The National Interest Foundation Newsletter, Issue 271

The National Interest Foundation Newsletter

Issue 271, January 31, 2025

Welcome to our NIF Newsletter. In this week’s edition, we examine President Trump eliciting condemnation for proposing that Palestinians in Gaza be relocated to Egypt and Jordan, provide analysis regarding how the arrest of activist Ali Abunimah in Switzerland highlights the troubling Palestine exception to free speech, and delve into the diplomacy-related issues that could arise from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) mass deportation of illegal aliens.

Editor: Bassam Tarbush

Trump Elicits Condemnation for Proposing That Palestinians in Gaza Be Relocated to Egypt and Jordan

The unsettling remarks were criticized, as they echo calls that have long been pushed by extremist and bigoted Israeli officials. (Photo from Reuters)

President Trump recently garnered an array of criticism for suggesting that large numbers of Palestinians in Gaza be moved to neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan. His comments, which included a reference to the idea of “cleaning out” the whole Gaza Strip, were condemned as disturbing and harmful. Analysts also pointed out their alarming resemblance to the dangerous rhetoric often espoused by Israeli extremists and bigots that promotes ethnic cleansing and the forcible relocation of Palestinians outside of Gaza. The governments of nearby nations and rights advocates were quick to strongly reject Trump’s proposal. Jordan’s foreign minister stated that their opposition to the displacement of Palestinians was “firm and will not change,” while Egypt reiterated sentiments it had expressed in the past about how it could not be part of any effort that involved the transfer of Palestinians into Sinai. Domestically, President Trump drew backlash from some of his own surrogates as well, including the chairman of Arab Americans for Trump, Bishara Bahbah, who remarked that he categorically rejected the suggestion that Palestinians in Gaza be forcefully moved. Bahbah also alluded to the fact that the reconstruction process in Gaza should not in any way be used as a guise or tool to try and push such distressing and destructive policy.

An element surrounding notions like the one put forth by Trump that is particularly problematic is the attempt to present it as a potential “temporary” plan despite decades of forcible expulsion of Palestinians and a refusal to grant them the right of return. More than 75 years after hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were violently forced to flee their generational homes, these refugees are still denied that right which is supported by international law. Thus, in light of this and Israel’s continuous violations of international law, neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan know full well that words like “temporary” and “short-term” are just used as a ploy by Israeli right-wing extremists and their enablers to try and sell the idea of forcible displacement – when there is no intention whatsoever to have this be anything but permanent expulsion and an effort to diminish Palestinian identity and rights. As one commentator put it, “Egypt and Jordan are acutely aware that when Palestinians have been displaced by Israel in the past, whether into Jordan, Lebanon, Syria or into Gaza, not least during the war that led to the establishment of Israel in 1948, there has been no return.” Israel’s extensive track record of repeated forcible displacements and unlawful seizure of Palestinian land mean that fair-minded observers see through the pretense of purported “temporary relocation.” It should be noted that Trump is not the first U.S. president to voice receptiveness to this concept, as Former President Biden’s administration considered the idea of Gazan relocation before later dropping it as a result of Egypt and Jordan’s steadfast dismissal.

The suggestion of relocating Palestinians to nearby countries is something that has long been championed by various bigoted Israeli officials, and Trump’s comments were therefore unsurprisingly endorsed by individuals like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezelal Smotrich – the latter of whom called it a “great idea.” However, as human rights groups outlined in response to Trump’s remarks, Palestinians in Gaza have been clear that they do not intend to leave, and concurrently, countries in the region have been adamant that they will not be party to forcible displacement and ethnic cleansing. Instead, Palestinians in Gaza should be entitled to return to their homes and begin rebuilding their lives following over 15 months of devastating war. Regrettably, not only do Trump’s remarks mirror the views of extremists, but if implemented they would also serve to undermine the prospects of lasting peace and stability. Under international law, the forcible displacement of citizens and removal of people from their land is deemed a war crime. As such, the proposition of doing so has received widespread denunciation from nearby countries in the Middle East, the United Nations, human rights activists, and the European Union, with Germany among those expressing that Palestinians must not be expelled from Gaza.

All told, around 90% of Gaza’s population has been displaced since the onset of the war there back in October of 2023. A fragile ceasefire agreement has been in place since January 19th.

In recent days, President Trump doubled down on the transferring of Palestinians from Gaza and insisted on both Egypt and Jordan having to accept that. This is despite the fact that the two countries have each come out strongly against Trump’s proposal, citing the injustice of forcible mass displacement in addition to their own security concerns and the likelihood that the move would escalate conflict and tensions in the region. On top of all of this, critics of the idea across the board have pointed to how it would be an egregious war crime and human rights violation.

