Rasmieh Odeh Case Remanded By the Sixth Circuit

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ordered the district court to reconsider an evidentiary ruling against Rasmieh Odeh, who was convicted of lying to immigration officials in her naturalization documents (failing to disclose a terrorism conviction in Israel) and sentenced to 18 months in prison (followed by deportation back to Jordan).

While the majority rejected most of Ms. Odeh's contentions, it concluded that the district court erred in "categorically" excluding evidence of her alleged PTSD which -- Odeh argued -- caused her not to know her statements were false because she would have mentally suppressed all memory of her time in Israel (Ms. Odeh alleges that she was tortured by Israeli authorities in the process of extracting her confession). The Court did not rule that this evidence necessarily had to be admitted, only that the district court made a mistake in holding that evidence of this sort had to be excluded categorically (that is to say, the Court left open the possibility that the evidence should have been excluded for case-specific reasons).

The terrorism conviction regarded Ms. Odeh's role in bombing a supermarket, an attack which killed two civilians. I have obviously zero sympathy for her actions (there is no serious dispute that Ms. Odeh was involved in the bombing, the only question is regarding the extent); I likewise think that torture -- including of terrorism suspects -- is categorically wrong. Ms. Odeh's conviction, however, is not based on the Israeli conviction itself but on her failure to disclose it in response to a direct question by immigration authorities: "Have you EVER been charged with committing any crime or offense?” (a failure which, on its face, has nothing to do with either the bombing itself or her allegations of torture during interrogation). And while I am quite dubious of her claim that PTSD caused her to simply "forget" the conviction and ensuing prison term every occurred, the opinion by Judge John M. Rogers (a George W. Bush appointee) is reasonable enough in suggesting that such evidence could at least theoretically negate an element of the offense and therefore required more fine-grained analysis by the district court.

The other two judges on the panel were Karen Nelson Moore (Clinton appointee) and Alice Batchelder (George H.W. Bush); the presiding district court judge was Gershwin Drain (Obama). For all you "law is politics" fans, note that not only was this opinion written by a Republican reversing a Democratic appointee, it was in fact Judge Batchelder (the elder Bush appointee well-known for her staunch conservatism) that authored the most "pro-Odeh" opinion of all. She would have vacated the conviction entirely on the basis that admitting the details of Odeh's particular offense (the terrorist bombing) was unduly prejudicial. Since the conviction was simply about whether Odeh lied on her documents or not, there was nothing probative (but much inflammatory) in the jury knowing specifically that the conviction she had failed to disclose was for murdering two civilians in a terrorist bombing.

The case has been remanded back to the district court, which was left to reconsider its evidentiary ruling on alternative grounds and -- if it ultimately sides with Ms. Odeh -- whether a new trial is necessary.

Israel, Palestine, and Jordan Sign Historic Agreement

Over how to replenish the Dead Sea using water from the Red Sea.

But in this climate, any agreement is worth celebrating. And in the Middle East water is no joke. I'm sure this took some doing to hammer out, so my congratulations to all involved parties.

When the Chips Are Down

The ongoing conflict in Syria has created a new Palestinian refugee problem, as Palestinians (and other minority groups) have been among the most vulnerable and heavily impacted by the ongoing brutal civil war. Refugees have began pouring into Jordan and Lebanon, but both countries' support for Palestinians in other countries notoriously exceeds the hospitality they display to Palestinians in their own borders. Facing an escalating crisis, the UN has asked that the Palestinian Authority (West Bank) and Hamas (Gaza) take in some of their compatriots themselves.

Both refused. The PA's excuse is at least facially reasonable: they don't have any money. But Hamas gives a different reason: rescuing these Palestinians now, you see, would denigrate any "right of return" claims they have against Israel later. I'd say these Palestinians are only useful to Hamas as a bargaining chip against Israel, except that Hamas has no interest in striking a bargain: Palestinians living abroad have precisely one role to play in Hamas' vision of Palestinian nationalism: a human wave to wash away the Jewish state. If they can't serve that function, they have no value and Hamas couldn't care less about them. It's that simple.

