him in WD La specifically because the judge there is a major reactionary (enjoined govt jawboning of social media platforms)? I guess we’ll find out if they oppose returning him to NY.
Almost as horrifying as killing (including your own) based on the diktats of some metaphysical pedophile.
No. Muhammad.
I’m even more depressed after reading this but happy I’m more informed. What a country.
One day Donald Trump will die and we will have to remember the inhumanity his sycophants insisted on in the name of national security. I fear they may never become self aware of their assault in freedom just to advance the ego of one man.
By the time Donald Trump dies the right is going to be convinced that he was a RINO and the current Republican president/nominee is the real Republican/conservative and the left is going to be convinced that he was the greatest Republican president and the current Republican president/nominee is worse than Hitler...
Inhumanity? In arresting and attempting to deport a scumbag like Khalil? https://x.com/ryanmauro/status/1899348525298729368
I'll await the USG's filings before jumping to conclusions on Khalil's actions based on information compiled by X grifters. Thank you!
Very judicious of you. I've seen sufficient facts not to be bothered by straw man fallacies.
You clearly don’t know what a straw man argument is.
Name calling instead of facts.
Plenty of facts linked in support of name calling.
Never forget what Democrats and their sycophants did to Americans from 2020-2024. Now they cheer for terrorist supporters.
Do you believe in the First Amendment – you know, the part of the US Constitution that protects freedom of expression? Let's be clear on the facts here. The person that this administration is trying to deport has not been accused or charged with any crime.
President Trump, or you, not agreeing with his political views is not a basis to deport a legal resident of this country. What kind of country do you want to live in?
Are you ready to be deported if your views don't match those of the current government?
If you think this way, maybe you don't understand America's founding principles.
He was the ringleader of a group that terrorized Jewish kids, attacked a school janitor, and brok innumerable other, smaller laws. He's not a citizen. Bye, Felicia. And let's be clear: none of you Dem, terrorist apologists gave a damn about free speech in the aforementioned years or even FIVE MINUTES AGO, when the VP lightly encouraged the EU to stop jailing people for tweets and overturning fair election results.
You, a citizen, can believe what you want, and honestly, so can this bozo, but kis actions are the issue here.
Your facts are wrong, Samhain. Sorry, but you are not entitled to your "version" of the facts. You claim that he "attached a school janitor" and broke other laws. You make these unsubstantiated assertsions but the fact remains that he has not been charged with any crimes. It seems that he has participated in some "sit-ins" and I don't think we want to be a country where that kind of protest results in being singled out and deported.
As to our illustrious VP: after publicly chastising the leader of the country (Ukraine) who has valiantly rallied his people to defend itself against a brutal invasion by Russia, he then headed to Europe – which survived the scourge of Nazism less than 100 years ago at extreme cost, including the sacrifice of American blood and treasure – to meet with the Nazi-adjacent German AFD party and lecture Europeans that the greatest threat to Europe is not hate-filled parties like this or an emboldened, expansionist Russia but rather the actions of Europe's own democratically leaders to try to marginalize and contain these racist parties.
He should STFU, as he sounds like – and is – a fool. His comments are bonkers and totally wrong and irresponsible. This administration treats our friends like enemies, and our enemies as friends. The world has become a more dangerous place as a result.
If you think that JD Vance is a font of wisdom and common sense, I suggest you do a little more reading, including the history of appeasement and isolationism that preceded World War II.
Thank you very much for making the effort to write this.
Double that thank you for me.
Thank you for frequently giving us the benefit of your knowledge in this horribly unique time. I hope you don't run out of gas, because it's very important for me to understand things.
> the First Amendment might require the Secretary of State to have substantial support for a personal determination that an LPR’s continued presence “would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest,”
Can you elaborate on this argument?
“[T]he First Amendment mandates a ‘clear and convincing’ standard” of proof. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). Government must present “proof,” and it must have “the convincing clarity which the constitutional standard demands.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 285-286 (1964).
You write "if the government had said that 'there’s one specific LPR who is responsible for a unique amount of unlawful behavior relating to pro-Palestinian protests, and his case is special,' that would be one thing. But ...Trump’s social media post makes clear that, at least from his perspective, Khalil’s is not a special case." While I don't doubt that Trump hasn't given the case much thought, I wonder if there is any evidence that Kahlil is in fact a "special case." Is there some evidence we don't know about yet? Could he have participated in or led any of the violent activities at Columbia, such as the break-in at Hamilton Hall, for example? Curious if these kinds of assertions may be made as the case progresses. I agree though that lacking any charge more substantive "what the government has done to this point is profoundly disturbing." In fact, so far, most of what the current government generally has done is super-disturbing and this is no different.
