The National Interest Foundation Newsletter

Issue 252, September 13, 2024

Welcome to our NIF Newsletter. In this week’s edition, we look into the outrage over the killing of yet another American at the hands of Israeli occupying forces, analyze how the suppression of anti-war demonstrations on college campuses contradicts standards of academic freedom, and explore the reasons why mass protests have emerged in France over President Macron’s choice of prime minister.

Editor: Bassam Tarbush

---

The Outrage Over the Killing of Yet Another American at the Hands of Israeli Occupying Forces

The Outrage Over the Killing of Yet Another American at the Hands of Israeli Occupying Forces

By Meg Richards

Late last week, Israeli occupying forces shot and killed 26-year-old Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, a Turkish-American woman taking part in a peaceful protest against illegal Israeli occupation and settlements in the West Bank. Witnesses to the incident have gone on record to say that she was murdered by a sniper in cold blood, and posed no threat to Israeli soldiers present at the protest. Doctors confirmed that she was shot in the head and succumbed to her injuries at a hospital in Nablus. The Israeli military tried to claim that it acted due to an “instigator of violent activity,” however this has been refuted by first-hand accounts, with some going as far as to say that the soldier took a “kill shot” at Eygi and “cried of joy” after his shot.

In the aftermath of the killing, various Democrats in Congress and members of the U.N. alike have called for accountability on the part of Israel for the murder of Eygi, including pushing the Biden administration to launch an independent investigation into it. U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) wrote a joint letter addressed to both U.S. President Joe Biden and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, calling on them to conduct an independent U.S.-led investigation into the killing of Eygi, a Washington State resident. Murray and Jayapal expressed the importance of pursuing accountability and justice through an immediate, transparent, credible, and thorough U.S. investigation led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). They also emphasized how the murder of Eygi is the most recent in a pattern of American citizens being killed by Israel without accountability, and the fear that continued impunity would result in more killings like this in the future. The Congressmembers specifically requested that written explanations be provided by September 24th highlighting how the Biden administration plans to address the murder.

Additionally, countless human rights groups such as the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor issued statements urging the U.S. to take action so as to send a clear message of accountability to Israel. In his official statement on the killing, President Biden was criticized by human rights activists for remarking that he was “outraged” and that there needed to be “full accountability” for the matter while at the same time blindly backing Israel’s claim that the shooting was accidental. Biden stated that he trusted Israel’s own biased investigation into it, disregarding the fact that human rights activists, Eygi’s family themselves, and so many others have called for a fair and independent investigation. Given Israel’s abusive manner of operations in the illegally-occupied West Bank and Gaza, in addition to their pattern of committing these types of killings in the past, their supposed “investigation” cannot be trusted. U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who sits on the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, commented that the Biden administration has not been doing enough to pursue justice. In his full array of official remarks, Van Hollen asserted that the influence the United States has over Israel is undeniable, and must be leveraged in this situation in order to hold them accountable and demand the prosecution of anyone responsible for harm against American citizens. He also drew attention to the role that Israeli government officials themselves have played in fueling violence in the West Bank.

The murder of Eygi is, regrettably, not at all an isolated incident. A slew of Americans have lost their lives at the hands of Israeli occupying forces in alarmingly similar circumstances. American activist Rachel Corrie was crushed to death as she tried to block an Israeli military bulldozer from demolishing a Palestinian home. She, like Eygi, was also a volunteer with the International Solidarity Movement, an organization dedicated to non-violent support of Palestinian popular resistance to illegal Israeli occupation. Furthermore, two 17-year-old Palestinian-Americans were killed in the West Bank. In both cases, U.S. officials released lukewarm statements similar in likeness to the one calling Eygi’s murder “deeply disturbing,” yet failing to launch or call for independent investigations into the murders. Omar Assad, a 78-year-old man, is another Palestinian-American who was unjustly detained and killed just miles from his home back in early 2022. That same year, Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was shot in the head while wearing her press vest and covering an Israeli raid in the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank. An FBI probe into the incident is now radio silent.

