THE FURTHER CORRESPONDENCES OF MARC SUSSELMAN PART 10

8 November 2023

MS said:

You will recall that last year I submitted a series of comments on Prof. Wolff’s blog in support of the plaintiff in the case involving the wedding announcement designer who was charged with violating the Colorado Civil Rights Act because she was refusing to design wedding announcements, or wedding announcement websites, for same sex couples, on the basis that gay marriage violated her religious beliefs. I maintained that the State of Colorado was violating her First Amendment right by compelling her to engage in speech she did not wish to engage in. I submitted a long legal analysis in which I disagreed with Prof. Tobias Wolff, who had filed an amicus brief in support of the State of Colorado. Numerous commenters on the blog accused me of being homophobic and inhumane, so to speak, which I denied. I maintained that I had no issue with gay marriage, but that the plaintiff in the lawsuit still had a First Amendment right to refuse to design wedding announcements for same sex couples. The Supreme Court issued a decision last year holding that the State of Colorado was in fact violating her First Amendment right not to be compelled to engage in speech with which she did not agree. I asserted that the Supreme Court decision, which numerous commenters on Prof. Wolff’s blog derided as being anti-gay and unconstitutional, was correct.

In September, I saw an article on the internet about a resolution which had been passed by the City of Hamtramck, which is located just north of Detroit, which had the effect of prohibiting the display of the Pride flag on city flagpoles. Prior to the passage of this resolution, the prior administration had passed a resolution allowing the City’s Human Rights Commission to display flags of its choosing on the City’s flagpoles. In 2022, the Chairman of the Commission accordingly displayed the Pride flag. When the new City Council demanded that he remove the Pride flag, he refused. The City Council proceeded to pass the resolution which allowed only the display of the U.S. flag; the Michigan flag, the Hamtramck flag; the POW flag, and flags representing the nationalities of residents of Hamtramck. After the resolution was passed, the Chairperson of the Commission, and another member of the Commission, proceeded to raise the Pride flag on one of the City’s flagpoles. The City Council then passed a resolution removing the two individuals from the Human Relations Commission.

As soon as I read the article, I immediately concluded that the resolution was unconstitutional, as was the removal of the two individuals from the Commission. I contacted the former Chairperson of the Commission by email and informed him that I believed the resolution, and his removal from the Commission based on his violation of the resolution, was unconstitutional, and offered to represent him, and the other member of the Commission, in a lawsuit in federal court. I met with them, and they retained me. I am representing them pro bono. On November 6, I filed the lawsuit in federal court in Detroit. I have attached a copy of the Complaint, without the voluminous exhibits, in case you are interested in my legal reasoning.

I am fairly confident that a homophobic person would not have filed this lawsuit.

Marc's pdf file download link

********

9 November 2023

MS said:

As it turns out, I included the wrong video link in the Complaint for the Council meeting in which the Hamtramck proposed Pride flag resolution was discussed. I will have to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct this error.

The correct link is below. It is worth watching to hear the homophobic reasons some citizens gave for supporting the Resolution and rejecting the display of the Pride flag, the inspirational statements of those who opposed the Resolution, and the rationales of the Councilmen who supported it. The comments regarding the Resolution begin at 6:47.

"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfwM_q9pFKs"

********

MS said:

Regarding the censure of Congresswoman Tlaib, she was censured for stating in a speech on the floor of Congress, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” This is the slogan that the pro-Palestinian protesters have been repeating at their rallies. What they mean by it is a subject of dispute. It is a slogan that Hamas has been using, and when it uses the slogan, it means the annihilation of Israel as a state, which would necessarily require the murder of all the Jews living there. Some maintain that is not what they mean by it when they loudly scream it through their bullhorns. Some claim it means recognizing the continued existence of Israel as a state, but providing equal rights for all Palestinians, those living West of the Green line, as well as those living in the West bank. The claim that they do not enjoy freedom, particularly those living West of the Green line, is a subject of dispute. Others claim that it means having a single state, in which Jews and Palestinians would live together in harmony. This would, even if feasible, mean the removal of a Jewish state. And many Jews, even if such a one-state solution was feasible (which, as s. wallerstein has pointed out, is highly unlikely), reject the one-state solution, on the grounds that the Jews, who have been the victims of oppression, discrimination, and genocide for centuries are entitled to have a state of their own in which they constitute the majority and are responsible for their own security and self-defense. I am among those who agree with this, given that there are 47 other nations in which Arabs/Muslims are the majority.