Grouchy V-Day Roundup

Jill and I typically don't really celebrate Valentine's Day (coming so soon after my birthday, we're all celebrated out). But I'm feeling a little bit grumpy this week, so I think snuggling up with some candy and a movie might be just what the doctor ordered.

* * *

Bill Russell gets the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Justice Thomas' silence on the bench reaches 5 years. While my feeling going into the article was that I didn't really care whether Justice Thomas felt compelled to speak or not (viewing much of oral argument as a bit of a charade), I did think one attorney had a point when he noted the unfairness of Thomas deciding cases on grounds not briefed or argued, yet not giving lawyers the opportunity to at least respond to his concerns.

Two posts at TNC's place on Black people getting away with things.

Maryland Democrat joins the state legislative Tea Party caucus, chaos ensues.

Scott Lemieux on the individual mandate and federal power.

Dutch parliament voices opposition to unilateral Palestinian statehood, urges Palestine to recognize Israel as a Jewish state as part of a final peace agreement.

Jordan's Justice Minister calls for a pardon of a Jordanian soldier who murdered 7 visiting Israeli schoolchildren. The Minister previously served as the convicted criminal's defense attorney.

The Iranian government is vigorously suppressing Egypt-inspired protests cropping up in Tehran, Hillary Clinton remarks that Iranians and Egyptians deserve the same rights.

CPAC in a nutshell: "I witnessed someone calling Ron Paul people a 'cult' while eating a cake shaped like Reagan's face."

On the "Jewish State" Demand

The US has officially backed -- or at least expressed its sympathy -- for Bibi Netanyahu's demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state in exchange for a settlement freeze. Hussein Ibish, on the other hand, thinks that it demonstrates Netanyahu isn't serious about negotiations at all. What gives?

I think Ibish's position, though characteristically well-argued, is not quite right. The strongest argument against Netanyahu's request is that it exchanges something effectively permanent (recognition as a Jewish state) for something temporary (a settlement freeze of indeterminate duration). That's a fair point, but, as I think we'll see, it is something that could be worked around.

Ibish's other arguments, however, are unpersuasive. First, he claims that Israel's Jewish character was never a sticking point in Israel's negotiations with Egypt or Jordan. But that's primarily because Israel's Jewish character did not touch on any core claims of Jordanian or Egyptian nationalism. By contrast, it is a significant thread of the Palestinian national project that all of what is now Israel should really be Palestine -- "a Palestine next to a Palestine", as BDS founder Omar Barghouti described his ambition. The "greater Israel" project has the same ambition in reverse, which is why any permanent settlement has to be phrased as two states for two peoples. Otherwise it will have the feeling of but a temporary cease-fire in a larger conflict (which, in all honesty, is not particularly far off from Israel's relationship with Egypt and Jordan, whose civil society has always been furious that Israel yet breathes).

Second, he says that the "Jewish state" declaration is not merely symbolic, but has tangible impacts on the final resolution of concrete status items like refugees and Jerusalem. The latter is left essentially unargued, and the former is an area upon which everyone understood Palestinians will have to make significant concessions anyway. Palestinians demanding a total right of return is like Israel demanding to keep every settlement in the West Bank -- it's beyond a non-starter, it's a joke.

But the biggest problem is that Ibish's entire argument doesn't warrant what the PA actually did -- wholesale rejection of Netanyahu's gambit, accompanied by accusations of racism. What it warrants, as the US intimated, is a counter-offer. Ibish already concedes that President Bush's rendition of the "Jewish state" (that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people). So why not say that? Or better yet: "We are open to recognizing Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people as a product of final status negotiations." Then they don't even have to make the permanent-for-temporary-concession trade. But the PA didn't even look for something that, which indicates what many have long suspected: They're opposed to this sort of deal as a matter of kind, not degree.

