Home » Levitt Letter » Levitt Letter Extra News

By Larry Rich, www.Israel21c.org

At Israel’s Emek Hospital, it doesn’t matter if you’re Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.

Muhammed Kalalwe with his father, Hafed. Photo courtesy of Emek Medical Center.

On Thursday, June 3, just three days after the Gaza flotilla raid, 15-year-old Muhammed Kalalwe was working in his family’s fields. They live in Jenin, a Palestinian city in the northern West Bank, bordering Israel’s Jezreel Valley and the city of Afula. The boy noticed a deadly viper snake and tried killing it with a rock, but the dangerous creature struck out and bit his right palm.

Screams and panic ensued and within minutes, the boy’s father, Hafed, grabbed his stricken son and rushed him to the Jenin Hospital. They were ill-prepared to treat the boy, had no anti-serum and decided to send him by ambulance to the Emek Medical Center in Afula, Israel.

Emek, which was founded 86 years ago, is a community hospital that serves a culturally rich population that is equally divided (50/50) between Jews and Arabs. It has a mixed medical staff of Jews and Arabs, and its guiding philosophy is coexistence through medicine.

Hafed later related that he was genuinely afraid to be taken to Emek because he was sure that they would be ignored and not even spoken to. His son’s palm and arm were critically swollen and the pain was unbearable.

The humanitarian reality of Emek shocked both the father and son as they were immediately greeted in Arabic, rushed into the ER where Emek’s multi-ethnic staff administered life-saving anti-serum and brought the boy back from the brink of death.

Muhammed lay for the next two days in the pediatric intensive care unit and is now resting comfortably in Emek’s pediatric surgical department from where he will be released in the next couple of days.

I asked the father how he felt now about Emek Hospital and the Israelis he has come into contact with. “Our people do not know the truth about you and our medicine has a long way to go,” he told me. “My son and I are not the same as we were before this happened and I will share this with my family and friends.”

As he spoke, he gesticulated determinedly in a classic Middle Eastern style and when we shook hands as I wished them both well, the grip was firm and real. I have shaken many such hands and gazed into many Palestinian eyes that have seen a reality here at Emek Medical Center that they never expected to see.

Larry Rich is the director of development at Emek Medical Center in Afula.

By Raphael Minder, www.NYTimes.com

burkas

nikab

MADRID — In a significant escalation of Spain’s debate over how to handle radical Islam, the Senate on June 23 narrowly and unexpectedly approved a motion to ban Muslim women from wearing in public the burka or other garments that cover the whole body.

The vote, 131 to 129, was another setback for the Socialist government of Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, which had favored more-limited restrictions on Islamic clothing and has instead been pushing to curtail religious fundamentalism through better education.

The Spanish vote comes amid several national initiatives across Europe to restrict the spread of radical Islam and defend liberal values.

In Belgium, the lower house of Parliament has already approved a measure that, if unamended by the upper house, would make it a crime to wear in public “clothing that hides the face.”

France, which has the largest Muslim population in Europe, has also been inching toward such a ban on the burka. The measure has the backing of President Nicolas Sarkozy, who recently condemned the garment as “a sign of subservience” rather than one of religion.

In Switzerland last year, a referendum banned the construction of minarets.

While national politicians may be urging a clampdown on the burka, such moves are still expected to run into legal obstacles. In March, France’s top administrative body, the Council of State, warned the government that a full ban would be unconstitutional. A commission of the Council of Europe, the European institution dealing with human rights issues, also recently warned governments against imposing a complete ban that would violate women’s individual rights.

Before the Spanish Senate’s vote, some of the country’s local authorities had already moved to introduce restrictions on the burka. The issue was especially heated in the region of Catalonia, where the debate over Islam and immigration has become entangled in early campaigning ahead of regional elections later this year. The pending elections may have proved crucial in last week’s vote, as senators from the CiU, a Catalan party, surprisingly switched their earlier stance to vote in favor of a burka ban.

