Presentation- Gaza: From Heartbreak Comes Courage and Inspiration
Gloucester UU Church, August 10, 2025
Susan Nicholson, Ph.D., J.D.

I. INTRODUCTION
Those of you who know of my 20 year advocacy for Palestinian human rights will not be surprised I was deeply impacted when 3 foreign student activists – Mahmoud Khalil, Rumeysa Ozturk, and Mohsen Mahdawi – were snatched off the streets earlier this year because of their Palestinian rights advocacy. The invitation to lead a summer service came just 2 days after the 3rd student, Mohsen Mahdawi, was carted away, and I thought, that’s what I have to talk about. It will give me a reason to continue reading what I want to read, and a way to connect my anguish with what Israel and the US have been doing in Gaza with my shock over what is happening to our democracy here at home. Because they are, of course, interrelated.
So today I will be telling you the stories of the 3 students. While Rumeysa Ozturk was not the 1st to be taken, I’m going to start with her story. Because it happened so close to home – right here in Somerville, MA – and because it is the easiest to understand.
Two things before I begin: while I am a retired attorney, I didn’t practice in constitutional law or immigration law. So I’m giving you my best take on what happened, but I am not an expert.
Second, I have hidden 3 surprises for you in these stories. So listen up, you don’t want to miss them!
II. THREE STORIES
Ruyemsa Ozturk
WHO
• 30 yrs. old
• Turkish national
• Former Fulbright scholar
• Here legally in US on F1 student visa
• Doctoral candidate at Tufts U
• Field of Child Study and Human Development
ABDUCTION
• late afternoon March 25, 2025
• While walking on street near her residence in Somerville, MA
• On way to break Ramadan fast
• By attending dinner at Tufts Interfaith Center
SURVEILLANCE CAMERA (how many have seen the video?
She is
• Stopped by man in hooded sweatshirt
• Suddenly grabs her wrists and takes away her phone
• She screams
• 5 other people wearing ordinary clothing surround her and after putting on masks
• Put her hands in handcuffs behind her back
• One on each arm, march her off to an unmarked car.
TRANSPORT
• Once alerted, her immigration attorney lept into action and by 10 that night had filed a habeas corpus petition in MA federal district court.
• Within less than an hour the court issued order preventing gov. from moving her out of MA.
• But by that time, the gov. had already moved her, taking her first to New Hampshire and then to Vermont, where she was held in custody until the wee hours of morning when she was flown 1300 miles away to detention center in Louisiana.
• All this was done in total secrecy, during which time government attorneys, well aware that the MA court had ordered that she not be removed from MA, continued to say they didn’t know where she was and to prevent her from contacting her attorneys.
• During transport, she was not only handcuffed but shackled at her feet and belly and, for a while, thought she was being kidnapped and would surely be killed.
• Why Louisiana? 5th Circuit Court, which has jurisdiction over Louisiana, recognized to be most conservative of the 12 circuit courts in country.
GOVERNMENT’S JUSTIFICATION
• Rumeysa was not charged with any crimes, and has never been charged or convicted of a crime.
• Government claimed she was involved in associations that “may undermine US foreign policy by creating a hostile environment for Jewish students and indicating support for a designated terrorist organization.”
• Gov’s evidence for that claim: an op-ed she and 3 other students had published the year before in the Tufts student newspaper. That piece criticized the University’s dismissive response to student resolutions concerning Israeli human rights violations in Gaza.
• LET THIS SINK IN: THE ONLY CONDUCT THE GOVERNMENT PRODUCED TO SUPPORT SHACKLING THIS WOMAN AT HER HANDS, FEET AND BELLY AND DRAGGING HER OFF TO A PRISON IN LOUISIANA IS THAT SHE CO-WROTE AN OP-ED IN THE STUDENT NEWSPAPER CRITICAL OF ISRAEL. An op-ed that the University, in a formal Declaration signed by the President, stated was not in violation of any Tufts policies and was in fact consistent with speech permitted by The Declaration on Freedom of Expression adopted by the University Trustees.
• As Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of MA stated: “Rümeysa Öztürk’s unlawful arrest and detention is yet another escalation of this administration’s efforts to silence speech. No person, regardless of their immigration status, can be arrested, detained, or deported as punishment for their political views. Ideas – and certainly op-eds – are not illegal.” Within days of her abduction, the ACLU had joined her legal team and activated its “habeas strike force.”
