Queen's ‘Garden of Hate' taking case to federal court, rips judge and ‘scurrilous' NY Post coverage
The attorney for the anti-Israel leaders of Sunset Community Garden in Ridgewood withdrew their state lawsuit against the city and the Parks Department — to make a federal case out of the issue.
Since last fall, Jewish Ridgewood residents haven't felt welcome at Sunset Community Garden, thanks to the garden group's pro-Palestinian rhetoric, which included a special section labeled 'Poppies for Palestine.'
4 Some local residents said they do not feel welcome in the community garden, whose leaders asked incoming members to pledge 'solidarity' with the people of Palestine.
Instagram @sunsetgardenridgewood
Incoming members are also made to pledge 'solidarity with the oppressed and marginalized people' of Palestine' by the garden's management.
The Parks Department wanted the group out by June 6 for 'violat[ing] the terms of their license' with the 'unconstitutional wording' of their 'ideological litmus test' for membership, according to court documents.
The group responded with a state lawsuit in early June to block the eviction, and The Post was in the courtroom when attorneys for both sides met in court this month.
But Jonathan Wallace, the garden leaders' attorney, withdrew the state lawsuit Monday, and told the city he plans to refile the case in federal court, a source said.
In a letter this week, the lawyer accused Judge Hasa Kingo of allowing the 'scurrilous' New York Post's coverage to guide his rulings in court.
'The plaintiffs in this case are a community group composed largely of trans people of color, many of whom are immigrants, and who share a powerfully-rooted moral opposition to the horrifying violence committed by a political entity, the nation-state Israel, against the people of Gaza,' the letter read.
4 Attorney Jonathan Wallace objected to coverage from The Post.
Michael Nagle
4 The garden's leaders are fighting the city's efforts to oust them.
Helayne Seidman
'We could not be further from the ideals and goals stated by Justices Holmes and Brandeis when the Post appears to be influencing outcomes in judicial proceedings,' he added.
'As an old white, proudly Jewish attorney (something that in a 43-year career I never thought until now I would need to mention) I like and am content to be associated with' the garden leaders, Wallace concluded in his letter to Kingo.
Christina Wilkinson — a Ridgewood resident who worked to secure funding for the green space, but is now one of its most vocal critics — said the switch to federal court a 'stall tactic,' and believes 'Parks must now remove the violators and find a community partner that will make Sunset Garden an open and inclusive place for all.'
4 Members planting in the garden in June 2024.
Instagram @sunsetgardenridgewood
She added, 'You have to love the irony of an attorney arguing that the City violated his clients' First Amendment rights, then turning around and complaining about [a Post reporter] being present in the courtroom.'
Wallace did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
The Parks Department refused to respond to requests for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Israel's security minister breaks agreement, prays at Temple Mount
1 of 2 | Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir greets followers after praying on the Temple Mount, the Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound, on the Jewish day of fasting, Tisha B'Av, in Jerusalem's Old City, on Sunday. Ben Gvir's prayer broke a decades old agreement that allows Jews to visit the site, but not to pray. Photo by Debbie Hill/ UPI | License Photo Aug. 3 (UPI) -- Israel's National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir visited the al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem and prayed there over the weekend, breaking a longstanding agreement that allows Jews to visit the site, but not pray. The site, located in occupied East Jerusalem, is known by Jews as the Temple Mount, and Ben-Gvir's prayer prompted a statement from the Israeli prime minister's office affirming that there has been no change in the decades-old agreement. Jordan, the site's custodian, called Ben-Gvir's actions "an unacceptable provocation." Hamas called it a "deepening of the ongoing aggressions against our Palestinian people." A spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said the visit "crossed all red lines." During his visit, Ben-Gvir called for Israel to "conquer" Gaza and encouraged Palestinians to leave the embattled region. Temple Mount is the most holy place for Jews as it is the site of two Biblical temples. It is the third most holy site for Muslims, who claim it is where the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven. The Waqf, the Islamic endowment that runs this site, said Ben-Gvir was one of 1,250 Jews who visited the compound Sunday morning. Ben-Gvir has been convicted of supporting terrorism and inciting anti-Arab racism in Israel in the past.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Israeli defense may falter at world court as starvation claims dominate global discourse
