One of Raunaq Alam’s codefendants testified against him in his vandalism trial Tuesday, but she resisted the idea the vandalism constituted a hate crime.
Prosecutors accuse Alam, Afsheen Khan and Julia Venzor of spray painting “F*** Israel” and putting up pro-Palestine stickers on a Christian church in Euless. They're charged with criminal mischief damaging a place of worship, with a hate crime enhancement — meaning prosecutors think the crime was committed due to bias against Israel and Jewish people. Alam’s trial started Monday, and he faces a maximum of 10 years in prison.
Venzor took the stand against Alam Tuesday morning. She agreed to testify against him, plead guilty to the criminal mischief charge and true to the hate crime enhancement, in exchange for five years' probation, prosecutor Lloyd Whelchel said.
Venzor identified herself and her friends in security camera footage of the vandalism, but she would not agree they acted out of hate for Jewish people.
“It was an act of protest,” she said.
Whelchel asked Venzor, who was wearing a hijab, how she would feel if he spray-painted her house with anti-Muslim graffiti.
“I wouldn’t like that, but it wasn’t about Jews,” she said.
If Alam didn’t have antisemitic motives, he could have spray painted “Free Palestine” instead of “F*** Israel,” Whelchel said.
Venzor, Alam and Khan targeted Uncommon Church because it was flying an Israeli flag, according to prosecutors. All three defendants have been part of a protest movement that has roiled cities and college campuses across the country, following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023 attacks that sparked the war in Gaza.
Alam’s attorney, Adwoa Asante, has argued Israel is a foreign government that Americans are allowed to criticize under free speech law — and that criticism is not inherently antisemitic.
She asked Venzor about her pro-Palestine activism. Venzor testified she attends one protest a month, and that she is friends with — and has been arrested alongside — members of Jewish Voice for Peace, which describes itself as "the world's largest Jewish organization standing in solidarity with Palestine.”
Whelchel brought in Zachary Braiterman, a professor of modern Judaism at Syracuse University, to give his take on the vandalism, especially stickers that displayed the Nazi flag and the Israeli flag together.
“This, to me, is a degree of verbal and ideational violence that makes me shudder and actually terrifies me,” he said.
Asante has said this was a comparison made as a political statement about genocide in Palestine. Amnesty International and other groups have accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, which Israel denies.
Braiterman said antizionism — which he defined as hatred of the state of Israel – and antisemitism – hatred of Jewish people – are intertwined.
“These things are so closely connected. You can’t separate it,” he said.
Asante pointed out there are other Jewish scholars and organizations that disagree. B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization, has labelled the war “Our Genocide,” she said.
Braiterman described himself as a critic of the Israeli government and the war, but he said he did not think the conflict was a genocide, and he stopped short of saying Israel is committing crimes against humanity — instead calling it highly plausible.
“Even with everything defense counsel brought up, this is still a hate speech?” Whelchel said.
“I’m sad to say, yes,” Braiterman said.
Asante expressed concern multiple times Alam will not be able to get a fair trial. She tried to prevent the prosecution from showing the jury an unrelated video from Alam’s birthday party, where he and an assembled group of friends — including his codefendants — burned an Israeli flag and a U.S. flag. In one video, someone plays an out-of-tune version of the Star-Spangled Banner on what sounds like a recorder, as people stand around the fire pit with their hands over their hearts.
The U.S. Supreme Court has established flag burning as a form of protected speech. Just because something is offensive doesn’t make it criminal, Asante said.
Whelchel argued even something protected by the First Amendment can be used to prove motive in a crime. Bolton allowed him to show the jury the video, which was played without sound.
Later, Whelchel would use that video to try to prove Alam had bigoted motives. The defense said he’s concerned about violence in other countries, too, but he’s not burning their flags, Whelchel said.
Alam’s trial is scheduled to continue Wednesday morning.
Got a tip? Email Miranda Suarez at msuarez@kera.org.
KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider making a tax-deductible gift today. Thank you.