• How many of you have read the op-ed? Since the gov’s entire case depends upon it, let’s take a quick look together (op-ed is insert in your program)
• Paragraphs 1 and 2. Describe the resolutions passed by student senate, which include a demand for acknowledgment of the Palestinian genocide and a call for divestment from companies tied to Israel;
• Paragraph 3. Reminds University of its commitment to critical thinking, even when this may cause discomfort or even distress;
• Paragraph 4. Refers to recent ruling by International Court of Justice that rights of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from genocide are at plausible risk of being violated;
• Paragraph 5. Invokes the precedent of University’s historic divestment from apartheid South Africa;
• Paragraph 6. Rejects the Administration’s characterization of the resolutions as divisive and affirms the equal dignity of all people;
• Paragraph 7. Quotes civil rights champion James Baldwin on paradox that education causes students to examine the society in which they are educated;
• Paragraph 8. Plea to President and Administration to engage meaningfully with the student resolutions.
• NOTE: Correct me if I’m wrong, you have the evidence in your hands. There is no expression here of hostility towards Jewish students, indeed no mention of Jewish students or Jews at all; no mention of Hamas, much less support for it; no incitement to violence. Whatever one’s view of the wisdom of the student resolutions, this is an educated and restrained defense of them.
COURT DECISION
• The MA district court transferred the case to the Vermont district court, which issued a 76 page opinion on May 18th.
• Opinion refreshing, as it takes us back to constitutional basics. Namely,
• 1st A protection of free speech is the “cornerstone of our vibrant American democracy.”
• This protection belongs not just to US citizens, but to non-citizens residing in the country.
• Freedom of speech is both an end and a means. An end, because the freedom to think and speak is an unalienable human right. A means, because it is indispensable to the discovery and spread of truth.
• At the core of the cornerstone is political speech. Speech on public issues “occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.”
• Was the op-ed an example of speech on public issues, entitled to special protection? Judge said that was “self-evident.”
• CONSEQUENTLY: Judge ruled that Rumeysa had presented “serious and viable” 1st A claims requiring urgent review on the merits, and ordered that she be returned to Vermont for further proceedings.
• When the government immediately appealed the decision, on procedural grounds, a 3-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit unanimously upheld it, commenting that the decision was “careful and thoughtful.”
• Two days later the Vermont judge, without waiting for Rumeysa to be brought back to Vermont and visibly upset that the government failed to deliver on its promise to present any evidence other than the op-ed, ordered her immediately released on bail. “Her continued detention,” the judge said during the hearing, “potentially chills the speech of the millions and millions of people in this country who are not citizens. There has been no evidence that has been introduced by the government other than the op-ed. I mean, that literally is the case.”
• Rumeysa released on bail on May 9, after a detention of more than 6 weeks. When the government demanded that she be fitted with an ankle monitor for release, the judge refused.
• Name of this Vermont district court judge who wrote so clearly to take us back to constitutional basics – William K. Sessions III. On information and belief Judge Sessions is one of the founding members of the Middlebury Vermont UU church!
Mahmoud Khalil
WHO
• 30 years old
• Born in Palestinian refugee camp in Syria
• Graduate student at Columbia in International and Public Affairs
• married to US citizen
• Lawful permanent resident of US, green card
ABDUCTION
• MK abducted on March 8, in the lobby of his student housing, just days after Israel imposed a 3-month total food blockade on Gaza.
• Like Rumeysa, he was not charged with any crime, nor had he ever been convicted of one.
• Like her, he was handcuffed, immediately taken out of state – in his case to NJ – and then flown to a detention center in LA, all in secret.
• As with her, his attorneys- including the ACLU and the CCR – quickly protected him by filing a habeas corpus petition.
STUDENT ACTIVITIES
• Unlike Rumeysa, M’s involvement in Palestinian advocacy extends far beyond writing a single op-ed.
• As most of you probably know, Mahmoud was a spokesperson for Columbia student protests against Israel’s assault on Gaza. Because he was regarded by fellow protestors as calm, principled, trustworthy and welcoming to everyone, including the many Jewish students involved in the protests, they chose him to represent them in negotiations with the administration.
• As he stated in a 2024 CNN interview, “I believe that the liberation of the Palestinian people and the Jewish people are intertwined and go hand-by-hand and you cannot achieve one without the other. Antisemitism and any form of racism has no place on campus and in this movement.”
• While Trump described him as “a radical foreign pro-Hamas student,” and bragged that his arrest was “the first of many to come,” the government never introduced any evidence linking him to Hamas.
ANALYSIS
• What was the basis, then?
• The US Immigration and Naturalization Law (INA) sets out a number of grounds on which noncitizens can be deported, one of which is the “foreign policy provision.” Unlike virtually all other provisions, conviction of a crime is not required.