After the April win for Israel at the ICC, it did not need to be this way. Israel always had an uphill battle to fight back against war crimes allegations before the International Criminal Court. But after losing a series of those battles in 2019, 2021, and November 2024, it got a rare and important interim win in April of this year. Despite that interim win, the starvation narrative – now dominating global discourse and acknowledged by top IDF officials, who admit that even without mass starvation, food security in Gaza is at its lowest point of the war – has once again placed Jerusalem on the defensive in the war crimes case. When the ICC Appeals Court ruled in favor of Israel in April, it was likely that it was not only because Israel's lawyers made a number of strong legal arguments that the ICC lower court's prior rulings had skipped over. No court is completely immune to political context, and the ICC most definitely is not immune, with judges often connected to their country's policies. So it was likely that the ICC Appeals Court ruling also came as Europe and other international institutions were trying to find a halfway point with the new and aggressive Trump administration, as well as a belief that a new 60-day ceasefire might not be far off. It is noteworthy that the ICC Appeals Court issued its ruling on April 24, nearly two months after Israel began blocking new food aid from getting into Gaza. Had those two months of blocking food aid led to mass starvation, it is unlikely that the ICC Appeals Court would have issued any positive ruling for Israel, interim or otherwise. But at the time, despite repeated false charges of imminent starvation dating back to late 2023, the ICC Appeals Court could plainly see that no mass starvation had taken place. This critical political and ideological human rights context may all change now that even top US allies and an increasingly strident UN are calling the Gaza situation a starvation situation. Just on Friday, Israel filed its latest legal brief to try to convince the ICC lower court to cancel the arrest warrants issued against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant and to drop the entire war crimes case against the Jewish state. ISRAEL'S LEGAL brief made a number of critical arguments that, if the situation in Gaza were moderately stable, might have a chance of getting Jerusalem out of this jam. First, Israel asserts that the ICC lower court from 2024 could not ignore Jerusalem's substantive arguments attacking the idea of Palestine as a state, which can give the ICC jurisdiction, simply because an earlier ICC lower court in 2021 had ruled that Palestine was a state, and could do so. This kind of an argument is called 'res judicata,' meaning a later court can just lean on the ruling of an earlier court if an issue has already been litigated and decided. But Israel chose not to participate directly in the 2021 legal fight. This was probably a foolish move by the Jewish state, but when major issues are at stake, courts usually let a party, or here a country, make its arguments belatedly, if the court shows up before a final verdict at trial. Based on that general rule, Israel should get a chance to make its arguments at this stage, even if it had an earlier opportunity to make them and did not. There are counterpoints to this, where legal jurisdictions apply some version of the 'entire controversy doctrine' – that anytime a party misses a chance to make an argument, it has forfeited that argument. Palestinians do not control a terrority with set borders But that is usually a civil law concept, not applicable to criminal cases like this one, and is used against the plaintiff bringing the case, not against the defendant, who might lose something if they do not get to defend themselves. Moreover, as Israeli lawyers argue, the Palestinians do not control a territory with set borders right now, certainly not Gaza. If that is true, then how can 'Palestine' grant the ICC jurisdiction? Israel has not granted jurisdiction, so if Palestine cannot grant jurisdiction either, the ICC would need to drop everything. Next, Israel recognizes a number of potentially strong arguments for the ICC prosecutor and the Palestinians, and tries to disarm them all. For example, theInternational Court of Justice (ICJ) in a 2024 opinion ruled that Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and east Jerusalem is illegal. From this ruling, the ICC prosecutor contends that these areas are defined as Palestine, even if Israel allegedly illegally occupies them. Israel hits back that the ruling was a non-binding advisory opinion for the UN General Assembly, which itself also only issued non-binding votes. MOREOVER, ISRAEL argues that since the whole process was an advisory proceeding, it did not allow a full exploration of the most concrete facts on the ground, which is required in a criminal proceeding, such as the one the ICC is overseeing. The ICC prosecutor has said that even if Palestine lacks aspects of standard statehood, the inherent principles of self-determination cannot allow Israel to prevent the Palestinians from seeking ICC assistance to protect them from alleged Israeli war crimes. Jerusalem responds that the Palestinian Authority, which is purporting to try to give jurisdiction (it filed an accession document to the ICC's Rome Statute around a decade ago) only came into existence by virtue of the Oslo Accords agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. This agreement specifically prohibited the PA from trying to invoke criminal jurisdiction against Israelis. Next, Jerusalem asserts that even if an entity could somehow give jurisdiction to the ICC, even lacking fully set borders, that it at least must control the areas – in this case, Gaza – from which it wants to refer jurisdiction. The ICC prosecutor then employed a clever tactic and said that even if Israel has some technical points, to allow it to throw out the Palestinians' case based on such formalities would abrogate the whole 'object and purpose' of the ICC and its Rome Statute, which is to 'put an end to impunity.' Here, Israel quotes precedent that says that pursuing the ICC's object and purpose cannot come at the expense of Article 1 of the Statute, which requires that '[t]he jurisdiction and functioning of the Court shall be governed by the provisions of this Statute.' This means that the ICC judges cannot just ignore technical rules that apply because they do not like the result. Next, the ICC prosecutor argues that any finding by the ICC lower court that 'Palestine' is not '[t]he State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred' under 12(2)(a) – 'would be inconsistent with the principle of effectiveness' because