Judge Jack Weinstein, Meir Kahane, and Mahmoud Atta

An argument can be made that Judge Jack Weinstein’s close relationship with Chabad may have influenced his lenient treatment of Meir Kahane, who was accused of violent extremism, while taking a harsher stance in cases involving alleged Palestinian terrorists like Mahmoud Abed Atta and Hamas-linked financial cases.

1. Weinstein’s Close Relationship with Chabad

• Collaboration with the Aleph Institute: Judge Weinstein played a key role in the founding of the Aleph Institute, a Chabad-affiliated organization that focuses on Jewish prisoners’ rights. He provided his chambers for Aleph’s initial meetings, demonstrating personal investment in the cause.

• Respect for the Lubavitcher Rebbe: Weinstein admired Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the leader of Chabad, and actively engaged with Chabad’s initiatives, particularly those focused on criminal justice reform.

• Shared Priorities: Chabad, under Rabbi Schneerson, prioritized protecting Jewish religious rights, supporting Jewish prisoners, and promoting Jewish identity. This aligns closely with Weinstein’s rulings favoring Jewish defendants, particularly in cases with political dimensions.

2. Leniency Toward Meir Kahane

• Suspended Sentence (1971): Despite Kahane’s conviction for conspiracy to manufacture explosives—typically a serious offense—Weinstein suspended his five-year sentence and placed him on probation instead.

• Light Sentence for Probation Violation (1975): After violating probation, Kahane could have been sentenced to the full five years, yet Weinstein reduced it to one year.

• Unique Detention Conditions: Unlike most inmates, Kahane was allowed access to kosher food, religious accommodations, and lenient supervision, reportedly serving part of his sentence in a hotel rather than prison.

• Judicial Philosophy vs. Selective Leniency: While Weinstein was known for advocating rehabilitation over harsh punishment, this leniency in a case involving a known extremist who engaged in violent rhetoric and incitement stands out as unusually generous.

3. Contrast with Weinstein’s Treatment of Palestinian Terror-Linked Cases

.

Hamas-Linked Arab Bank Case

• Supported Financial Crackdowns: Weinstein presided over litigation involving Arab Bank, which was accused of facilitating payments to Hamas. He ruled in favor of allowing claims to proceed, aligning with U.S. counterterrorism laws.

• Deviation from Judicial Leniency: Weinstein was often critical of harsh mandatory sentencing and financial penalties in criminal justice but took a hardline stance when it came to cases involving alleged Palestinian terrorism.

4. Chabad’s Possible Influence on Weinstein’s Perspective

• Chabad’s Alignment with Kahane on Jewish Security: While not officially endorsing Kahane, Chabad’s ideology prioritizes Jewish security and has historically aligned with hardline Zionist perspectives.

• Lubavitcher Rebbe’s Praise of Kahane: Rabbi Schneerson reportedly expressed admiration for Kahane’s dedication to Jewish survival, which may have subtly influenced Weinstein’s perception of him as a well-intentioned activist rather than a dangerous extremist.

• Weinstein’s Exposure to Chabad’s Views on Palestinian Threats: Given Chabad’s opposition to Palestinian nationalists and its strong pro-Israel stance, Weinstein’s engagement with Chabad-affiliated figures may have predisposed him to view Jewish extremism more leniently than Palestinian extremism.

Mahmoud Abed Atta

• Denied Political Offense Exemption: In extradition proceedings, Weinstein refused to recognize Atta’s argument that the 1986 Israeli bus attack was a political offense, despite legal precedent that could have allowed for this exemption.

• Approved Extradition to Israel: Weinstein ruled in favor of sending Atta to Israel, despite concerns about due process and fair trial protections in Israeli courts.

• No Consideration of Mitigation: Unlike in Kahane’s case, Weinstein did not appear to entertain alternative sentencing, accommodations, or concerns about religious rights

Mahmoud Abed Atta, also known as Mahmoud El-Abed Ahmad, was implicated in a 1986 bus attack in the West Bank, an operation attributed to the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO). The ANO, led by Abu Nidal, was a notorious Palestinian militant group responsible for numerous international terrorist attacks. 

The case of Mahmoud Abed Atta presents a complex narrative marked by legal proceedings, mistaken identity, and a notable absence of information regarding his fate post-extradition.

Extradition and Legal Proceedings:

• Background: In April 1986, a bus attack in the West Bank resulted in casualties. Atta, implicated in the incident, was arrested in the United States. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Jack Weinstein, approved his extradition to Israel in 1988. Atta contested this decision, but the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the extradition in 1990. 

Mistaken Identity and 9/11 Confusion:

• Name Similarity: Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, confusion arose due to the similarity between Atta’s name and that of Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers. This led to erroneous associations between the two individuals. 

Post-Extradition Ambiguity:

• Lack of Public Records: After Atta’s extradition to Israel, public records regarding his trial, sentencing, or release are scarce. This absence of information has led to speculation and uncertainty about his subsequent activities and current status.

Critical Evaluation:

• Transparency Concerns: The dearth of information post-extradition raises questions about the transparency of legal proceedings in such high-profile cases. This lack of clarity can fuel misinformation and hinder public understanding of justice processes.

• Impact of Mistaken Identity: The confusion between Mahmoud Abed Atta and Mohamed Atta underscores the challenges that can arise from name similarities, especially in the context of global terrorism. Such errors can have significant implications for individuals’ reputations and for public perception.

The notion that Abu Nidal and his organization received clandestine assistance from Israel to undermine the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) has been a subject of speculation and debate among scholars and analysts.

Arguments Supporting the Theory:

1. Undermining the PLO’s Legitimacy:

• Abu Nidal’s attacks often targeted PLO officials and moderate Arab states, actions that inadvertently weakened the PLO’s international standing and disrupted its diplomatic efforts. Some argue that these outcomes aligned with Israeli interests, suggesting possible indirect support.

2. Benefiting Israeli Strategic Objectives:

• The 1982 assassination attempt on Israeli Ambassador Shlomo Argov in London, orchestrated by Abu Nidal’s group, provided Israel with a pretext to invade Lebanon, aiming to expel PLO forces. This sequence of events led some to speculate about a possible covert relationship.