Tlaib has defended the slogan saying it was an “aspirational call for freedom… and peaceful existence and not death, destruction and hate.” This would mean that she was not using the slogan in the sense in which Hamas has been using it, and she was not calling for the death of the Jews living in Israel. Whether she was calling for a State of Israel in which Palestinians were treated more equally with the Jews on both sides of the Green line, or was calling for a one-state solution, with which I would disagree, is uncertain. In either case, taking Ms. Tlaib at her word, I agree with David and s. wallerstein that she had a First Amendment right to express her point of view without being censured.

Regarding Juan Cole’s article defending Congresswoman Tlaib, I will address that in a separate comment, when I have more time. I will state at this point, however, that it is full of distortions, mischaracterizations and falsehoods regarding the history of the Jews and their relationship with the country currently referred to as Israel.

********

MS said:

DZ

Allow me to clarify, On the issues about which we disagree, I am more often than not, correct, and you are, more often than not, incorrect. And, as I will show later, the fact that you could praise Juan Cole's error-filled narrative, demonstrates that you know little to nothing about Jewish history or the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

********

MS said:

Would you respect Congresswoman Tlaib's right to express her views on the House floor if she instead explained that by stating "From the river to the sea Palestine will be free" she agreed with Hamas that Israel has no right to exist and should be annihilated? I would not. A precept that all points of view have a right to be heard, in my view, has its limits. Views that flagrantly distort confirmed facts do not deserve protection of the precept you espouse. Some statements are demonstrably true, some demonstrably false, and many more in between, which are not possible of confirmation or disconfirmation. Statements which are demonstrably false, and which are used to manipulate people, are not, in my view, entitled to the protection you espouse. Congresswoman Tlaib's opinion was a prescriptive statement which did not call for the destruction of Israel, which she was entitled to express, without being censured, even though I do not agree with its premise.

********

Michael said:

I think the law profession does not allow one to be an extremely generous listener in the category of s. Wallerstein. I believe the reason this is done is because of the efficiency of judges or magistrates. You need both sides of the case, as opposed to one another, as much as possible, for the judge to understand the case expediently and to judge accordingly. So not all those in the legal profession have the luxury of being extremely liberal minded like SW. This does not weaken a lawyers point of view. But tweaks its style in a different dimension & pathway.

A lot of extremely liberal minded people argue much more like Benjamin Franklin. That doesn't mean they are superior minded people but rather that they argue differently from others.

Here's a quote from Benjamin Franklin:

"While I was intent on improving my language, I met with an English grammar (I think it was Greenwood's), at the end of which there were two little sketches of the arts of rhetoric and logic, the latter finishing with a specimen of a dispute in the Socratic method; and soon after I procur'd Xenophon's Memorable Things of Socrates, wherein there are many instances of the same method. I was charm'd with it, adopted it, dropt my abrupt contradiction and positive argumentation, and put on the humble inquirer and doubter. And being then, from reading Shaftesbury and Collins, become a real doubter in many points of our religious doctrine, I found this method safest for myself and very embarrassing to those against whom I used it; therefore I took a delight in it, practis'd it continually, and grew very artful and expert in drawing people, even of superior knowledge, into concessions, the consequences of which they did not foresee, entangling them in difficulties out of which they could not extricate themselves, and so obtaining victories that neither myself nor my cause always deserved. I continu'd this method some few years, but gradually left it, retaining only the habit of expressing myself in terms of modest diffidence; never using, when I advanced anything that may possibly be disputed, the words certainly, undoubtedly, or any others that give the air of positiveness to an opinion; but rather say, I conceive or apprehend a thing to be so and so; it appears to me, or I should think it so or so, for such and such reasons; or I imagine it to be so; or it is so, if I am not mistaken. This habit, I believe, has been of great advantage to me when I have had occasion to inculcate my opinions, and persuade men into measures that I have been from time to time engaged in promoting; and, as the chief ends of conversation are to inform or to be informed, to please or to persuade, I wish well-meaning, sensible men would not lessen their power of doing good by a positive, assuming manner, that seldom fails to disgust, tends to create opposition, and to defeat everyone of those purposes for which speech was given to us, to wit, giving or receiving information or pleasure. For, if you would inform, a positive and dogmatical manner in advancing your sentiments may provoke contradiction and prevent a candid attention. If you wish information and improvement from the knowledge of others, and yet at the same time express yourself as firmly fix'd in your present opinions, modest, sensible men, who do not love disputation, will probably leave you undisturbed in the possession of your error. And by such a manner, you can seldom hope to recommend yourself in pleasing your hearers, or to persuade those whose concurrence you desire.

