Why Not?
by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)
Boston is the center for exceptionally nasty Zionist advocacy, which has enmeshed or involves a surprising number of personnel at our local newspapers, the Boston Herald and the Boston Globe, as well as at our local FOX TV channel, WFXT 25.
Because the pro-Israel reporting of these organizations generally involves extreme anti-Muslim and anti-Arab incitement, I have been identifying legal strategies
- that have worked in the past and
- that are likely to work in the future
to thwart Zionist efforts to marginalize Arab and Muslim American citizens .
I have spoken with attorneys representing Arab or Muslim victims of stings and of conspiracies intended to persecute
- politically active Arab or Muslim groups and individuals,
- Muslim charities,
- Arab-owned, Muslim-owned or Sharia-compliant financial institutions, and
- corporations that have received Arab or Muslim investment.
Freeing Innocent Muslims, Prosecuting Zionist Criminals presents my thoughts on defensive strategy that uses YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), and I have noticed that some attorneys seem to have adopted a 14th Amendment-based defense in certain cases: [wvns] Imprisoned Imam, Pizza Shop Owner Supported.
Pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist activists also need an offensive legal strategy.
I have been studying terror-victim lawsuits like the one described in Judge upholds $116 million lawsuit against PLO and have been thinking that Rachel Corrie's family and Suraideh Gharbieh's family should file this type of lawsuit. There is no requirement for the defendant to be a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity.
Bringing a terror victim lawsuit against the Israeli government might fail because of sovereign immunity, but this sort of lawsuit might succeed
- against organizations within the Israeli state or
- against Israel advocates and advocacy organizations within the USA.