The motion adopted by the senators calls on Spain to outlaw “any usage, custom, or discriminatory practice that limits the freedom of women.” It was drafted and led by politicians from the main center-right opposition People’s Party.

The Senate’s position also came as a surprise because although Spain has become a major European entry point for Muslim migrants from North Africa, few of those immigrants wear either the burka or the nikab, which does not cover the eyes. [See pictured garments.] A similar argument has also been made by opponents of a burka ban in countries like France, where only an estimated 2,000 women wear the burka out of a Muslim population of about 5 million. France, however, already passed a law in 2004 to ban head scarves or any other “conspicuous” religious symbol from state schools in order to preserve their secularism.

The Spanish government is supposed to follow the Senate’s motion. However, given that Socialist senators opposed the ban, the governing party is likely to seek ways to circumvent the vote.

Anna Terrón, the secretary of state for immigration, said the Senate vote had “more to do with the election campaign in which the CiU is involved than with a real discussion” on the burka.

www.JTA.org

Majorities in both houses of the U.S. Congress have signed on to letters affirming U.S. support for Israel in the wake of its raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla.

“We write to affirm our support for our strategic partnership with Israel, and encourage you to continue to do so before international organizations such as the United Nations,” begins the Senate letter, which garnered 83 of a possible 100 signatures after a week’s circulation. “The United States has traditionally stood with Israel because it is in our national security interest and must continue to do so.”

A similar House of Representatives letter garnered 307 signatures, also after a week.

The letters blame the Turkish charity involved in the Gaza flotilla incident for the violence. The Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation, known as IHH, helped fund the ship Israel boarded on May 31, resulting in the deaths of nine Turks, including one Turkish American, and the injury of seven Israeli soldiers. The ship was one of six attempting to breach Israel’s embargo of the Gaza Strip, which is under the control of the Hamas terrorist group.

“Israeli forces were able to safely divert five of the six ships challenging the blockage,” the Senate letter says. “However, video footage shows that the Israeli commandos who arrived on the sixth ship, which was owned by the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (the IHH), were brutally attacked with iron rods, knives, and broken glass. They were forced to respond to that attack and we regret the loss of life that resulted.”

Competing accounts of the melee — backed by incomplete video footage — blame both the Israeli commandos and the passengers for starting the violence.

Both letters allege that IHH is affiliated with Hamas, and the Senate letter urges President Obama to put the charity on the U.S. terrorist list “after an examination by the intelligence community, the State Department, and the Treasury Department.” Placement on the list makes it a crime to fund-raise for the cited group.

The Senate letter was initiated by Sens. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the body’s majority and minority leaders. Reps. Ted Poe (R-Texas) and Gary Peters (D-Mich.) initiated the House letter.

www.YNetNews.com

United Arab Emirates authorities are tightening the noose on companies the UN says are fronts for Iran’s nuclear weapons industry, the Gulf News quoted official sources as saying this week.

“Operations of any company in the UAE proved to have connections with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), or other entities or individuals subject to the UN asset freeze will immediately be shut down,” one of the sources said.

According to the source, the UAE has shut down more than 40 international and local companies as part of a crackdown on “illegally dealing in strategic dual-use equipment and materials and money laundering.”

“The companies were proved to have been involved in proliferation of dual-use and dangerous materials banned under UN resolutions and the nuclear non-proliferation NPT treaty,” said the source, “The UAE is committed to meet its obligations towards the global effort for non-proliferation.”

The report, citing court and other documents obtained by Gulf News, said that on June 10, a day after the UN Security Council imposed the fourth and strongest round of sanctions yet against Tehran, an Iranian businessman asked to have his name removed from a Dubai-based company connected with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Last year, Gulf News reported, Dubai authorities blocked the sale to Iran by the Dubai-based company Scientechnic of equipment manufactured by the German electronics company Siemens, which has since given an undertaking not to supply any of the company’s equipment to Iran.