• The provision reads: “An alien whose presence or activities in the US the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences is deportable.”
• Let’s pause and think about this provision for a moment. Don’t have to be lawyer to realize there’s something seriously amiss here.
• The provision gives a single individual – the SoS – what is apparently unfettered discretion to decide who is and who is not deportable.
• True, Sec. must believe there would be “potentially” serious foreign policy consequences if the person is not removed. But what does “potentially” mean? More likely than not? Or not likely, but merely a possibility?
• And during what time frame might this potentiality be realized? In the imminent future? Or maybe just possibly sometime in the many years to come?
• Note that a person does not have to actually do anything, much less do anything criminal. It’s enough if the Sec. believes the person’s mere presence impacts foreign policy. But how could someone harm foreign policy simply by being here?
• Well, you might say, at least the Sec’s belief has to be “reasonable.” But who is to judge reasonableness? Since it is the role of the Sec. to oversee US foreign policy, the Secretary arguably has the final say as to what could impact it. And indeed the government takes the position that the Secretary’s determination as to who is deportable under the foreign policy provision is unreviewable. The Secretary announces – this person has got to go for foreign policy reasons – and that’s it.
• It should come as no surprise that the sole federal court to consider the constitutionality of this provision found it to be unconstitutionally void for vagueness. In a 1996 decision, a New Jersey district court judge characterized the provision as “a breathtaking departure from…well established…precedent…”
• This provision, the judge said, provides absolutely no notice to aliens as to what is required of them to avoid deportation. And no standards to constrain arbitrary or discriminatory action by the Secretary. As such, she held, it subjects aliens to deprivation of their liberty without due process of law, a violation of a right guaranteed to both citizens and noncitizens under the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution.
• The name of the judge is Maryanne Trump Barry. Yes, you heard that right, Maryanne Trump Barry, Donald’s older sister. Donald’s older sister (now deceased) struck down as patently unconstitutional the provision he now relies upon to round up student advocates for Palestinian rights.
• Unfortunately, big sister’s decision was subsequently overturned, on other – procedural – grounds.
So, the argument had to be made all over again. Which it was.

THE AMICUS BRIEF
• Barely 2 weeks after Mahmoud’s abduction, over 150 leading immigration lawyers, law professors, and scholars filed an amicus brief on his behalf, based on a review of over 11 million immigration detention cases.
• The amicus brief makes two main points:
• (1) the foreign policy provision is unconstitutional on grounds of vagueness; and
• (2) reliance on it to deport a lawful permanent resident solely for political speech is unprecedented in the history of the provision, and in the history of the United States.
• The scholars warned that if the foreign policy provision is allowed to stand, there is nothing to restrict it to pro-Palestinian speech. Noncitizens critical of Trump’s tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China could all suddenly face deportation at the whim of the SoS.
DISTRICT COURT DECISION
• Finally, on May 28, in a 106 page opinion, the N.J. federal district court judge weighed in. Repeating a familiar theme, the judge ruled that Mahmoud was likely to prevail in his claim that the foreign policy provision was unconstitutionally vague as applied to him.
• But there’s an interesting twist here.
• In a 3 paragraph written declaration explaining why Mahmoud was deportable under the foreign policy provision, Rubio stated that Mahmoud’s protest activities fostered “a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States…and undermined efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the US.”
• But, the judge said, the term “foreign policy” refers to a country’s interactions with other countries. And Rubio’s declaration says nothing about any country other than America.
• Thus, the judge said, there is a “dramatic misfit” between the language of the foreign policy provision and the Secretary’s determination that Mahmoud is deportable under it.
• On June 20th, after more than 100 days in detention, the judge released Mahmoud on bail pending further proceedings.
MOHSEN MAHDAWI
WHO
• 34 years old
• Born and raised in Palestinian refugee camp in occupied West Bank, where his family still lives
• Lawful permanent resident of US for past 10 years, and in the formal process of becoming a US citizen
• At time of abduction, undergraduate majoring in Philosophy at Columbia, admitted to graduate School of International and Public Affairs in the fall.
• Mohsen was co-founder of the Palestine Student Union, along with Mahmoud Khalil.
• During the student protests, he had been outspoken in opposition to Israel’s military assault on Gaza.
ABDUCTION
• Mohsen was the last to be abducted – on April 14 – and the first to be released.
• The circumstances of his abduction are extraordinary, as he was seized in Vermont during a scheduled interview that he believed was the final stage in his process for being a US citizen.