Pope says, judiciously:

"Men should be taught as if you taught them not,
And things unknown propos'd as things forgot;"

farther recommending to us

"To speak, tho' sure, with seeming diffidence."

And he might have coupled with this line that which he has coupled with another, I think, less properly,

"For want of modesty is want of sense."

If you ask, Why less properly? I must repeat the lines,

"Immodest words admit of no defense,
For want of modesty is want of sense."

Now, is not want of sense (where a man is so unfortunate as to want it) some apology for his want of modesty? and would not the lines stand more justly thus?

"Immodest words admit but this defense,
That want of modesty is want of sense."

This, however, I should submit to better judgments.""

Note: Many years ago Glenn Beck started his show on CNN. He was a great imitator of Benjamin Franklin. But he is no where near as eloquent as the majority of lawyers I've heard over the years. Just as I believe MS is in a much higher eloquent class of his own. This proves that it's not the style of arguing that makes you a good speaker, but rather how you use that style instead. Of course, that's just my unprofessional opinion on the matter. I mean what is a lawyer supposed to tell the judge? I think my client is not guilty. I apprehend that my client is not guilty. If I'm not mistaken my client is not guilty. The judge will think the lawyer is crazy.

********

10 November 2023

MS said:

A friend of mine forwarded the following link to an article critical of President Obama’s recent remarks about Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 massacre.

"https://www.commentary.org/abe-greenwald/were-not-all-complicit-but-obama-sure-is/"

I have no illusions that it will change either Zimmerman’s or s. wallerstein’s opinions, but it does state, in rather succinct fashion, some of the points I have been trying to make in more verbose manner, e.g., Occupation is “the goal [the Palestinians have] fought for every time Israel has tried to give Palestinians their own state. Why? Because they’d rather kill Jews than be free.” And, “Hamas hungers for innocent deaths in Gaza. Each instance gets customarily multiplied by the ‘Gaza Ministry of Health,’ travels at light speed to major news outlets, and is wielded by Hamas’s most effective foot soldiers – the Western activists who fight the only war that Hamas can actually win: the war of information.”

********

MS said:

Last night I attended a presentation by Dana Nessel, the Michigan Attorney General. She is Jewish and gay, and by no means a right-wing zealot. The topic of her presentation was addressing hate crimes in Michigan. She spoke of a recent encounter she had with Rashida Tlaib, whose candidacy she had supported, with whom she shares many policy objectives, and whom she had considered a friend. She reported that she begged Congresswoman Tlaib to stop stating, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” She pointed out to her that this is the phrase used by Hamas, and that it calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and the murder of all the Jews. Tlaib refused, stating that this is not what she means when she states it, indicating that she will continue to assert it. AG Nessel indicated Tlaib’s reaction disappointed her, and has forced her to reconsider Tlaib’s motives – and that she no longer considers her a friend.

********

MS said:

"It was a wise man who said that there is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals."

— Justice Felix Frankfurter

********

11 November 2023

MS said:

The Guardian has published an article about the lawsuit I filed this week relating to the Hamtramck resolution prohibiting display of the Pride flag on city flagpoles.

You can read the article here:

"https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/11/pride-flag-ban-lawsuit-hamtramck-michigan"

********

12 November 2023

MS said:

Zimmerman,

So now you are a propagandist for Juan Cole?

He disputes that Hamas terrorists beheaded babies. OK. But there is no question that they disemboweled a pregnant Israeli woman, and massacred hundreds of Israeli civilians at a concert commemorating peace. But that is not enough to qualify them as savages, according to Cole.

I know the history professor at U of M who teaches the course on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He has told me that the quality of Prof. Cole's "scholarship" is scoffed at in the department.

********

MS said:

As I promised, here is my critique of Juan Cole’s article, titled “Dear Congress: Your Resolution against Rashida Tlaib is Delusional, full of Fake History and Falsehoods. Here’s Why.” Actually, it is Prof. Cole’s article which is full of fake history and falsehoods, as I will show below.

Let’s start with his first statement, in which he criticizes the assertion, “Whereas Israel has existed on its lands for millennia.” Cole asserts that this statement is nonsense, since the nation of Israel was only founded in 1948 with the UN resolution partitioning Palestine. This assertion by Cole demonstrates his ignorance. The use of the name “Israel” in the resolution does not refer to the current country of Israel, which even the ignorant Republicans would know has not existed as a nation for millennia. The word “Israel” is the name which was given to Jacob after he wrestled with the angel, reported in Genesis. The name “Israel” has been used for centuries to refer to the Jewish people, centuries before the current nation of Israel was founded. Even if you believe that the story in Genesis is apocryphal, there is no question that the Jewish people have used the name to refer to the People Israel for millennia, not to just to the country. There is no question that they lived in the territory currently referred to as the nation of Israel since at least 800 B.C.E., 1,400 years before the founding of Islam, without even accepting the biblical account which places them in Canaan around 1200 B.C.E.