On Tuesday (6-22) the U.S. Congress signaled its disapproval of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with a vote to tighten sanctions against his government and a call to designate his army a terrorist group.

The swift rebuke was a rare display of bipartisan cooperation in a Congress bitterly divided on the Iraq war. It reflected lawmakers’ long-standing nervousness about Tehran’s intentions in the region, particularly toward Israel—a sentiment fueled by the pro-Israeli lobby whose influence reaches across party lines in Congress.

“Iran faces a choice between a very big carrot and a very sharp stick,” said Rep. Tom Lantos , chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “It is my hope that they will take the carrot. But today, we are putting the stick in place.”

The House passed, by a 397-16 vote, a proposal by Lantos (D-CA) aimed at blocking foreign investment in Iran, in particular its lucrative energy sector. The bill would specifically bar the president from waiving U.S. sanctions.

Current law imposes sanctions against any foreign company that invests $20 million or more in Iran’s energy industry, although the U.S. has waived or ignored sanction laws in exchange for European support on nonproliferation issues.

By Rob Eshman, www.JewishJournal.com

Gilad Shalit

On the fourth anniversary of Gilad Shalit’s captivity, there is a welcome chorus of voices across the globe calling for his immediate release.

They are asking for the wrong thing.

It would be wonderful if Hamas, the terrorist organization that crossed into Israel and captured Israeli airman Shalit, would obey the marchers in Rome, Jerusalem and New York.  It would be heartwarming if Hamas would take heed of the resolution passed by the United States Congress today calling on them to release Shalit, or the resolution passed by the Los Angeles City Council, naming this day, “Gilad Shalit Day.”  But there is zero chance—zero— Hamas will free Shalit, because, suddenly, Hamas cares as much about him as his family and supporters do.

Since his capture, Hamas has provided only two indications that Gilad is still alive – a recorded message of his voice, released on June 25, 2007, and a video of him, released on October 2, 2009.  In contravention of international law, Hamas has refused to allow the International Red Cross to visit Shalit.  By all accounts, they are holding him in solitary confinement—a situation akin to torture.

That’s not to say Hamas won’t one day release Shalit.  It’s just to point out what many of Shalit’s supporters seem to forget: Hamas won’t give up Shalit for free.

That fact—that equation—is at the heart of the tragedy over this young man, whose family must be going through a kind of moment-by-moment heartbreak few can imagine.

To say Hamas is a terrorist organization is true, but it shouldn’t obscure the fact that it is at base a political organization that uses terror.  And politics is the art of the deal.  There is a price to be paid for Gilad Shalit; the question is whether Israel wants to pay it.

If you are one of the people calling for his release, you might ask yourself the same question.  Not: Should Gilad be free? Of course he should.  But: What is his freedom worth?

For his loved ones, the answer is obvious: Anything.  Shalit’s father Noam has called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to pay any price to get his beloved 23-year-old boy back.  A friend of mine who lives in Jerusalem near the Prime Minister says it is simply heartbreaking to see the Shalit family camped out in front of the residence day after day: Not one of us would do anything less were he our child.

But ever since Israel, which officially says it does not negotiate with terrorists, entered into third party negotiations with Hamas over Shalit, Netanyahu has had to take into account other fathers and mothers as well: The parents and children of the victims of the terrorists Hamas wants Israel to release in exchange for Shalit.

At the last round of negotiations, in March 2009, Hamas demanded Israel release 450 “heavy” prisoners—those terrorists with blood on their hands—and 550 more prisoners sentenced for lighter offenses.

Just to give you an idea of how heavy is “heavy,” the list includes Abbas Sayid, who was convicted of planning terror attacks in which 35 Israelis were murdered and hundreds hurt, including the attack on the Park Hotel in Netanya in 2002.

That’s why Ha’aretz reported that the chairman of the Almagor Terror Victims Association, Meir Eindor, “lashed out strongly” against the campaign to release captive soldier Gilad Shalit.