Arrest of Activist Ali Abunimah in Switzerland Highlights the Troubling Palestine Exception to Free Speech

Observers expressed alarm regarding Abunimah’s arrest given that he was detained for merely being an advocate of Palestinian rights. (Photo from AP)

Late last week, Palestinian-American journalist Ali Abunimah was arrested by police in Switzerland where he was set to deliver a talk in Zurich – ultimately being held in prison for three days before being released to return to the United States. Activists were swift to justifiably denounce the move as a blatant violation and attack on freedom of speech, since Abunimah was detained and imprisoned solely for his advocacy of Palestinian rights. As a local Swiss human rights group also underscored, there was no valid legal basis for Abunimah’s violent abduction and arbitrary detention at the hands of authorities. Unfortunately, the incident highlights a concerning pattern, both in Europe and the United States, of attempting to suppress voices that draw attention to Israeli human rights violations and war crimes against Palestinians. There have been similar arrests and forms of censorship in various nations which demonstrate the extent of the clampdown, and what some analysts have referred to as the glaring Palestine exception to free speech.

Over the past 15 months since the onset of the Gaza War, efforts to suppress activism that is critical of Israel’s actions have shed light on the Palestine exception to free speech. Those expressing solidarity with the struggle for Palestinian rights and social justice have been targeted at an alarming level despite overwhelming evidence of Israeli human rights violations and war crimes. Many have sought to merely draw attention to this and advocate for appropriate policy changes towards Israel using freedom of speech protections that are supposed to be upheld and respected across much of Europe and the United States. Ahmad Ibsais states that the “widespread silencing of Palestinian voices” is a clear and disturbing pattern. He also highlights how much of the West emphasizes deaths when they happen to Israelis, while not providing fair context to the full scope of what is taking place. Often in Western media, Palestinian voices are heard at a fraction of the rate to pro-Israeli narratives. As Marda Dunsky, a professor at Northwestern University, puts it – this just makes it even more important to allow for these views to be heard.

Observers have commented about how sentiments sympathetic to Palestinians are being erased on social media and other untraditional but increasingly relied-upon outlets. According to a report by Human Rights Watch (HRW), this is undeniable. In the month following the October 7th Hamas attacks, HRW analyzed the takedown and suppression of content on Facebook and Instagram. Out of the 1,050 instances reported, 1,049 were (peaceful and non-violent) content in support of Palestine, while only one that was removed or suppressed was pro-Israeli. One of the systemic causes of this censorship is a “Dangerous Organizations and Individuals” (DOI) policy that bars any party “that proclaims a violent mission or is engaged in violence.” What is interesting and inconsistent is that since this report was released, the International Criminal Court (ICC) found Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Thus, you would expect that following this ICC decision, the West would react in much the same way Meta has to Hamas. However, in the same period that Ali Abunimah was arbitrarily detained, the Swiss government welcomed Israeli President Isaac Herzog to the country – someone who has stated that “This rhetoric of ‘unaware and uninvolved’ civilians in Gaza is not true.” As such, many noted the absurdity of welcoming Herzog with open arms, while arresting and imprisoning Abunimah without cause.

It is also important to remember that there is a wide array of entities that are being affected by this “Palestinian exception.” According to The Guardian, the editor of eLife, Michael Eisen, was fired after reposting a satirical comment made by The Onion stating that “Dying Gazans criticized for not using last words to condemn Hamas.” Along with the repost, Eisen stated that the satirical news site had “more courage, insight, and moral clarity than the leaders of every academic institution.” Other instances of silencing include the author Adania Shibli’s award ceremony being postponed, as well as a smear campaign being run against U.S. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. Perhaps nowhere have these infringements on freedom of speech and the “Palestinian exception” been witnessed more than on college campuses. In December of 2023, Governor Ron DeSantis called on all public universities to terminate their Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) organizations – which civil liberty groups concluded was a “clear violation of the student group’s constitutional right to free speech and association.” This is especially troubling as the movement has not been violent in any way where one could deem it a threat to society. The censoring of voices sympathetic to Palestinian rights has become more apparent, but it is not entirely new. Back in 2016, students at Columbia Law School called out the “Palestinian exception to free speech” at colleges and universities. The article acts as a forewarning to the law school community where they break down why the censoring is wrong, as well as how certain students and professors are being silenced. Additionally, just earlier this week, President Trump signed an executive order which pledged to deport non-citizen college students and others who took part in campus demonstrations. Rights groups and law experts have outlined that the new measure would violate constitutional free speech rights and therefore likely draw legal challenges if implemented, yet nevertheless, it is still deeply troubling that such a presidential directive has been issued.

Abunimah, who serves as the co-founder and executive director of the Electronic Intifada online news publication, recounted the alarming details of his recent personal experience in a statement upon his release. He explained how he had arrived in Switzerland last Friday for a series of events at the invitation of local organizers, and that after being questioned at the airport for over an hour and being allowed to enter the country, Abunimah was later violently arrested off the street the following day by undercover officers. Authorities accused him of “offending against Swiss law” despite not being presented with any charges, and he was questioned on Sunday morning without the presence of his lawyer. Abunimah was then repeatedly denied the ability to contact her, his family, or anyone from the outside world – proof off the bat to many that authorities clearly understood and were well aware of the illegality of their actions.

