By Sergio García

A few days ago, the Criminal Chamber of Buenos Aires (City of Buenos Aires, Argentina) overturned a previous ruling that sought to convict our comrade Alejandro Bodart, leadership member of MST, Left Front–Unity (FIT-U) and coordinator of the International Socialist League (ISL), for defending the Palestinian people against the genocide perpetrated by the Zionist State of Israel.

The new ruling by the Chamber of Cassation and Appeals, Division I, of the City Courts acquitted Bodart, marking a new step and democratic victory against the manifestly political intentions of Zionism and all its accomplices to silence those who denounce its crimes in Gaza and throughout historic Palestine. This is the third time during this unjust trial that we have achieved acquittal.

From the outset, it was evident that the purpose of the case—initiated by the DAIA (Delegación de Asociaciones Israelitas Argentinas)—was to establish, through a conviction against Bodart, a precedent that could then serve as a warning to silence current and future denouncers of the genocidal actions of the Zionist government, allowing them to continue such actions without obstacles and to prevent public opinion from knowing the truth about what is happening.

However, this time they were defeated—and that is a victory for Alejandro, for his defense attorneys María del Carmen Verdú and Ismael Jalil, and a collective triumph for all of us who denounce Zionist genocide, defend the Palestinian cause, and uphold its inalienable right to live freely in its own land, from the river to the sea.

It is clear that we are living in a moment when, across the world, more and more voices are being raised against the genocide carried out by the State of Israel. Massive solidarity actions, mass mobilizations, workers’ initiatives, and the emblematic Global Sumud Flotilla, which gathered unprecedented social support, have all multiplied. This broader context undoubtedly influenced the recent court ruling—and could also help in future cases, such as that of Vanina Biasi or other activists targeted by Zionism in different countries.

Zionism’s false arguments collapse

The recent ruling not only acquits Bodart, which in itself is extremely important. It also dismantles many of the falsehoods that both the DAIA’s lawyers and the prosecution put forward throughout the trial and hearings. While we will not go over every point addressed by the court, a few examples are worth highlighting.

For instance, regarding the DAIA’s false claim that the court must adopt a particular definition of antisemitism favorable to its interests—specifically, the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition, which they argued should be applied in Argentina—the ruling states:

“It follows both from the institution’s website and from Resolution 114/2020 that said definition is not legally binding. Thus, while such definitions may and should be used as guiding references, the judge must decide the case in accordance with the applicable legal and conventional framework, the facts, and the evidence produced in the proceedings.”

In response to the entirely false argument by the DAIA and its media and judicial accomplices that antisemitism and anti-Zionism are the same thing, the ruling rejects that fallacy, stating:

“The association of concepts made by the majority in the appealed decision cannot entail disregarding the distinction between these notions. It is uncontested that criticism and questioning of actions carried out by the Israeli government—through its political leaders, government representatives, members of the armed forces, or foreign policy officials—constitutes the exercise of a fundamental democratic right: freedom of expression and access to information. Identifying the concepts of ‘State of Israel,’ ‘Jewish community,’ ‘Israelite people,’ and ‘Zionism,’ and equating anti-Zionism with ‘modern antisemitism,’ would, in effect, mean that no criticism would be allowed. Furthermore, contrary to what the plaintiff alleged in its original complaint, there are no legal grounds to affirm that holding an anti-Zionist position is ‘punishable by law.’”

On the same subject, the ruling further adds:

“We emphasized that it is not possible to equate the concepts of ‘State of Israel,’ ‘Jewish community,’ ‘Israelite people,’ and ‘Zionism,’ as doing so would eliminate the distinction between notions that are in no way equivalent. Criticism and questioning of the actions carried out by the Israeli government through its political leaders are an expression of the right to freedom of expression.”

The acquittal ruling also addresses the debate over the genocide that the DAIA seeks to conceal—unsuccessfully—by referring directly to what is happening in the region. It states:

“Regarding the characterization of the State of Israel as genocidal due to its actions in Gaza, it should be noted, as rightly mentioned by the judge who led the majority opinion in the appealed decision, that in November 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav Gallant, Israel’s Minister of Defense, for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least October 8, 2023, until at least May 20, 2024, the date on which the Office of the Prosecutor submitted the requests for arrest warrants. […] We can only conclude that, although Bodart expressed himself in categorical and strongly negative terms, it cannot be affirmed that his words went beyond critical opinion regarding what he viewed as the expansionist policies of the State of Israel and Zionism.”

Furthermore, dismissing any attempt to attribute guilt to Bodart, the court affirms:

“A simple reading reveals that it cannot be asserted that the defendant’s statements on the aforementioned social network constitute incitement or encouragement of persecution or hatred against a person or group of persons on the basis of race, religion, nationality, or political opinions. Indeed, his posts contain no form of exhortation, but rather a strong, forceful opinion with a clear political connotation.”

The ruling concludes by defending Bodart’s right to freedom of expression, once again distinguishing between antisemitism and anti-Zionism:

“It cannot be stated that Bodart’s statements on the social network ‘X’ fell outside the scope of freedom of expression. Nor can it be affirmed that they imply criticism or denigration of the Jewish people or the inhabitants of Israel, and therefore, they cannot be qualified as antisemitic. Moreover, this conclusion is supported by the fact that the terms ‘antisemitism’ and ‘anti-Zionism’ are not equivalent, and that the latter is defined by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression as a ‘political ideology.’”

More than ever, with Palestine

Having achieved this new political and judicial victory, we must now continue our defense of the Palestinian people and, more than ever, denounce the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the new occupations and attacks in other Palestinian territories. This is a humanitarian cause, and we must redouble our support and solidarity.

We must also remain prepared to continue fighting in the courts, as the defenders of genocide will undoubtedly seek to appeal and persist with their baseless and slanderous accusations. Yet today, they are weaker than before. Supported by this acquittal victory, we will not allow them to silence us. We will continue to denounce every act of the Zionist State of Israel.
Long live free Palestine, from the river to the sea!