“The newspapers know our prime minister is squeezable, so they squeeze,” Eindor told Haaretz. “Believe me, if the prime minister releases terrorists with blood on their hands, he’ll get attacked by those same newspapers.”

From the Hamas point of view, knowing that Israel is willing to pay a price for Shalit’s release, its leaders would face harsh consequences for not getting the best deal.

So again, the question for all of us who want to see Shalit free is not: Why won’t they free him?  But, What is he worth?

As Tel Aviv University Professor Daniel Bar-Tal pointed out, the answer to this goes to the heart of how Israelis—and by extension, Jews—perceive Israeli society

“Here we see the basic dilemmas between the individual and the collective, and we see victim pitted against victim,” Ben Tal wrote. “Gilad Shalit is a victim who was violently kidnapped, in a way that Israelis do not consider to be a normative means of struggle. Therefore, one side says, he should be returned at any price. But the families of those killed in terrorist attacks and the people who were wounded in those attacks are victims, too, and they say that no price should be paid to the murderers. And it is truly a dilemma, because no side is right, and no side is wrong.”

The answer will ultimately rest with the Israeli government, who must make the deal, and decide what price it is willing to pay.

In the meantime, what those of us who care about Shalit can do, rather than make almost meaningless calls for his release,  is to draw international attention to his fate. The purpose of that is twofold: by demonstrating for Shalit’s humanitarian treatment, we can show Hamas’s true face to the world.  It is cruel, malevolent, and thuggish—hardly the noble, besieged group of freedom fighters it tries to portray itself as.  To remind the world how Hamas treats Shalit is to tell the world about the true nature of the enemies it faces.  I’d love some smart YouTubers to recreate the conditions of Shalit’s captivity, using an actor in his role, and keep it online so people can “see” what Hamas considers international norms.

But perhaps more importantly, demonstrating for Shalit’s humane treatment will pressure Hamas to at least follow international standards in his captivity – to allow visits and communication, first and foremost.  While he languishes, we must speak up to do all we can to ease the conditions of his captivity, and provide some small measure of comfort to him and his waiting family.

By Robert Berger, www1.VOAnews.com

An Israeli woman fixes a cardboard cutout of captured soldier Gilad Shalit in a solidarity tent in Jerusalem, calling for his release, June 2010.

On June 25, Israel marked the 4th anniversary of the capture of soldier Gilad Shalit, held by the ruling Islamic militant group Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Shalit was kidnapped by Palestinian gunmen in a cross-border raid in 2006 and has not been seen publicly since. Hamas released a video of the soldier last year and he appeared to be in good health.

Shalit’s family is marking the anniversary with a new campaign to rally public support for his release. A 12-day march begins on Sunday, June 27 from the Shalit home in northern Israel to the prime minister’s residence in Jerusalem.

“We are going to demand from the Israeli government to free Gilad after four years, and we won’t wait for the fifth year and the sixth year and so on,” said Noam Shalit, the captive soldier’s father.

So far, Israel has refused to pay the price demanded by Hamas — 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the soldier. Though Israel has carried out lopsided prisoner swaps in the past, the current government is reluctant to release top militants involved in deadly attacks.

Many Israelis say it is part of the national ethos to bring captive soldiers home at any price. But others, like parliamentarian Danny Denon of the ruling Likud party, say that would lead to a new wave of Palestinian terror.

“We know that if we will release some of the terrorists that [are] today in prison, it’s a matter of weeks until they will start to implement their expertise, which is causing terrorism in Israel,” said Denon.

Hamas says it is prepared to hold Gilad Shalit in captivity for many more years, until Israel meets its demands for a prisoner exchange.

But four years on, the group’s treatment of the captive soldier is coming under international scrutiny. The New York-based Human Rights Watch issued a statement accusing Hamas of violating the rules of war by prohibiting Shalit from having contacts with his family and the Red Cross.

By Suzan Fraser, The Associated Press

ANKARA, Turkey — Turkey rallied behind Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in his blistering condemnation of Israel after its commando raid on an aid ship to Gaza.