The list goes on and on. These cases are not coincidentally linked. They are inextricable in their similarities, highlighting a blatant and obvious pattern of Israeli violence against Palestinian, Palestinian-American, and American civilians alike – many times in internationally-recognized Palestinian lands that Israeli settlers have unlawfully and forcefully moved into. The United States has failed to deter these criminal and violent actions, even when they are carried out against their own citizens in illegally-occupied Palestinian territories. So long as these heinous murders on the part of Israeli occupying forces go unpunished, it sends a message of impunity, invincibility, and lack of accountability – all of which will likely lead to this pattern of behavior continuing, and potentially even worsening. As such, punitive measures must be taken in order to deter and prevent more such occurrences in the future. A failure to do so would be a complete and utter miscarriage of justice.

Lying on the ground next to an olive tree and bleeding to death, that is how witnesses described Eygi’s last moments. The poetic injustice of a peaceful protestor dying beneath what has been claimed as a symbol for resistance, harmony, and self-determination should not be lost on any observer – nor was it on Eygi’s family: “Like the olive tree she lay beneath where she took her last breaths, Aysenur was strong, beautiful, and nourishing. Her presence in our lives was taken needlessly, unlawfully, and violently by the Israeli military,” her family said in a statement. Eygi is remembered by family, friends, and professors for her deep and fervent passion for human rights. The Seattle native studied psychology and Middle Eastern languages at the University of Washington. The Guardian reported the following statement from a former professor of Eygi’s, Aria Fani: “I begged her not to go (to the West Bank), but she had this deep conviction that she wanted to participate in the tradition of bearing witness to the oppression of people and their dignified resilience.”

The Suppression of Anti-War Demonstrations on College Campuses Contradicts Standards of Academic Freedom

The Suppression of Anti-War Demonstrations on College Campuses Contradicts Standards of Academic Freedom

By Daniel Imbornoni

As the fall semester begins, colleges and universities are expecting another surge of anti-war demonstrations and solidarity movements to take place on their campuses. During the previous spring semester, a few universities justly agreed to engage in dialogue with students, however, far too many other school administrators faced criticism from human rights and free speech advocates over their heavy-handed response – which often included calling in law enforcement to quell the protests with violence and physical force. Now, a host of schools have revised their policies regarding activism and freedom of speech. This is a move that critics argue will come at the expense of standards of constitutional and academic freedoms on campus. They also point out that the increased restrictions will negatively impact a school’s ability to serve as a place for open discussion and expression.

Historically, campuses in the United States have been one of the centerpieces of dialogue and public discourse on key contemporary societal issues. During the Vietnam War, campuses nationwide were at the core of social and political activity that challenged support for the conflict. In their day, these activists and the causes that they were advocating for may have sometimes been seen as unconventional, but gradually over time, their opinions began to become more widely accepted and helped to shift public discourse and sentiment. This is precisely what evolved viewpoints, and ultimately policies, regarding the United States’ involvement in the war. As was the case during the time of the Vietnam War, the space for dialogue, expression of free speech, and protest that educational institutions provide and facilitate is vital – especially during times of crisis, as is occurring with Gaza. Thus, restricting the ability of students to take part in expressions of free speech on campus is problematic.

The suppression of anti-war demonstrations is also in contradiction with standards of academic freedom. It violates essential aspects of this, and the fundamental component of freedom of expression and discussion that should be indispensable to any academic and learning environment. Restricting this reduces the flow of information that can be used to learn from and challenge societal shortcomings. It also hinders efforts to spur changes regarding policy and behavior in areas where this is needed. Many schools appear to be implementing restrictive measures largely due to pressure from various pro-Israeli voices who seek to derail and demonize legitimate human rights-related concerns. These have included major financial donors, pro-Israeli organizations, politicians, and other powerful entities that are compelling many university administrations to suppress anti-war demonstrations and free speech, and in doing so, undermine the academic freedom and impartiality of these institutions.

