Includes bibliographical references (pages 118-130) and index.
Summary:
"Offering a postcolonial reading of the case of Linde et al. v. Arab Bank, PLC, this study argues that American courtrooms are being used by rhetors to tell Anglo-American stories about Hamas, the causes of the Second Intifada, and the importance of 'drying up' terrorist financing. While legislation like the 1990 Anti-Terrorism Act appears to be formalistic and neutral in the way that it references the importance of cutting down on the financing of terrorism, the author argues that American courts have often interpreted this in one-sided ways that target 'Arab' banks or 'Palestinian' terrorism. This critique posits that ostensibly objective and apolitical judicial cases on terrorism are in fact serving the ideological purpose of justifying both the Israeli and American vilification of controversial organizations like Hamas. Moreover, by labeling institutions like the Arab Bank abettors of terrorism, American judges and juries hurt Middle Eastern charities and hurt the cause of moderates in the region"--Back cover.
This resource is supported by the Institute of Museum and Library Services under the provisions of the Library Services and Technology Act as administered by State Library of Iowa.