But as dust settles from the May 31 attack, Turkey’s resurgent opposition seems to be gaining traction by articulating fears that Erdogan is steering NATO’s only Muslim member away from the West, jeopardizing EU membership efforts, and even undermining a long-running battle against separatist Kurds.

The views of the Republican People’s Party — which considers itself a guarantor of secular values and enjoys a power base among Western-leaning urban elites — are increasingly important.

The movement has a popular new leader following the resignation of its chairman over a sex scandal and many have high hopes that he can rejuvenate the party, presenting a viable alternative to Erdogan and anchoring Turkey firmly back in its Western orientation.

Kemal Kilicdaroglu made a name for himself by exposing corruption within Erdogan party’s that led to two senior officials stepping down.

While condemning the Israeli assault that killed eight Turks and a Turkish-American and calling on Jerusalem to end its Gaza blockade, Kilicdaroglu’s party has also criticized Erdogan’s confrontational style against Israel and accused the prime minister of trying to use outrage to win elections due next year.

“We are witnessing a serious crisis of confidence between (Erdogan’s party) and the West … This crisis must end immediately,” Kilicdaroglu said in a speech.

A recent opinion poll shows that the Republican People’s Party has made gains since Kilicdaroglu took the party reins, although Erdogan’s Justice and Democracy Party remains more popular.

“The belief that there is no alternative to (Erdogan’s party) has ended with Kilicdaroglu becoming chairman,” the poll taker’s general manager Murat Sari was quoted as saying.

The survey, however, showed that Kilicdaroglu gained support from a nationalist party, not from Erdogan’s ruling party, suggesting that skepticism about the opposition remains widespread.

The Republican Party has long projected a strict — and some say intolerant — form of secularism that has opposed among other things, young women wearing Islamic-style headscarves at universities.

It claims to be the heir to the legacy of Turkey’s modernizing founding father, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. But its coziness with the military, elitist attitudes toward rural Turkey, and opposition to some reforms designed to boost Turkey’s EU membership chances have driven many liberal supporters away. Many also accept that Erdogan’s party, in power since 2002, has been a better steward of economic and social reforms.

For his part, Erdogan has alarmed liberals with his threats to scuttle Turkey’s longstanding alliance with Israel, his questioning of Washington’s international leadership, and his willingness to cultivate friendships with hardline Islamic nations like Iran and Syria.

Increasingly, analysts who praised Erdogan for raising Turkey’s standing in the Middle East are now warning that the government is acting out of emotion not reason in its dealings with Israel and the West.

“Unless someone says stop, the present atmosphere threatens to marginalize Turkey in the long term,” wrote Asli Aydintasbas, a columnist for liberal Milliyet newspaper.

Overwhelming support for Erdogan in elections in 2007 “were not for Hamas but for a ‘western Muslim’ Turkey that increased its global weight both in the East and in the West,” Aydintasbas said.

Military analysts have voiced concerns that Turkey’s new foreign policy is harming its interests, undermining its fight against autonomy-seeking Kurdish rebels.

The United States has been providing intelligence on Kurdish rebel movements in northern Iraq, where a bulk of the rebels are in hiding, while Turkey uses drones recently purchased from Israel to spy on the guerrilla group.

Last week, about 60 rebels attacked a military outpost on the Turkish-Iraqi border, killing nine soldiers, according to the military.

The attack raised questions as to how they were able to reach the outpost undetected and some speculated that the United States may have withheld crucial intelligence.

But Maj. Gen. Ferit Guler, secretary-general of the Turkish military, insisted that a successful intelligence cooperation with the United States was still in place.

The military has long supported Turkey’s military alliance with Israel, which has provided crucial military equipment, such as the drones and modernized Turkish fighter jets and tanks.

Erdogan insists it is committed to its alliance with the United States and NATO and that his government still seeks EU membership, although he has also accused European countries of having a “secret agenda” to keep Turkey out.