A notable policy that various schools have wrongfully and dangerously opted for is the conflating of fair criticism of the Israeli government’s actions with antisemitism. Many of those taking part in the anti-war demonstrations and solidarity movements are merely expressing concern and opposition to abusive Israeli policies and behavior. Therefore, labeling their activism as antisemitic is inaccurate and used as a means to try and shield Israel from justified criticism. There is a clear and important distinction that should be made between condemning the actions of a government versus being bigoted towards an entire group of people. The aforementioned conflation has made it extremely difficult for human rights defenders to speak out against the actions of the Israeli government, as they may be unfairly labeled as antisemitic. It is also important to note that a significant number of those taking part in the anti-war demonstrations are young Jewish students themselves, highlighting the absurdity of the erroneous conflation. Organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace and many others have demonstrated how denouncing Israeli human rights violations and war crimes has come from a diverse array of individuals with different ethnic and religious backgrounds, including many Jewish Americans. The persistence of those taking part in anti-war demonstrations, even in the face of suppression attempts, also shows their unyielding resolve in support of human rights. Despite what some critics may try to argue, the movement is the organic consequence of growing outrage over war crimes and human rights abuses that are being perpetrated by the state of Israel.

The efforts by some authorities to quell student demonstrations and freedom of expression on college campuses could have long-term implications for the nation as a whole. As attention on the anti-war movement persists, it will continue to remain within the public consciousness and spur legitimate questions regarding the nature of the United States’ relationship with Israel. Simply implementing measures aimed at suppressing or restricting anti-war freedom of expression will not cause pro-human rights sentiments to disappear. In fact, on the contrary, it could ultimately grow the presence of the movement as a whole. In light of what is happening in Gaza, an increasing number of people are becoming disillusioned with U.S. policies towards Israel and attempts to suppress this, as opposed to constructive and tangible changes in policy, are not likely to deter these concerns moving forward.

The Reasons Why Mass Protests Have Emerged in France Over President Macron’s Choice of Prime Minister

The Reasons Why Mass Protests Have Emerged in France Over President Macron’s Choice of Prime Minister

By Jake Spiller

Starting on September 7th, protests against French President Emmanuel Macron have erupted across the country, with hundreds of thousands of protesters nationwide. The French interior ministry put the total number at 110,000, with local police saying 26,000 were in Paris; however, other sources have indicated that the numbers could be higher at close to 300,000 nationwide and 160,000 in Paris. These protests were triggered by President Macron’s announcement that conservative Michel Barnier would be the next French prime minister, prompting a fury of anger across France’s left, with the Unbowed Party calling for demonstrations against the move. Other parties have called for “grand popular mobilization,” and some have gone so far as to say that citizens “must get rid of Macron for the good of democracy.”

As for context and background on what has elicited the backlash, in France it is the president’s responsibility to name the prime minister, who then must gain the confidence of the National Assembly – the lower house of the bicameral French Parliament – in order to remain in office and pass legislation. Recent elections for the National Assembly were held on June 30th and July 7th, the latter being the second and final round. Going into the decisive last round of the election, the French left united into a single electoral alliance, the New Popular Front (NPF), which consisted of parties ranging from the Unbowed Party to the Socialists and the Greens. President Macron campaigned for his liberal centrist political coalition Ensemble, also known as Together for the Republic. Many were afraid that the far-right National Rally (NR) would become the largest party. In fact, several days before the first round of elections, news network France 24 showed polling data that the National Rally was estimated to win more than 35 percent of the vote and become the largest party. As the poll predicted, the NR came in first for round one with 33%. However, in French elections, races without a candidate or party receiving more than 50% go to a second round between the top two candidates and anyone with more than 12.5% of the vote. To prevent a National Rally victory, over 200 left and center candidates who came in 3rd place withdrew to avoid vote-splitting. This worked with the second-round results, putting the leftist New Popular Front first with 182 seats, the liberal-centrist Ensemble coalition in a close second with 168, and the NR in third with 143. So, with this being the case, many wondered how the Republicans – a traditional conservative party that came in fourth place with only 46 seats – ended up securing the position of prime minister.