• After he had answered all the interviewer’s questions correctly and passed the citizenship test, he was asked to sign a document affirming he was willing to take the Oath of Allegiance to the US. Once he signed, the interviewer mysteriously left the room. Then 3 masked Homeland Security agents entered, took him into a hallway and, joined by 2 more agents, shackled and took him away in an unmarked van.
• The agents had a one-way ticket to Louisiana printed up for him. When they got to the Burlington airport, however, the commercial flight had left just minutes earlier.
• That delay gave Mohsen’s quick acting attorneys – subsequently joined by the ACLU – time to file a habeas petition in Vermont federal district court. While Mohsen was still in Vermont, Judge William Sessions (remember him?) immediately issued an order prohibiting the government from taking him out of Vermont.
ANALYSIS
• From here on in the themes are familar.
• Rubio claimed Mohsen’s activities and presence undermined US policy to combat antisemitism, making him deportable under the foreign policy provision.
• The federal district court judge (a different judge this time), noted in his opinion that during one protest Mohsen was in fact documented as having vocally denounced a passerby who made an antisemitism comment, stating “we are against antisemitism because antisemitism is a form of injustice, and injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
• More broadly, the judge ruled he was likely to succeed in his claim he was being punished for exercise of his 1st A rights, and released him only 2 weeks after his abduction.
• In brief address after release, Mohsen said: “For anybody who is doubting justice, this is a light of hope and faith in the justice system in America. We are witnessing the fight for justice in America, which means a true democracy, and the fight for justice for Palestinians, which means that both liberation[s] are interconnected, because no one of us is free unless we all are.”

• There is something special about this case, however, and I’d like to close this story by identifying it: the love that MM inspires.
• Starting with the judge’s comment on having received over 125 letters of support from professors, neighbors, fellow students, and others who knew Mohsen well, “a striking number…from Jewish colleagues and professors involved in the study of the history and culture of Israel and Judaism.”
• A letter of support signed by 206 Israeli citizens in the US, attesting to Mohsen’s dedication to dialogue and cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians, several commenting that “working with Mohsen has been the most valuable experience in our time at Columbia University.”
• Letters of support signed by members of state and national Buddhist organizations. Mohsen reported experiencing anger and grief growing up under the violence of the Israeli occupation, and turning to Buddhism for help in transmuting those emotions into forgiveness and love and a commitment to non-violence. While at Columbia, he was elected President of the Columbia University Buddhist Association.
• A statement by the minister of the Vermont church where a portrait of Mohsen hangs on the walls: “He’s exactly the kind of person that I want in our community, not just our congregation, but the wider community. He’s caring, he’s compassionate…he’s dedicated to peaceful resolution, to conflicts at all levels.” The church in which Mohsen’s portrait hangs? The First Universalist Society of Hartland Vermont, which Mohsen joined shortly after arriving in the US ,and which he describes as helpful in his healing!
• In our congregation today is a good friend of mine, another Vermont UU minister, who can attest to the widespread community affection for Mohsen.
• In final paragraph of his opinion, judge wrote that Mohsen’s release would “benefit his community, which appears to deeply cherish and value him.”
III. CONCLUSION
What can we draw from all this?
1. That what is alleged to be antisemitism may rather be opposition to war crimes and genocide.
2. And we can draw inspiration:
• Inspiration from the ACLU, which in all 3 cases quickly activated its “habeas strike force.”
• Inspiration from the over 150 leading immigration lawyers and scholars, who in the space of 2 weeks had commissioned a review of over 11 million immigration detention cases and filed an amicus brief in support of Mahmoud.
• Inspiration from the principled and well reasoned and careful federal district court decisions which stood firm on constitutional basics
• And from the appeals courts which upheld them.
• Inspiration from the public outpouring of support from friends and colleagues and community members of the 3 students.
• Perhaps most of all, we can draw inspiration from the courage of the 3 students themselves.
• It was March of last year when Rumeysa Ozturk co-wrote the op-ed calling upon the President of Tufts to acknowledge the Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.
• Within the last month:
• an op-ed published in the NYT by a leading Israeli genocide scholar
• 2 of Israel’s own leading human rights organizations
• the head of J Street, a liberal pro-Israel organization
• and just last Tuesday, the Unitarian Universalist Association
• have all acknowledged the appropriateness of the term genocide to describe what is happening in Gaza.
• Would this be happening today without the courage of the students demanding that the world not look away?
• Let us draw inspiration, then, from these 3 stories, and let us remember in the words of the UUA poster now on Instagram, “Love is not silent in the face of genocide.” May it be so.