Ali Abunimah, Palestine’s “catch-22” and Switzerland’s violation of due process
The issue, as a circulating petition on social media for the release of Ali Abunimah states, is this: “Award-winning Palestinian-American journalist and human rights defender Ali Abunimah, executive director of the media platform ‘Electronic Intifada,’ was violently and forcibly taken by unidentified individuals in civilian clothing while walking on the streets of Zurich on Saturday 25th January 2025. He is now held in administrative detention by the Zurich cantonal police who intend to deport him out of the country on Monday.
He was on his way to give a lecture on the history of Palestine, after another event he was going to deliver the following day was cancelled due to external pressure, following a defamatory article in a local newspaper baselessly accusing him of radical islamism and antisemitism. The cantonal police supposedly obtained a prohibition for him to enter the territory once he was already in the country, a decision which was not subjected to any legal review. Ali Abunimah was brutally abducted in violation of due process.”
Let me say at the outset that I believe the appalling arrest of Ali Abunimah in Zurich (during which he was accosted violently and brutally) will do nothing except raise Ali Abunimah’s profile and increase donations to his publication. It will also probably result in a very interesting and important report that everyone is already awaiting — everyone, that is, who is familiar with Ali Abunimah’s writing and his decades-long activism for Palestinian liberation on American campuses and knows these accusations are not simply false, they are ludicrous.
Switzerland is attempting to isolate Ali Abunimah and other activists (such as Mohammed Khatib, the EU coordinator of Samidoun: Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, who has been denied access to speak in Switzerland for ten years) and the Palestinian cause on the global stage. Ali Abunimah has long focused on exposing EU hypocrisy regarding Palestinian human rights, especially when these countries expressed concerns about Israel’s repressive laws and actions vis-à-vis Palestinians and the implications of such laws for human rights and international law, but never backed the lip-service with any action.
Laws and policies that label all forms of advocacy for the liberation of Palestine as terrorism (or mischaracterize and criminalize criticism of Israel as “antisemitism” and “radical Islamism”) create a “catch-22” situation for activists, forcing them to face a no-win scenario.
Such laws label resistance and advocacy for Palestine as terrorism, and a threat to “national security.” Even peaceful and legitimate forms of protest and activism are criminalized. This means that activists can be arrested, prosecuted, and punished for actions that are fundamentally about expressing their rights, condemning well-documented Israeli atrocities and seeking justice for Palestinians.
As a result, activists might feel compelled to self-censor their actions and speech. They might be socially stigmatized and marginalized. This can damage the reputation of activists and their organizations, making it harder to gain support from the public and other stakeholders. The experience of Samidoun: Palestinian Prisoner solidarity Network is a case in point of this latter dynamic. Additionally, legal battles and the threat of legal action can drain the resources of activist groups, diverting time, money, and energy away from their primary goals and missions.
The laws in Israel that lead to the repression and criminalization of activists for Palestine, including peaceful protests and political expressions, are laws such as the Anti-Terrorism Law of 2016 with its broad definitions of terrorism and terrorist activities and Israeli Military Orders in the occupied Palestinian territories, which have been used to detain Palestinians without charge or trial, often for extended periods.
In the EU, pro-Palestine activists often face repression under the guise of maintaining “public order” and “security.” Authorities in several EU countries have used these justifications to preemptively ban protests and demonstrations. Additionally, there have been instances of excessive force, such as the use of pepper spray, police dogs, and physical aggression, to disperse peaceful protests. These measures violate international human rights standards and disproportionately affect Palestinians, people of Arab descent, and Muslims.
In the Case of Ali Abunimah’s arrest in Zurich, the following question arises: Why does a country like Switzerland, whose neutrality has deep historical roots and is a defining characteristic of its foreign policy, deviate from this policy when it comes to Palestine/Israel? Why is a “Swiss government that was silent about the genocide in Gaza” acting “on behalf of dark forces?”
Clearly, there is an intersection of financial interests, Western political alliances, and international obligations that bely Switzerland’s stated commitments to neutrality in foreign affairs and human rights.
The measures taken by Swiss authorities, such as banning Hamas and Hezbollah and suspending funding for certain human rights organizations in Palestine/Israel, align closely with the political priorities of Western allies, including the United States and Israel. While Swiss authorities cite national security concerns as the justification for these actions, the perceived threats are about protecting Israel’s interests/agenda rather than addressing direct threats to Switzerland or the US or any other country. Switzerland’s neutrality is being influenced by external political pressures, political alliances and economic factors.
Switzerland is one of Israel’s major trading partners in the Middle East and North Africa region. The two countries have a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in place since 1993, which facilitates trade and economic cooperation. Swiss investments in Israel exceed 1 billion CHF annually. Swiss companies have made significant investments in various sectors, including food, pharmaceuticals, machinery, infrastructure, and financial services. Switzerland and Israel have deepened their cooperation in financial services. In 2017, they signed a Memorandum of Understanding to enhance collaboration in this area. Switzerland has shown a keen interest in Israel’s innovation and technology sector. Several Swiss companies are active in the Israeli ecosystem, collaborating with local startups and venture capital firms.
Let’s now compare and contrast the financial interests between Israel and Switzerland on the one hand with those between Arab Gulf states and Switzerland on the other. We know that The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Switzerland signed a Free Trade Agreement in 2009, enhancing trade and investment relations. Switzerland is a key trading partner for the GCC states. Arab Gulf states have made substantial investments in Switzerland, particularly in real estate, banking, and luxury goods. Direct investments from Arab countries in Switzerland reached CHF 17.2 billion in 2022. Switzerland’s position as a global commodity trading hub has led to strong business ties with major oil and gas producers in the Middle East. Swiss banks maintain branches in financial centers like Dubai and Abu Dhabi, while Gulf financial institutions also establish a presence in Switzerland. The Swiss Alps attract a significant number of tourists from the Arab world, driving investments from Gulf countries into Switzerland’s tourism sector.
Switzerland’s financial interests in both regions are strong, but the impact varies based on the nature and scale of these interests. This is assuming that Gulf states even actively desire to impact Switzerland’s policies toward Palestinian liberation positively.
Switzerland’s strong economic ties with the Gulf States have not led to less bias in favor of Israel in its policies towards the liberation of Palestine and lasting peace. The 17.2 billion Gulf investment (in 2022) in Swiss “real estate, banking, and luxury goods” are balanced against Switzerland’s billion-dollar investment in Israel’s innovation and technology sector. It’s clear which side has proved to be more impactful.
For lasting peace and a meaningful resolution, it’s crucial to understand and address the full context of the events leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1947, which proposed the division of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states when the vast majority of the Palestinian population was Arab and opposed the plan, because it allocated a significant portion of their land to the newly established Jewish state, against their will.
Palestinian right to self-determination was undermined by external powers then just as it is being undermined now in 2025 by the suppression of Palestinian resistance in its various forms.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion in 2024, concluding that Israel’s occupation and annexation of Palestinian territory are unlawful under international humanitarian law. The ICJ’s opinion called on all states to refrain from recognizing or supporting the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territories. It sounds like the memo has not reached Zurich.
__________________
Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher, and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank.