That would be a criminal charge, which no one involved in the arrest or the post hoc justifications for their fuck up with that has indicated any charges have been filed anywhere, let alone any judicial determination of probable cause for detention on that basis. And even if there were, venue would have to be in SDNY for that prosecution and could only go to LA after notice and a hearing on a motion for change of venue.
Why would we, the US, allow people to come into our country and then disrup order and promote illegal activities? Had they made their intentions known before coming here would they have been granted status? If the answer is no, why shouldn't they be subject to removal?
They ARE subject to removal, Dan. But whether THIS specific case is actually promoting “illegal” activities is what is questionable. To speak out on a college campus in support of the Palestinian PEOPLE suffering under the war, is free speech protected under the first amendment. It’s very different than supporting “Hamas”… very different, which is why one thing that will be investigated is whether he took part on, or led, any bigger disruption. It’s pretty much what this article says… did we read different things? It’s all laid out here.
The activities at Columbia went beyond “speaking out”. At minimum, they included vandalism, trespassing, and harassment. Anyone involved in those activities deserves the exact same legal treatment as someone who broke into the Capitol on January 6.
Sure, but it’s deeper than that. Again, it’s all in the article. Whether he did it or not is a big cause for investigation. Even then - wouldn’t that be a criminal case? He has not been charged with a crime, and him being detained without that charge is what brings uncertainty to the legality of it all. The legal implications go much deeper in this case, it seems.
Sorry, my initial comment was a bit glib. Agree that there are much bigger implications. This case feels like an overreach, but the Trump administration does seem to be attempting to make an actual case here. I’m very interested to see how the courts resolve it.
Exactly. Detaining him the way they are doing is illegal. And should worry everyone. Maybe watch a movie this eve. "The (Torture) Report" comes to mind.
Then first it should be proven he was actively involved in these acts. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? What happened to the burden of proof? Does that all disappear because he is a not a citizen? That would be bad news for the almost 13 million Green Card holders. Not to mention the five million non-immigrant workers/business owners and their families. All tax-payers, bytheway.
This is aburd. The Jan 6yh insurrectionists were there to do, well, an insurrection.
The protests on campus were to call attention to a genocide. They used tactics of civil disobedience that have a long and proud history, including the civil rights struggle in this country, where they trespassed while protesting white supremacy and its policies. And they were 100% right to do so, just as they are here.
Those activities might have legal consequences, but that doesn't mean those consequences should be considered deserved.
But actions to overturn a democratic election? That's exactly the opposite.
Trump’s allegiance it to Putin and Russia. The Russian state - and Trump/Putin/Musk/Vance operates as a crime syndicate: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/218560.pdf
A mafia state. Russia is a combination of authoritarianism and kleptocracy. Sound familiar? https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/russia-mafia-state
The greatest threat to their criminality, depravity, and greed is the rule of law, justice, equality, hope, and freedom. They are working to destroy America and our democratic allies. America has been attacked. Russia/Trump is starting WWIII. Name it. What you are seeing and reading every day - and will continue to see and read every day - are acts of war against the USA and our allies. Trump/Russia’s intention is our destruction. It is not too late. Be brave. Name it. Warn your neighbors.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-the-heritage-foundation-keeps-popping-up-in-russian-media/
You seem like a foreign bad actor or bot. Definitely not someone who loves democracy, the USA, and our democracy-loving allies. Just more of Russia’s cyberwarfare.
Thank you for this post tonight. It is helpful in clarifying the different aspects and possibilities going forward.
First they came for the Palestinians...
Then they came for the false equivalences. (No one is coming for Palestinians qua Palestinian)
That's debatable. The Trump/Netanyahu plan to permanently evict Palestinians from Gaza and turn it into a resort was "coming for Palestinians". That makes it at least plausible that Trump would like to "come for Palestinians" in the U.S., at least to the extent that he can find legal justifications for doing so.
... then they came for the red herrings.
Now he's looking into dumping Palestinians in Sudan and Somalia, probably along with your red herrings.
Thank you for clarifying the distinctions to be learned. It’s such a scary time and I do fear the worst.
It would seem that the statutory test: “An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable” would require a formal determination by the Secretary of State. If being a campus Palestinian protest leader is all that can be claimed, it is doubtful that Rubio can meet the burden. Such a rationale seems pretextual and a cover for deprivation of First Amendment rights of a lawful green card holder. This is especially so when Trump threatens to deport many students in similar circumstances.
Most students have J, F, or M non-immigrant visas, not Green Cards. They also have to register and stay compliant with SEVIS. But it would be good to remember that foreign students are a 35 Billion dollar industry.