it would 'defeat the effect of Palestine's accession to the Statute'. In other words, the ICC Assembly of State Parties, which governs the ICC, accepted Palestine as a state. How can that have happened while leaving the Palestinians no recourse to defend themselves against alleged war crimes? Israel responds, saying, 'The Parties continue to conduct themselves in accordance with the jurisdictional arrangements of the Accords. Moreover, the international community has continuously and steadfastly shown its support for the bilateral negotiation framework as the basis for the resolution of the conflict. This Chamber should not undermine the framework that governs the relations between the Parties and lays the foundation for the resolution of the conflict, as agreed to by the Parties and endorsed by the international community.' AND THESE high-minded-sounding words might have held the day or won further delays if the 60-day expected ceasefire had transpired. Or if the situation in Gaza was starting to stabilize and Jerusalem's 'only' problem was defending against past war crimes allegations as opposed to ongoing and potential future ones. But how will Israel have any chance in convincing the ICC to give it a win on technicalities and to ignore the object and purpose of the ICC itself when the judges are witnessing near universal global consensus that there is mass starvation in Gaza? Will they be more favorable to Israel than Trump's own recent statements on the issue? When Israeli ministers openly support blocking food to Gaza and remain in office, won't this influence the ICC's decision? In a situation where the IDF admits that there have been individuals who have starved to death, but is trying to deflect the negative impact of those individual cases by claiming that many or most of them had preexisting conditions, will the ICC give Israel a pass? Can Israel fight this fight by saying that maybe only dozens have starved, but not hundreds and not thousands? On legal blogs following the situation, the tone has shifted from summarizing both sides of the issue with some general bias against Israel, to asserting that third-party countries now have a duty to intervene to stop Israel from causing the alleged starvation. Some legal scholars are arguing that intent to starve does not even need to be proven in standard ways if it can be proven that a foreseeable consequence of certain policies would be to lead to starvation. It is hard to see how Jerusalem turns this case around. And yet, after the April win for Israel, it did not need to be this way. Israel had already been defeating Hamas for around 17 months straight. Pausing, even for an extended period, would not have left Hamas the same as it was in 2023 or even the same as it was in mid-2024. If Israel had agreed to a ceasefire then and stabilized the humanitarian situation, it might have still lost the war crimes fight, but it also might have capitalized on the interim win to get a total win. Instead, Israel pulled out all the stops both on the war front and the aid front and ended up having to mostly pause the war and give Hamas much of the aid it wants, receiving no hostages, and probably now teeing up a new low before the ICC. Solve the daily Crossword
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Zohran Mamdani's views on Palestine are embarrassing
Zohran Mamdani embraces countless lefty causes, but opposing Israel is — as he himself said on the campaign trail — 'central to my identity.' Believe him, judge him accordingly — and realize this isn't about justice, but hate. He may drop his calls to defund the NYPD or fall short in hiking taxes on the rich, but he'll never stop targeting the Jewish state and vilifying all who support it. Advertisement Only on the topic of Israel and Palestine does Mamdani lose his grin, quit cocking his head and enter a grim space of steely hate. It's a lifelong obsession, soaked up at the knee of his father, a career 'postcolonialist' academic. Palestinian 'liberation' (from Israel, not from the barbaric extremists of Hamas or the corruptocrats of Fatah) was a 'driving force' for Zohran way back in his days at Bowdoin College, where he started a chapter of an anti-Israel club — the only time he has run anything. Advertisement In December 2023 remarks now resurfacing, Mamdani insisted the rest of us are just ignorant: Pro-Israel politicians' 'answers were written around 20, 30 years ago. They speak to a reality that does not exist,' he charged — as if the worldwide growth of antisemitism somehow made the Jewish state less necessary, rather than more. Reality? Israel is an actual country of 10 million (including millions of Arabs!), whereas 'Palestine' is an entity that has never existed, one nobody even imagined before Israel's creation. Democrats' mayoral nominee also slammed Western supporters of Israel's answer to Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, atrocities as delusional, 'explaining' that 'for so many people, Israel is not a place, it is not a country. It's an idea.' Advertisement Funny: That's surely at least as true of him and his fellow anti-Israel obsessives the world over. He's not a Palestinian nor even an Arab, has never been to Israel and has no plans to go. Nor does he show anything like the concern for other oppressed Muslims, whether the Uighers in China or the Rohingyas in Burma. Those peoples are clearly targeted for elimination by the governments that control their lands, whereas the Palestinian population has grown several times over in the decades that Israel's supposedly been trying to genocide them. Advertisement This obsession isn't about the oppressed: It's about the Jews. We understand that lefties the world over don't consciously see that it's about the Jews, but the double and triple standards allow for no other rational explanation. That Mamdani dresses up this ancient hate in the latest jargon doesn't make it, or him, any less despicable.
