![[Skip to Page Content]](graphics/skip_sliver.jpg){kind=small}
|
       |
 
 |
The Palestine-Israel Conflict in the U.S. Courtroom
Finally, the plaintiffs pointed to Treasury Department rules prohibiting a charitable deduction for a gift to a U.S.-based charitable organization which is a “conduit” of the gift proceeds to an organization in another country. A U.S. organization is not a conduit where it has “full control of the donated funds, and discretion as to their use.” The plaintiffs argued that the six organizations were merely funnels of U.S.-originated contributions to Israel and that they did not even attempt to control the use of the funds or exercise discretion over their use, as Fischbein had discovered. The District Court of the District of Columbia, where the suit was filed, never addressed the merits of the complaint, but dismissed the case on a procedural technicality known as “standing.” That concept prohibits a plaintiff from going forward on a lawsuit unless he can first show that he has been “injured in fact, that the injury was caused by the defendant’s challenged action and that the relief requested by the plaintiffs would provide redress for the injuries suffered.” Unless a plaintiff can overcome the “standing” threshold, the suit will be thrown out of court.26 It was Judge Jackson’s decision that few of the plaintiffs suffered a judicially recognizable injury directly attributable to the tax-exempt status of the six organizations. For those Palestinian landowners whose land had been confiscated, the judge held that revoking the tax-exempt status of the organizations would not redress their injuries; that the Israeli Government would have committed the wrongs regardless of the six U.S. organizations’ tax-exempt status. Concluded Judge Jackson: it would be “more fanciful still to assume here that the government of Israel is so responsive to changes in U.S. tax laws that the withdrawal of benefits from U.S. contributors will work any alteration whatsoever in the character of its occupation of territory it now holds by force in the Middle East.”27 Judge Jackson ruled conservatively on the issue of standing, refusing to push the definition of injury to include the harm complained of by the plaintiffs. Judicial recognition of injury remained narrow, reinforcing a national trend excluding third parties from seeking judicial relief. The Return of the Blacklist: Redgrave v. Boston Symphony Orchestra The 1950s, enveloped in anti-Communist hysteria and symbolized by the investigations of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), deeply stained this country’s commitment to the exercise of free expression. Congressional “witch-hunts” seriously undermined fundamental rights established and protected by the U.S. Constitution. In the name of protecting American security, they became forums that enforced ideological conformity, quashed meaningful dissent and debased and corrupted hundreds of people by forcing them to denounce their past, their friends and their colleagues. Few industries were so thoroughly targeted by HUAC as Hollywood and the motion picture industry.28 Films and plays avoided all “controversial” political and social subjects. One Hollywood studio shelved a film about Hiawatha because its message for peace might be misconstrued. New employment contracts specified suspension if the employee invoked his or her First or Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify before Congressional investigations or was cited for contempt. The Screen Actors Guild, under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, introduced a loyalty oath for its members and required its officials to sign non-Communist affidavits. Blacklisting—denying a person employment because he or she refused to comply with HUAC—cost about 250 their jobs, affecting some of the most talented directors, writers and actors in Hollywood. Roughly 100 more were “graylisted”—-victims of rumors or guilt by association who had great difficulty getting hired.29 Well-organized pressure groups also picketed or boycotted the theaters which showed movies of actors or filmmakers who had been uncooperative with HUAC. In New Jersey, the Catholic War Veterans picketed comic Charlie Chaplin’s movie Monsieur Verdoux with banners: “Kick the Alien Out of the Country” and “Send Chaplin to Russia,” while in Denver the American Legion managed to close the film. Consequently Chaplin departed the country in 1952, refusing to return until 1972, but only to receive a special Academy Award. Thirty years later, Academy Award winner Vanessa Redgrave fell victim to identical harassment and censorship merely because of her unpopular political opinions—that is, her support for the Palestinians. The world renowned Boston Symphony Orchestra (BSO) decided in 1981 to celebrate its hundredth anniversary the following year with a special program focusing on the works of the Russian composer Igor Stravinsky. One piece, Oedipus Rex, an opera oratoria, required a narrator, and Redgrave, widely acknowledged as one of the most exciting actresses on stage today, was asked by the symphony to narrate five concerts. Three days later, BSO proudly announced that Redgrave would perform in their celebration. One week later BSO broke its contract with Redgrave. Although BSO later cited threats of disruption and violence aimed at Redgrave, court proceedings revealed that BSO caved into Jewish community groups that opposed the actress’s political views on the Palestine conflict.
Next Page
|
 |
Special Reports:
|
Printer Friendly Version of this Article