I am surprised that I have yet to see anyone mention the only case to address the "serious adverse foreign policy consequences" provision that appears to be the basis for Khalil's deportation: Massieu v Reno, 915 F Supp 681, rev'd 91 F3d 416. The district court found the statute to be void for vagueness, but the appellate court reversed on exhaustion grounds, without reaching the merits. But here is the really interesting part. The judge who authored the appellate decision? Samuel Alito. And the district judge who struck down the statute? None other than Maryanne Trump Barry, the president's late sister.
Fascinating, thank you
Is the 2nd legal basis (endorsing or espousing views of a terrorist organization - like distributing Hamas propaganda) an independent basis for removal or in addition to the 1st legal basis (adverse to US foreign policy interest)?
Looks like an alternative.
Wow. Thanks.
Doesn’t at least one prong of the case rather beg the question of whether being against the treatment of Palestinians is somehow Pro Hamas or any other terrorist. I for one am far from being pro Hamas and wish they’d just get the hell out of the whole thing. What Hamas is, is just what tRump is—pro power for themselves. They’ve been feeding on the people of Gaza since they won by a small plurality —not much smaller than tRump’s—and then took over all by a violent coup. And Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians long predated Hamas. Those beliefs of mine about what Hamas is do not preclude active, actually quite passionate, support of the Palestinian people in this conflict.
Begging the question: what are the alleged FACTS of this case? Hopefully when we know, Steve V. will write another analysis.
So far we know he was a negotiator between protestors and Columbia, that Columbia suspended him briefly and reinstated him. Rubio has presented no evidence that he was pro Hamas. So we have a few agreed facts on one side and none on the other. What H Security has said is activities "aligned with Hamas." That's pretty broad and could be anything. If Hamas objects to a kid getting killed, and so do I, am I aligned with Hamas?
I wouldn't put it past Rubio to argue that he "aligned with Hamas" in that neither he nor Hamas approved of Palestinian civilians being slaughtered.
Sigh
Palestinians have been living for decades in apartheid conditions and the last election for leadership of Palestinians was 18 years ago. the history is complex; the prior leader, Yassar Arafat of the PLO had been unsuccessful in efforts to have humane conditions. Israel wanted Arafat to no longer be constantly bothering them and Israel funded Hamas to have them win the election, then denying humane conditions anyway. all this to say although there was grievous violence by Hamas, the overkill (ahem) of 47,000 or more Palestinians, decimation of hospitals, educational facilities, water and sewer pipes, markets and housing has been declared International War Crimes. Palestinians are of Muslim, Christian, and Jews. to exercise our free speech is demonstrated when i say not all Palestinians are Hamas. there are Jews who are also pro-Palestinian. fyi Reagan as governor hated the Students for a Democratic Society who were using free speech to query / protest the American War - as it was called in Vietnam. he and Nixon began the fight, including when the National Guard killed six students at Kent State University. as president Reagan carried further the end of teaching via critical thinking skills. the battle amped as during political rallies 47 said he loves the uninformed. WE THE PEOPLE need to fill in the education as it has been greatly reduced, and work to prevent further erasure. i truly hope this young man is allowed to remain here with his American wife and that their child is safely born to both their parents. to stand up for peace, to decry bombs and direct shooting of innocent civilians is brave. may we all be brave and work to uphold The Constitution.
Zeteo last night article stated there is an anti-palestinian person who has laid statements against him. truth is truth yet proving it can be challenging. was hoping we’d outgrow this once we’d seen the pics of Earth from space, such a tiny rock hurling around the sun which is in a ‘arm’ of this single galaxy…. i wish peace for all regardless. meanwhile we gotta take care of our hearts and figure out which/how to leverage forward.
"Palestinians have been living for decades in apartheid conditions"
No. They are stateless persons who have been offered a state but don't want one unless it means eradicating Israel. They have been living for decades with the delusion that one day the will succeed in killing all of the Jews. They would live in humane conditions if they abandoned their genocidal goal and chose to live in peace, as did Jordan and Egypt.
And Arafat siphoned off billions of dollars to his Swiss bank accounts.
historians speak of times prior to Britain imperialism. since the 1948 with the European nations convincing Britain to give up a portion of land for the establishment of Israel, the Palestinians have been reduced to living in second class apartheid conditions with military encampments and minimal freedom. this does not give anyone the rights to declare that all Palestinians should have their water, sewers, hospitals, schools reduced to such rubble there will not ever be a full accounting of their dead.
Do you think they stashed him in WD La specifically because the judge there is a major reactionary (enjoined govt jawboning of social media platforms)? I guess we’ll find out if they oppose returning him to NY.