Diplomacy-Related Issues That Could Arise from ICE’s Mass Deportation of Illegal Aliens

Experts have speculated that the mass deportation plans could lead to diplomatic tensions and standoffs between President Trump and other world leaders. (Photo from Getty Images)

Earlier this week, diplomatic tensions between the Trump administration and foreign nations related to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) mass deportation of illegal aliens were on full display. The United States and Colombia engaged in a back-and-forth after the latter had initially refused to accept incoming flights carrying deportees as a part of President Trump’s immigration crackdown. This prompted Trump to threaten tariffs and sanctions on Colombia, but ultimately the White House later announced that the South American nation had backed down, as the momentary act of defiance concluded when Colombian President Gustavo Petro agreed to accept the deported migrants after all. While it was eventually resolved before circumstances deteriorated any further, the incident has led some to wonder about the prospect of other potential diplomacy-related issues that could arise from ICE’s mass deportation plans. This is particularly the case due to the fact that Colombia is not the only country that has expressed contention with Trump’s plans, as Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum recently relayed her opposition as well.

Experts have speculated that the mass deportation plans could lead to diplomatic tensions and standoffs between President Trump and other world leaders. We have already seen a notable but short-lived standoff between Trump and the Colombian president. Additionally, many foreign ministries, such as Brazil’s, have summoned U.S. senior diplomats to discuss acceptable terms for the repatriation of immigrants. The Brazilian government is also seeking explanations regarding the degrading treatment of citizens on a deportation flight last Friday. President Trump’s aggressive stances and policies surrounding mass deportation will rely on the support of his allies, like his recently confirmed Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The new secretary of state’s first international trip includes visits to Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, and Panama, highlighting Trump’s focus on immigration and strategic control in the Americas.

In addition to the diplomatic tensions and standoffs that they might create, the mass deportation plans also raise concern over possible racial profiling and could have negative economic ramifications. Regarding the economy, President Trump has made vows to “fix it”, but some experts have pointed out that he has failed to fully take into account the role that many of these immigrants play in sustaining it. In sectors such as food supply and construction, the mass deportation plans could have a disastrous effect. The United States’ food system chain is largely reliant on low-wage immigrant workers. According to the Harvard Business Review, they make up about 61% of workers in the agricultural sector, many of which are undocumented or with H-2A visas – which are ones for foreign nationals to work temporarily in the United States. Furthermore, the rhetoric that immigrants are “taking away American jobs” is problematic, as often times they do jobs that most Americans do not want to do. Economists have alluded to this by explaining that severely cracking down on immigrants is likely to do significant damage both economically and humanitarianly. The construction sector, in which a quarter of workers are migrants, is another one that may face notable impacts.

There is also concern that the mass deportation plans could fuel a climate of racial prejudice and as one analyst put it, “unleash forces of hatred that Trump cannot rein back in.” As he continues to implement the ICE raids at an alarming pace, fear of racial profiling comes to light. This might propel some to carry identification in order to try and avoid negative and traumatizing situations with ICE agents. Various troubling encounters involving ICE agents have already started to take place which have raised questions of possible racial profiling and accusations that “they are specifically going after certain kinds of people.” An indignation towards ICE’s actions last week was led by a mayor in New Jersey who stated that “This egregious act is in plain violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

The mass deportation plans are also worrying because many of those that would be affected fled persecution, repression, or economic challenges in their native countries and came to the United States as a safe haven – therefore sending them back could be dangerous to their well-being and that of their families. One of the many immigrants affected is Carlos Capio, a Venezuelan immigrant who is on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) due to civil unrest in his home country. He is among roughly 1 million people in the U.S. who are part of the TPS program, which has been utilized by administrations dating back to George H.W. Bush. This situation has caused many immigrants to live in fear, with some trying to get through their everyday lives one day at a time. The removal of the CBP One app, which previously allowed migrants to share information and schedule interviews with immigration authorities before reaching the U.S. border, is troubling as well. With the app taken down and all asylum appointments canceled, many vulnerable migrants are now left in fear and in “limbo,” uncertain about what will happen to them whether they are in the United States or still outside of its borders. Trump has also indefinitely paused the Humanitarian Parole Program and the Refugee Resettlement Program, and as a result, many people fleeing persecution, repression, or simply seeking a better life are left to fend for themselves, their hopes crushed, as they once looked to the U.S. as a place of freedom and safety.

Even with these unstable and trying times for many immigrants, there are some possible solutions. In terms of the economic impact, American agricultural lobbyists hope that the Trump administration expands and provides protections to immigrant workers that are part of the H-2A program. Diplomatically, the U.S. should maintain open lines of communication with world leaders in order to find solutions that benefit both countries.

Enter the text or HTML code here

NIF USA