Is Little Rock's Board of Directors Complicit in Gaza’s Genocide?

Examining Arkansas’s Corporate and Political Ties to the Conflict

Little Rock, AR – In the past year, an intense debate has surged in Little Rock, as residents and activists question whether their city council is complicit in the ongoing genocide in Gaza by choosing not to adopt a ceasefire resolution.

Community groups argue that Arkansas’s economic and political connections to Israel are too significant to ignore. The city’s investments and local manufacturing both are connected to weapons used in the conflict.

In city council meetings since last October, dozens of individuals representing the state’s Christian, Muslim, and Jewish communities urged the council to reconsider its stance.

Prominent voices like Stephanie Gray and Hadeel Abu El Haija, organizers with Little Rock Peace for Palestine, have called for an official stance from the council. They argue Arkansas’s connections to the arms industry make it a pressing issue.

Refusal to declare a ceasefire, from the perspective of many, represents the council’s passive support of the ongoing genocide in Palestine.

Arkansas has a strong connection to defense manufacturing. Raytheon, for example, operates a missile production facility in East Camden in partnership with Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems.

This plant produces the Tamir missile for Israel’s Iron Dome system. The missiles manufactured in Arkansas are directly integrated into Israel’s defense strategy, making Arkansas a direct contributor to the conflict.

Senator John Boozman, a strong supporter of this project, has promoted the facility as a critical component of Arkansas’s economy and national security, labeling East Camden an “arsenal of democracy.”

For many activists, however, the defense contracts represent complicity in the violence. As Hadeel Abu El Haija expressed, “We’re doing this in Arkansas because Arkansas has factories that manufacture missiles that are specifically for Israel. And some of them are illegal, like the white phosphorus bombs.”

AIPAC’s Influence on Arkansas Politics

The political dimensions of this issue are equally significant. In November 2023 alone, AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) plans to contribute more than $100 million to pro-Israel candidates.

This financial backing demonstrates a powerful role in shaping U.S. policies on Israel, and its influence extends to Arkansas. It has also led many to question whether the city council’s refusal to endorse a ceasefire is influenced by AIPAC’s strong presence.

This alignment with AIPAC is evident, as many Arkansas politicians receive campaign contributions from pro-Israel PACs, shaping the state’s stance on issues like the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

Wendell Griffen, a former judge and local pastor, argued that Little Rock has a moral obligation to lead on issues of justice, recalling the city’s historical role in the Civil Rights Movement.

“We are known around the world,” Griffen stated, “as a place where nine brave children, teenagers, led by two black people, L.C. and Daisy Bates, challenged an entire empire of segregation led by a governor. If nine children could do it in 1957, our city could do it in 2024.” highlighting the city’s legacy of social justice.

Defining Complicity in War Crimes

The Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, and the Nuremberg Principles all outline what constitutes complicity in war crimes. Complicity can mean providing material support to parties committing atrocities, financing operations that harm civilians, and even remaining silent in the face of well-documented human rights abuses.

Under Article 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, states and organizations are obligated to “respect and ensure respect” for international law in conflicts. This extends to financial or material support of any party engaged in activities that violate these principles.

According to the Hague Conventions, complicity includes aiding and abetting acts that violate humanitarian standards, and under the Nuremberg Principles, officials and entities could be held accountable for failing to act against known atrocities. This doctrine of “command responsibility” suggests that by refusing to take a stance, the Little Rock City Council indirectly enables the genocide in Gaza.

“Complicity” in international crimes includes failing to act against known atrocities if there is an obligation to do so. This applies specifically to those in positions of authority–military or civilian–who, even without direct involvement, can be held responsible if they have “knowledge” of crimes and fail to prevent or punish them.

Voices from the Community

Local organizations, including Little Rock Peace for Palestine, have been vocal about the council’s refusal to engage on Gaza. For community leaders like Stephanie Gray and Hadeel Abu El Haija, the refusal to issue a ceasefire declaration disregards the suffering experienced by Palestinian families.

For many in Little Rock’s Palestinian-American community, this is more than a political stance; it is a direct reflection of the violence impacting their relatives abroad.

Samar Abunasrah, a young Palestinean-American, told the City Board her identity as a Palestinian in Arkansas feels threatened by the council’s decision. “I see people around the world celebrating the lands of their ancestors while my land is facing a genocide. I do not feel safe as a Palestinian,” she expressed.

Her words reflect the emotional toll on Palestinians in the diaspora who fear for their family members in Gaza and feel alienated by the council’s refusal to intervene.

Corporate and Economic Complicity

Beyond defense manufacturing, Arkansas’s economic ties to Israel include substantial investments in Israeli bonds, which indirectly support Israel’s military budget. Critics argue that such investments signal Arkansas’s financial alignment with Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Investments of this nature have raised ethical concerns, with activists claiming that these funds contribute to the cycle of violence, despite the council’s stance of neutrality.

Moreover, companies like McDonald’s, which provided free meals to Israeli soldiers, have also faced backlash from local groups. While not headquartered in Arkansas, these companies’ local presence and the impact of their corporate practices Palestine contribute to the perception that Arkansas indirectly supports the conflict.

The City Council’s stance hinges on the argument that the Gaza conflict is an international issue, not a local one. However, organizers insist that Arkansas’s deep ties to the conflict, both politically and economically, make it a pressing issue that cannot be ignored.

A Divisive Path Forward

For now, the Little Rock City Council remains reluctant to take a definitive stance on Gaza. However, as local voices grow louder and Arkansas’s connections to the conflict become more apparent, the council’s stance may prove unsustainable.

Activists and community leaders hope to see Little Rock acknowledge its ethical responsibilities and heed the calls for peace, reflecting its legacy of justice and human rights.

Ultimately, the city council’s decision will not only shape Little Rock’s reputation within Arkansas but could also influence how other U.S. cities confront their involvement in global conflicts.