Given this history, Cole’s statement is also false: “The indigenous Palestinian people have been living in Palestine, including what is now Israel, for millennia, and you want to erase them from history.” No, it is Cole who wants to erase the continuous, uninterrupted presence of the Hebrews/Jews in the territory beginning at least in 800 B.C.E. from history, which makes them the “indigenous” people. As Rome surrounded Jerusalem during the first revolt in 70 C.E., the Jewish rebels holed up in Jerusalem would not allow any Jews to leave the city. Anticipating defeat, Rabbi ben Zakkai was smuggled out of Jerusalem posing as a corpse in a coffin. The coffin was brought to the camp of general Vespasian. Ben Zakkai emerged from the coffin and requested an audience with the Roman general. He predicted to the general that he would be the next Emperor, and asked for a favor – that when he became Emperor, he would allow ben Zakkai to establish a Yeshiva in Jabneh, north of Jerusalem. Vespasian agreed, became Emperor and kept his promise. The Yeshiva in Jabneh was established and continued to exist throughout the Middle Ages, even during the Diaspora, attended by Jewish students, who had families living in what was then referred to as Palestrina. This is not biblical fiction; it is historical fact. So Cole’s claim that the Palestinians represent the indigenous population is bogus.

Cole’s next ludicrous statement is, “So solidarity with the Israeli government has little to do with solidarity with the Jewish people.” Cole has apparently never attended a Passover seder, conducted every year in the homes of religious and semi-religious Jewa around the world. Every Seder ends with the pledge, “Next year in Jerusalem,” recognizing Jerusalem as the spiritual home of the Jewish people, regardless who leads the current government.

Cole proceeds to attempt to rebut the statement that Israel is a critical ally to the U.S., stating, “It was useless in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars,” disregarding the documented fact that the U.S. State Dept. specifically asked Israel not to get involved.

He then asks what does the Hamas massacre on Oct. 7 have to do with Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib? Well, it is related because Ms. Tlaib announced on the floor of the House, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” – the slogan which Hamas boastfully declares for the annihilation of the State of Israel, with the murder of all the Jews who currently live there.

He accuses Israel of “predatory behavior toward the Palestinians … steal[ing] Palestinian land, keep[ing] Palestinians stateless, and coloniz[ing] Palestinian land,” all of which ignores the history of the conflict, starting with their rejection of the partition plan proposed by the UN in 1947; the attack by 5 Arab nations in an effort to “drive the Jews into the sea”; the 1967 war in which the Arab nations once again attacked Israel seeking its annihilation, resulting in Israel’s acquisition of the West Bank, which they claim Israel “conquered.” The last time I checked, the word “conquer” refers to an aggressor’s unprovoked invasion of another country, not acquiring land in military resistance to an aggressor’s invasion.

He then refers to Israel’s “foreign military occupation,” ignoring the fact that Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, leaving its residents free to form their own economy and self-sufficiency. What did they do? They proceeded to launch rockets into Israel, and build tunnels to invade Israel, wasting the millions of $s they received from the IMF on their relentless war against Israel.

So, No, Prof. Cole, and your willing propagandist David Zimmerman, it is your spurious re-invention of history which is full of fake history and falsehoods.

********

13 November 2023

MS said:

Turning attention to less controversial matters, my wife and I saw an excellent movie last night that I believe all of you would find intriguing and superbly-acted. The movie is “Anatomy of a Fall,” about a couple living in a chalet in Grenoble, France who are having marital difficulties. They have an 11-year old son, who is partially blind due to an accident which occurred when the father failed to pick his son up from school. The parents are both writers, but the wife has had a recent publishing success, while the husband is struggling with writer’s cramp. The husband is found dead from a fall from the chalet. The question is, did he commit suicide, or did his wife push him out an open window? The wife is prosecuted for murder. The performances are outstanding, particularly by the actor playing the wife, and the young boy. The movie is intellectually stimulating, and very emotionally charged, especially if you have ever been married (or been in any lengthy relationship) and have had a serious argument with your spouse or significant other. If you can find it near you, I highly recommend it.

