March 7, 2024
By Alexander Gray
The Center for Civil Rights and Racial Justice hosted an event on March 5, 2024, that delved into the legal complexities surrounding the ongoing crisis in Palestine. Titled "Palestine v. Biden: Baher Azmy on the Legal Understandings of Genocide," the fireside chat discussion featuring Baher Azmy, the Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), illuminated the legal dimensions of a lawsuit alleging violations of international law.
Professors Sheila Velez Martinez and Jules Lobel spoke alongside Director Azmy. Azmy began by reflecting on his own journey into human rights law.
"Some people are committed to human rights law from the beginning. Some take a circular path. My own sense is almost everyone is in the latter category," Azmy remarked, highlighting the unpredictable nature of careers in social justice.
Professor Jules Lobel shared his unconventional path, emphasizing the Center for Constitutional Rights' unique stance on challenging U.S. foreign policy.
"The Center is always putting itself out there despite being alone, often taking challenging stances," Lobel stated, emphasizing the organization's commitment to pushing boundaries.
Azmy delved into the Center's longstanding involvement in Palestinian solidarity work. "We've been involved with Palestinian solidarity work for over 20 years at a time when no one would touch it," Azmy explained, shedding light on the organization's commitment to addressing both international and domestic human rights abuses in the region.
The speakers tackled the U.S. government's primary argument, asserting that the judiciary cannot question the President's judgments on foreign relations. In response, Azmy and Lobel articulated a robust counterargument, emphasizing the legal duty in potential genocide cases.
"To give foreign aid where the aid is being used to commit genocide, that's not discretionary. It's a legal duty," Lobel averred.
This legal duty, Azmy further explained, stems from international law, specifically the Genocide Convention.
"There is international law that defines and prohibits the crime of genocide," Azmy said. He emphasized that this duty includes not only refraining from genocide but also actively preventing it. The lawsuit Defense of Children – Palestine v. Biden alleges that the U.S. government, through its military and diplomatic support, is not merely failing in its duty but actively aiding and abetting the atrocities.
Tuesday’s event provided an insightful glimpse into the court proceedings, particularly the hearing on an emergency motion for Preliminary Injunction. Azmy highlighted the Center's commitment to challenging cases, even when traditional victories might be elusive.
"How do you take a case where you know you're gonna sort of lose legally, but you might politically? That reflects the ethos of the Center for Constitutional Rights," Azmy noted, referring to the organization's approach of seeking success without traditional courtroom victories.
Lobel went on to clarify the legal intricacies of the case.
"Critical vestige generally seen as just Marshall sending it to a Keystone library is things that the Executive has discretion versus where there's a legal duty for the Executive to do one thing or another," Lobel explained.
He asserted that the case involving foreign aid that may contribute to genocide falls into the latter category of a legal duty rather than executive discretion.
Azmy also shared heart-wrenching details from the testimony shared during the court case. He explained how Dr. Najar, a physician from Rafah Hospital in Palestine, shared gripping live testimony during the hearing. Dr. Najar’s firsthand account painted a grim picture of mass slaughter, destruction of medical facilities, and the intentional incapacitation of essential services. "They killed my professors. They destroyed my university. I'm living in a lifeless body. I have nothing left in my life but grief," Dr. Najar testified, underscoring the human toll of the crisis.
The event concluded with an open invitation for a critical dialogue on the case's legal and human rights implications. Attendees were encouraged to discuss the lawsuit's potential impact on international law and human rights, reflecting both Centers’ commitments to fostering awareness and encouraging public discourse.