By Roee Nahmias, www.YNetNews.com

Geert Wilders (Reuters)

Geert Wilders, who leads the right-wing Party for Freedom (PVV) in Holland, said last week he believes Jordan should be renamed Palestine. The Jordanian government responded by saying Wilders’ speech was reminiscent of the Israeli right wing.

“Jordan is Palestine,” said Wilders, who heads the third-largest party in Holland. “Changing its name [back] to Palestine will end the conflict in the Middle East and provide the Palestinians with an alternate homeland.”

Wilders added that Israel deserved a special status in the Dutch government because it was fighting for Jerusalem in its name.

“If Jerusalem falls into the hands of the Muslims, Athens and Rome will be next. Thus, Jerusalem is the main front protecting the West. It is not a conflict over territory but rather an ideological battle, between the mentality of the liberated West and the ideology of Islamic barbarism,” he said.

“There has been an independent Palestinian state since 1946, and it is the kingdom of Jordan.” Wilders also called on the Dutch government to refer to Jordan as Palestine and move its embassy to Jerusalem.

The Saudi Al-Watan carried Jordan’s response to Wilders’ speech. The kingdom’s embassy in Hague was outraged, and said the Dutch ambassador would soon be summoned to explain.

Jordan’s minister for media affairs and communications, Nabil Al Sharif, asked for clarifications. He described Wilders’ declaration as “an echo of the voice of the Israeli Right” and “crows’ screams”.

“Jordan is an independent and secure country which supports the Palestinian issue, and these imaginings of finding them an alternate homeland are nothing but the delusions of a few people,” he said.

By Patrick Goodenough, CSNews.com

Former President Jimmy Carter visiting Lebanon during the country’s national elections in June 2009. (AP Photo)

Former President Jimmy Carter has voiced concern that Monday’s Supreme Court ruling on “material support” to terrorist groups may criminalize his “work to promote peace and freedom.”

Carter, whose advocacy has entailed contact with groups designated by the U.S. government as “foreign terrorist organizations” (FTOs) – notably Hamas and Hezbollah – said he was disappointed by the court decision.

The high court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld a federal law that forbids providing “material support” to an FTO, ruling that it can be applied to U.S. organizations whose engagement with terrorists involves promoting non-violent solutions to conflicts.

The law, part of the post-9/11 USA Patriot Act, forbids the provision of any aid, defined as including “service,”  “training” or “expert advice or assistance,” to a designated FTO.

Although the free speech challenge derived from organizations wanting to work [see previous post "High Court Upholds Law Against Advising Terrorists"  which states plaintiff "feared that in the process he might make contact"...] with terrorist groups in and around Turkey and in Sri Lanka – the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and Tamil Tigers (LTTE) – the ramifications may be most evident in 2010 in the Middle East, amid growing calls for Western governments to recognize and engage with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Arguing that there can be no peace in the region without those groups’ participation, Carter has reached out to Hamas and Hezbollah, rejecting criticism that doing so could be viewed as legitimizing their violent activities. Since the 1980s both groups have killed hundreds of people in suicide bombings and other terror attacks, most of them Israelis and Americans.

The administration’s argument, presented by Solicitor General Elena Kagan (now a Supreme Court nominee) earlier this year, was in part that the intent of Congress was to block all assistance to terrorists, recognizing that any form of support – even imparting peaceful skills – might benefit and strengthen the organization.

Six of the justices concurred.

“At bottom, plaintiffs simply disagree with the considered judgment of Congress and the Executive that providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization – even seemingly benign support – bolsters the terrorist activities of that organization,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

In a statement reacting to the decision, Carter said, “We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that inhibits the work of human rights and conflict resolution groups.”

“The ‘material support law’ – which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism – actually threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence,” he said.

“The vague language of the law leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom.”

‘Intent is to further peace, not terrorism’

Carter’s statement was released through the American Civil Liberties Union, which earlier filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Carter Center and other organizations involved in human rights and peace-promotion advocacy.