I just want to say a brief word about Michael’s defense of me, and the numerous criticisms which have condemned me as arrogant, boorish, ignorant, etc. While it is true that not all my views are conservative, and I still regard myself as a liberal, I was only criticized when I offered conservative views on a subject, e.g., my defense of the Colorado wedding invitation designer, or my criticisms of Marx. Then all hell broke loose. When I expressed liberal views on a subject, everything was honky dory, and I could write multiple and lengthy comments without criticism. Once I stepped over the liberal party line however, I became persona non grata. And aaall’s memory is wrong. The comment which got me barred was an exchange I had with Pillette, when he invoked a decision by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, in which I had been criticized by the Court for implying that an African-American judge was anti-Semitic – an opinion which had absolutely nothing do with the issue Pillette and I were having a dispute about, and for which I called Pillette scum for raising. I stand by my statement regarding Pillette, and, regarding the African-American judge, my position is currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals on my charge that she has violated the Judicial Code of Ethics of U.S. Courts.

********

MS said:

Hamas has command node under Al-Shifa hospital, US official says:

"https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/13/politics/al-shifa-hospital-us-intelligence/index.html"

IDF says video shows Hamas fighter outside hospital with RPG launcher:

"https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/11/13/hospital-gaza-al-quds-idf-terrorist-hamas-rpg-launcher-vpx.cnn"

But of course the U.S. and Israel are lying and manipulating data and videos.

********

MS said:

Two fatwas have been issued calling for jihad and death to all Israelis and Jews.

"https://www.timesofisrael.com/pro-hamas-islamic-scholars-issue-calls-fatwas-inciting-murder-of-israelis-and-jews/"

A fatwa was issued by Al-Azwhar University in Cairo, where President Obama gave a speech praising its dedication to Islamic scholarship.

"https://www.memri.org/reports/virulent-incitement-al-azhar-praise-palestinian-jihad-fighters-israel-destined-perish-us"

Yes, these are people with whom one can reason, who deep down really want peace.

********

MS said:

Shani Louk, the German-Israeli woman who was kidnapped from the Israeli music festival, tortured and paraded around Gaza before cheering mobs has been found dead, identified by a fragment from her skull.

"https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/trending/german-israeli-woman-paraded-naked-by-hamas-found-dead-558139"

"Shani who was kidnapped from a music festival and tortured and paraded around Gaza by Hamas terrorists, experienced unfathomable horrors. Our hearts are broken."

And let us not refer undiplomatically to the kidnappers – and to the crowds of Palestinians who cheered as she was publicly displayed and tortured - as savages. We wouldn’t want to treat them unfairly.

********

Michael said:

I guarantee everyone that in the coming weeks and months there will be finger pointing at CNN for being pro-Israel & at MSNBC for being pro-Palestinian. There may even be much harsh back-and-forth between those two news channels on who is more progressive & liberal as a news outlet. That's all we liberals need. The two most powerful liberal television news agencies insulting one another, so FOX News has an easier time catapulting Trump into a second Presidential Term.

********

MS said:

Then there is this:

"https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12610107/Tattoo-artist-Shani-Louk-naked-body-Hamas-Israel.html"

********

MS said:

Anti-semitism – it’s spreading all over.

"https://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/jns/antisemitism-roundup-nov-13/article_7a875316-55de-52f6-b560-2559567afd65.html"

After all, why do the Jews need their own country. There are only 47 Arab/Muslim countries in the world. They can use one more.

********

14 November 2023

MS said:

Bravo Barney Wolff, once more explaining to his naive cousin the facts of life and how to recognize blatant anti-Semitism. Feh indeed.

********

MS said:

I acknowledge that criticism of Israeli policies does not equate to anti-Semitism. I have for many years criticized some of Israel’s policies, in particular expansion of the settlements, which has made it infeasible to establish a Palestinian state with any geographical integrity.

That said, criticism of Israel often serves as a proxy for anti-Semitism. I admit it is often difficult to assess when legitimate criticism which is not motivated by anti-Semitism has crossed the line into anti-Semitism. One of the indicia in my experience is when the criticism employs standard, age old tropes about Jewish character which calls into question their honesty and ambitions. One of the standard anti-Semitic tropes is attributing to Jews and/or to Israel power to control the worldwide economy and/or the governance of other countries. I would maintain that Mr. Polk’s statement regarding Israel’s relationship to Jordan crosses that line:

“Israel will continue to rule it indirectly through the existing, originally British-imposed, regime with which it has maintained covert relations for many years[.]"

s. wallerstein, Polk is not just stating that Israel influences Jordan at its borders. He is stating that Israel indirectly “rules” Jordan. That is as close to an anti-Semitic, false trope as one can find in the Elders of Zion, and I stand with Barney Wolff on this point – a significant, not a minor point.

********

The End.