Stu Smith Pro-Palestinian Radicals Target Embassies—Are They Breaking the Law? A new tactic may cross the line from protest into criminality.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/texas-pro-palestinian-encampment-protest-israel-embassy
In August, an encampment sprang up in the heart of Texas as keffiyeh- and black bloc-clad protesters pitched tents on the property of the Israeli consulate in Houston. Soon, the air rang with familiar chants: “There is only one solution, Intifada revolution,” and “Death, death to the IDF.” What followed was a prolonged standoff that stretched well into the night, with officials bringing barricades and even deploying mounted police to clear the scene.
But the most troubling development was not the encampment itself. It was the protesters’ open call for activists in other cities to follow suit. Israeli consulates in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco, and the embassy in Washington, D.C. may soon face similar encampments. Some diplomatic sites in cities like San Francisco and D.C. already have.
Consulate takeovers are one of the latest tactics of the radical pro-Palestinian activist fringe. But they may run afoul of international agreements and federal law.
Houston’s encampment ended in arrests. In Washington, D.C., however, the Israeli embassy dealt with the so-called Kibbutz encampment, which appeared soon after the self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell, for months. Activists remained outside the embassy 24/7 in rotating shifts, even constructing a megaphone wall to blast chants at the building.
These are not isolated incidents. In recent months, protesters have chained gates and surrounded buildings on diplomatic property. Now they have launched an encampment campaign.
These actions are part of a broader effort to target embassies—and not just Israel’s. At the recent People’s Conference for Palestine, Houston-based lawyer and member of the Palestinian Youth Movement Mohammed Nabulsi discussed why targeting diplomatic infrastructure is so important, calling on activists to choose “targets that have to respond.” Nabulsi went on to praise the chaining of the gates of the Egyptian embassy in the Netherlands by activist Anas Habib, noting that Habib’s actions had inspired other protesters. Indeed, demonstrators chained the gates of the Egyptian consulate in Istanbul and tried to do so in New York City. Anti-Egypt protests have erupted in over 16 countries, accusing the country of “complicity” in Israel’s “genocide.”
The Houston consulate encampment was closely connected with the University of Houston’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the Houston chapter of the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), and Palestine Solidarity TX. Both SJP and PYM have the national presence to activate and push their chapters to target consulates across the nation. As we saw in Texas, demonstrators’ playbook is to show up in force, flood social media with content, hold strong until the police make clear that arrests are forthcoming, and then allow the most militant to get arrested. This gives Palestinian and far-left media several days’ worth of content to exploit.
In the United States, these takeovers are not only disruptive but also likely illegal. Both international law and domestic regulations strongly protect foreign embassies from occupation, according to Mark Goldfeder, a litigator and director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center. Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, to which the United States is a signatory, places a “receiving State . . . under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.” This obligation is reinforced by U.S. federal law, including 18 U.S.C. § 970, which protects foreign diplomatic property, and 18 U.S.C. § 112, which safeguards foreign officials and their premises from threats or harm.
According to Goldfeder, while protesters have broad First Amendment freedoms, those rights are not violated by prohibitions on taking over embassies or other diplomatic sites. Government entities may impose reasonable, content-neutral restrictions on speech based on time, place, and manner, particularly when necessary to ensure public safety or protect sensitive locations such as consulates. Prohibiting takeovers of diplomatic missions would almost certainly meet that standard, Goldfeder said.
With diplomatic sites belonging to Egypt and Israel coming under threat, this is no time for confusion or delay. Illegal behavior at or near embassies and other diplomatic sites should be investigated thoroughly by the FBI and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Comments are closed.