The brief outlined some of the areas where the Carter Center was concerned its work could be affected.

“In the course of resolving or preventing conflicts, Carter Center staff will meet

with violent actors – some of whom may be or may in the future be designated as FTOs – to persuade them to cease violent activity and discuss specific paths to peace,” it said.

Meetings with such groups may include discussions about “peace-facilitating strategies” or advice on their “obligations under international law.”

Some of the groups the center had been engaged with in this capacity included FTOs Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as other group not currently designated as such – the PLO, Fatah, the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, Maoists in Nepal, and Sudanese rebels.

“The intent, of course, is to further peace, not terrorism,” the brief said.

During elections in Lebanon and the Palestinian self-ruled territories, Carter Center observers occasionally came in contact with “members of Hezbollah’s or Hamas’ political wing.”

It said the center’s advocacy and advising activity aims to ensure fair elections, but it was not clear whether it could be construed as prohibited “expert advice.”

“Similarly, the Carter Center, in its advocacy efforts to achieve peace between

Palestinians and Israelis, publicly calls for inclusion of Hamas in peace talks because Hamas represents a sizeable portion of the population and the Carter Center believes that true peace is not achievable without their active participation,” the brief said.

“The Carter Center’s advocacy in this regard is intended to ensure an effective peace process and is wholly independent of Hamas. Nonetheless, it is unclear whether even this type of advocacy could be viewed as a prohibited service because it could be construed as action taken ‘for the benefit of’ Hamas as Hamas would presumably derive some benefit from inclusion in the peace process.”

‘Not meeting with Hamas makes peace harder to achieve’

Hamas has killed hundreds of Israelis in suicide bombings, rocket assaults and other attacks since the interim Oslo peace accords were signed in 1993. It has also been responsible for the deaths of American citizens, including victims in bombings in Jerusalem in 1997, 2001, 2002 and 2003.

Carter controversially met with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in Damascus in April 2008, despite being advised by the State Department beforehand not to do so.

“U.S. government policy is that Hamas is a terrorist organization and we don’t believe it is in the interest of our policy or in the interest of peace to have such a meeting,” department spokesman Sean McCormack said at the time.

Together with its partners in the Mideast Quartet, Washington’s policy on dealing with Hamas is that it will only do so if the group abandons terrorism, recognizes Israel and abides by previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

“You know, I’m all in favor of dialogue, but dialogue has to have a purpose and it has to be within principles that the international community accepts,” the Bush administration’s assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, David Welch, said in an interview after the Carter-Meshaal meeting.

“Regrettably, every attempt to kind of stray from that has produced little as a result,” he added.

In a report on his trip, Carter defended his position:   “We knew that some of our meetings – particularly with Hamas and the Syrian government – would be viewed negatively in some quarters,” he wrote. “The problem is not that we met them, but that the U.S. and Israeli governments refuse to meet with them, making peace harder if not impossible to achieve.”

In December of 2008, Carter again met with Meshaal in the Syrian capital, at a time when Hamas’ ceasefire – an Egyptian-brokered agreement to stop firing rockets from Gaza into Israel – was crumbling. Days later it ended altogether, and Israel launched a major offensive against Hamas.

During that December 2008 visit to the region, Carter also went to Lebanon to lay the groundwork for a Carter Center mission to observe the country’s elections scheduled for the following spring. He had hoped to meet with Hezbollah leaders but the Shi’ite group declined.

When he returned to Lebanon during the June 2009 election, Carter did meet with a senior Shiite cleric long associated with Hezbollah, Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah.

Hezbollah has been linked to numerous terrorist attacks, some as far afield as Europe and Latin America. The U.S. government holds it responsible for a series of 1983 suicide bombings in Beirut, including blasts at the U.S. Embassy and U.S. Marine barracks that killed more than 300 people, most of them Americans.