President Macron has been vocal against the far-right for their extreme positions and thus the danger of allowing them to govern France; he has also been vocal about what he sees as extremists on the left, namely the Unbowed Party, which is the largest party within The New National Front. Macron made his ideal government known by writing in an open letter, “I call on all political forces that recognize themselves in republican institutions, the rule of law, parliamentarianism, a European orientation, and the defense of French independence to engage in sincere and loyal dialogue to build a solid majority, necessarily plural, for the country.” With this, Macron made clear his desire to form a broad centrist coalition that excluded both the far-right and far-left, and that would continue his liberal centrist agenda which included a pro-European Union and pro-NATO stance.

Knowing that a minister from France’s Unbowed Party would never survive against the right and center, the NPF named Lucie Castets, who is associated with the Socialist Party, as their candidate for prime minister. Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the leader of France’s Unbowed Party, also stated that he would accept a government without ministers from his party, a key goal of Macron. Given the election results, this seems like the best that Marcon could do. If the NPF and Ensemble could unite behind Castets, they would control a majority and completely exclude the far-right. They would include the far-left Unbowed, but they would hold no ministerial positions close to Macron’s broad centrist coalition. However, Gabriel Attal, the previous prime minister of France and a current member of Ensemble, said that even without any ministers from Unbowed, an NPF government could not survive a vote in the assembly, signaling that Castets would not have Ensemble support – which would doom her government. In response, the NPF said that it would back out of the negotiation unless Castets was chosen. Concerns among Ensemble are likely over the NPF increasing taxes, state spending, and attempting to undo some of their key policy accomplishments such as the recent retirement age increase from 62 to 64. Any government with France’s Unbowed looks to be too far to the left for Gabriel Attal and some other members of Ensemble. At the same time, the NPF, seeing itself as the largest bloc in the National Assembly, likely feels that it should not be the one that is asked to overly compromise.

Macron, seeing that any coalition between the NPF and Ensemble was fruitless, appointed the senior French politician Michel Barnier – who led the Brexit negotiation for the European Union – to now lead a minority center to the right-wing government between Ensemble and the fourth-place conservative Republicans. Barnier appears to have been chosen for his strong negotiation skills, political experience, and being seen as acceptable by the French center and right. Together, Barnier with Ensemble and the Republicans would fall way short of a majority, but they could survive if the National Rally refused to vote them out. So, while the NR would not be in government, in every censure vote whereby the government would be brought down if passed, they would be kingmakers whose demands would have to be met if Barnier would want to survive. Thus, in an effort to keep extremists (both on the left and right) out of the government, Macron is surrendering power over it to the far-right. Le Pen, the leader of National Rally, said on September 8th that she would not immediately censure Barnier and would “judge the new government on its acts.” Considering that Barnier has been increasingly against immigration to France, his appointment was likely made in the hopes that he was far enough to the right to appease Le Pen and the National Rally. Speaking on the news network France 24, Dr. Anna McKeever – a political scientist from Scotland – theorizes that even though the National Rally has so far avoided being included in government, it has, over time, pulled the French political spectrum to the right by bringing issues such as immigration to the forefront and forcing parties like the centrist Ensemble and traditional conservative Republicans to take further right stances.

France’s political climate has made a left-center government seemingly impossible, even with the assurance that the far-left will not be involved. If a minority right government is formed in France without most French voters behind it, political polarization will likely worsen. This could allow the National Rally to make gains, as the collaboration between Ensemble and NPF recently in the second round of French elections may not be seen again, leaving the National Rally in an even stronger position to win the next French presidential election in 2027 and the subsequent legislative election if there is no strong challenger to the far-right. Given France’s position as the third-largest economy in Europe and a key player in the European Union and NATO, the entire world should be mindful of what transpires.