Another Organ Trafficking Case

As Harry's Place put it, "You won’t have seen this on Press TV".

In September, 11 Jordanians were extradited by Cairo and charged in Amman with trafficking in human organs, mainly kidneys, and selling them illegally in Egypt for up to 30,000 dollars each.
[...]
According to a recent government study of 130 cases in which kidneys were sold, nearly 80 percent of "donors" were Palestinians from Baqaa in northwest Amman, the largest refugee camp in the country.

Most were under the age of 31, lived in absolute poverty and had no criminal record.

The study said operations to remove the kidneys used to take place in Iraq, but since the 2003 US-led invasion, young men are now sent to Egypt, India and Pakistan.

I write this not to mirror the insane hellstorm that came along with the sensationalist "Israel organ theft" story (see my guide for the perplexed on that issue). The point is merely that crime happens; it happens worldwide. When it happens, it should be punished. But crime is not an example of a incurable sickness in an entire culture. One shouldn't take this story to say "Jordan should be destroyed" or "Jordan should be a pariah state". And I doubt anyone will.

What Might We Call This

Jordan begins revoking the citizenship of its Palestinian residents. In some other countries (well at least one other country) this would be called ethnic cleansing. But since it isn't that one other country, it presumably will be largely ignored.

Now, as per above, I want to say that I generally don't like taking policy stands based on what other people would call other situations -- I think it's lazy and unilluminating. So do I think it's ethnic cleansing? I tend to reserve words like that for very extreme cases, so I say no. But that doesn't mean it isn't an extraordinarily serious human rights violation and a rather clear manifestation of anti-Palestinian racism.

The Jordanians are justifying the move by blaming Israel (of course), saying that they are acting to insure that Palestinians are able to return to their homes in the aftermath of a final peace agreement (there's also something in there about an Israeli "plot" to make Jordan a Palestinian state, though it is predictably scant on the details of how Israel could enact such a plan). I call bullshit. If they're talking about homes in a future Palestinian state, then that isn't affected one whit by whether they have Jordanian citizenship or not, anymore than my ability to move to Israel would be affected by me having American citizenship (and while I appreciate the opportunity to move to Israel, that's a decision for me to make, not for the American government to make for me by revoking my citizenship). But it seems as if the Jordanian government is talking at least in part about resettling the Palestinians in homes in Israel proper (aka, the "right of return"), in which case they are actively sabotaging the peace process by increasing the pressure for a demand that everyone knows Israel can't (and shouldn't have to) meet.

Shivering Peace

Two articles in Ha'aretz today demonstrate just how cold the peace between Israel and Egypt really is. In the first, an Egyptian academic is being harshly attacked for not walking out (with Iran) of an interfaith meeting that was attended by Israeli President Shimon Peres.

Egyptian parliamentarians representing the Muslim Brotherhood even called for Tantawi's dismissal as university head because of this "display of normalization of ties."

But Egypt's religious affairs minister, Mahmoud Hamdi Zaqzouq, came to Tantawi's defense, saying in a newspaper interview that Tantawi did not shake Peres' hand or the hands of the rabbis at the conference.

A sterling defense if there ever was one (and another example of how hostility to Israel seems to keep magically expressing itself as hostility to Jews).

The second article concerns an Egyptian court ruling annulling the citizenship of any Egyptian who marries an Israeli, as well as stripping any children of the couple of citizenship, on the grounds that such partnerships constitute a "security risk". The government, to its credit, is appealing the ruling. But in a sense, that's just the point -- the "peace" between Israel and Egypt is almost purely governmental -- there is very little indication that the populace as a whole has accepted Israel as a true and permanent neighbor.

The last article also contains a piece on how Jordan is looking to expel (or perhaps "transfer"?) many of its Palestinian inhabitants to the West Bank. But it's okay, because it's not Israel. Or something.