“Prior to September 11, 2001, [Hezbollah] was responsible for more American deaths than any other terrorist group,” the State Department says in annual report on international terrorism.

By David G. Savage, www.LATimes.com

USC professor Ralph Fertig, a founder of the Humanitarian Law Project in Los Angeles, filed suit 12 years ago to challenge a 1966 anti-terrorism law. (Gary Friedman, Los Angeles Times)

Reporting from Washington —

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that human rights advocates led by a USC professor could be prosecuted if they offered advice to a foreign terrorist group, even if the advice was to settle disputes peacefully.

The 6-3 decision upholds the 1996 law that makes it a crime for Americans to provide “material support” to a designated foreign terrorist group, including by offering them expert advice or training.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the need to combat terrorism trumped the concern over restricting freedom of speech. The court, he said, agreed with Congress and the president that “providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization — even seemingly benign support — bolsters the terrorist activities of that organization.”

Monday’s ruling sends a warning to international aid groups and charities that even good-will measures could ensnare them in a criminal prosecution. Until now, the government has used the law mostly to prosecute those who sent money to a terrorist group or who traveled abroad to undergo training at an Al Qaeda camp.

“All this ruling does is it continues to marginalize Americans. It doesn’t marginalize terrorist groups,” said Amjad Atallah, co-director of the Middle East task force at the liberal New America Foundation in Washington. “It tells Americans you can’t be engaged in conflict resolution in these areas.”

The suit challenging the law was filed 12 years ago by USC professor Ralph Fertig, a founder of the Humanitarian Law Project in Los Angeles. Fertig, who says he opposes violence, said he wanted to advocate for the Kurdish people before a United Nations tribunal, but he feared that in the process he might make contact with members of the Kurdistan Workers Party, known as the PKK, which has been designated as a terrorist group by the State Department.

He argued that the words “advice” and “training” should not be read broadly to cover those who advised others to steer away from violence and terrorism.

Fertig won before federal judges in California, who said parts of the anti-terrorism law were vague and conflicted with the 1st Amendment. U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, now a Supreme Court nominee, appealed on behalf of the Obama administration and won a reversal Monday in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project.

Joining Roberts in the ruling for the government were Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

In his opinion, Roberts emphasized that Fertig and others were free to speak out on their own on behalf of the Kurds. They violate the law only when they work with members of the PKK, he said. The group, which seeks an independent state for the Kurds, has waged a “violent insurgency” against Turkey, he said.

In dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the 1st Amendment should protect the “pure speech” of these human rights advocates from prosecution, except when it could be shown that they knew they were aiding “unlawful terrorist actions.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined his dissent.

“This is a very dark day … but we will not let this inhibit our commitment to the Kurdish people,” Fertig said. “We will continue to advocate for the rights of the Kurds who are being oppressed. We do so with great fear that some of the people we are working with might be members of the PKK.”

Some legal experts said they were surprised the court upheld a criminal law that targets speech and advocacy. In January, the court struck down on free-speech grounds a 63-year-old law that forbade corporations and unions from spending money on an election campaign. In April, the justices cited free speech in voiding a law that made it a crime to sell videos of animals being tortured.

In Monday’s opinion, Roberts said national security raised a higher concern. The Constitution empowered the government “to provide for the common defense,” he said, and the 1st Amendment does not stand in the way of a law that forbids any aid to foreign terrorists.

Among those applauding the ruling was the Anti-Defamation League. “One cannot provide ‘humanitarian’ support in the form of training, expert advice or assistance … to a terrorist organization without helping their bottom line and facilitating violence, destruction and murder,” said Chairman Robert G. Sugarman and Director Abraham H. Foxman in a statement.

Georgetown law professor David Cole, who represented Fertig on behalf of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said he was “deeply disappointed” with the ruling. “In the name of fighting terrorism, the court said that the 1st Amendment permits Congress to make it a crime to work for peace and human rights. That is wrong. There is no evidence that teaching human rights would further terrorism.”