United Airlines has suspended a pilot after a Facebook post he put up calling the Hamas attack on Israeli civilians “a resistance by a brave people who have endured decades of occupation, oppression, humiliation, apartheid and straight-up murder.” In the post, Capt. Ibrahim R. Mossallam also accused U.S. media of bias toward Israel and urged his unknown number of followers to “work on expanding your media literacy.” The post went up on Oct. 7, the day Hamas members killed an estimated 1,200 people in Israeli settlements close to the border with Gaza.
Eventually Mossallam, who is also reportedly on the board of directors of the Council on American Islamic Relations, was identified as a United pilot and comments poured in from people who said they would never fly United again as long as there was a chance he was up front. “This pilot has been removed from service, with pay, while we look into this matter,” a spokesperson told The New York Post Monday. Air Canada FO Mostafa Ezzo was suspended in early October when he posted photos of himself in uniform draped in Palestinian colors and carrying signs with profane statements about Israel on Instagram.
I agree. Airline companies have an essential duty to ensure the safety and security of both their employees and passengers. This obligation extends beyond providing a good “ride” to actively preventing company personnel from engaging in extremist or violent actions or demonstrating support for terrorism. The suspensions emphasize the airlines’ strong commitment to safety and a secure flying environment.
The flying public does not want pilots who align with organizations that put politics ahead of human life. Simple.
Amen to that.
As a retired chief pilot for United I would only say that a pilot represents his company both on duty and off. This is just as any other employee represents who he works for. Employers have every right to expect acceptable behavior by their employees at all times.
This is not a free speech issue.
It was a group of pilots that used airliners as weapons on September 11, 2001. The potential for a re-occurrence needs to be addressed.
That was NOT a group of pilots, anymore than a kid who steals a car and crashes it is a Formula 1 racing champion.
They were terrorists. Not pilots.
Boy. Sure am glad he didn’t have a Biden sticker on his car in the airport parking lot.
Exactly how many American civil rights does a pilot give up when s/he gets in the cockpit? Given the reported personal opinions he expressed on Facebook, there are serious First Amendment issues here. Note that, unlike FO Ezzo, he didn’t identify his employer in his posting; someone else dug that up.
Furthermore, how does urging his readers to “work on their media literacy” constitute “engaging in extremist or violent actions or demonstrating support for terrorism”, much less reflect his employer’s “commitment to safety and a secure flying environment”? United is doing nothing more than what they do when any of their employees makes the news for any reason.
I fear the demonstrably un-American reaction to someone’s opinion far more than the lawful expression of it.
On the face of it, his comments are not out of line with the reality on the ground. Meanwhile, it seems to me also reasonable for a US airline to have a strong reaction when his name, his position in the cockpit, and his political statement are put side by side. United may simply determine that it’s time he spend a couple of years as a sim instructor, leaving him with pay, benefits, longevity, etc… but taking him out of the limelight. If there is a first amendment issue/violation here, then he could give relief a try in the courts.
The sim instructor seems reasonable but won’t work: first, it’s an upgrade with additional pay; second, there’s an interview process one has to go through; third, seniority may play a role if there’s more than one applicant for the position. Sim instructors are not just assigned by management.
What 1st amendment right is at issue here?
None. No government has charged him.
Free speech keeps you out of jail. It doesn’t mean there will not be consequences for what you say.
Supporring terrorists isn’t a good look for an employer, so they have every right to bench him. He SHOULD end up unemployed.
He’s in a union, right? I wouldn’t worry about how this will turn out for him — he’ll be off work for the holidays and return before Easter — with pay. Good deal for him, I’d say.
Capt. Mossallam’s rights have not been infringed upon. The U.S. government cannot rain on Capt. Mossallam’s parade but United Airlines does have a right to do so. United Airlines has an obligation to help their customers and shareholders feel safe and comfortable. Capt. Mossallam has a right to find an employer that shares his expressed views.
You’re absolutely correct. An employer’s right to enforce its policies regarding behavior has long been established. There is nothing new about that. And it applies to all employees, not just minorities. I will add that certain ethnic and religious groups would certainly be suspect given their history. “They all look the same” is a truism, not a racial slur. There are groups in this world that openly want infidels and Jews erased from the face of the earth. Right or wrong this person has now identified himself to be in the least sympathetic to a cause. As hard as it is for these folks to assimilate into our culture, he put a big red flag on his name. It’s really time we in this country wake up to reality.
So right You’re, Mr. Thomas Charlton. If that “thing” has a union that dares to support “it”, the other’s really american members should leave that union.
Bravo, how about he applies at Air Egypt, they have a history of a lunatic diving an airplane into the ocean, killing all on board.
We fire teachers who watch child pornography, we fire preachers who tweet about liking Satan. So yea, we fire pilots who agree with killing people. No surprise.
Assume the following:
A united captain advertises on social media that the 9/11 was an act of “resistance by a brave people who have endured decades of” whatever you like: Oppression, suppression, coercion, rejection by woman, insufficient capacity to force others to act as they want, and rejection of their right to kill all that disagree with them. He urges his readers to get other sources to see how correct he is, because the media is biased against terrorism, murder, rape, beheading, burning people alive, and all sort of other things el Qaida did.
Now, as United manager that kind of remembers hat those 9/11 guys were involved in destruction of some expensive United equipment (never mind all the rest), are you going to keep this guy employed?
Would you as like to fly with him on the yoke?
There are certain things that transcend even my liberal mind. Those include heinous crimes such as Nazism, el Qaida and ISIS. I do not care if the Nazis felt abused by the Jews or the Roma, or if Hamas, ISIS, and el Qaida felt that God picked up the phone and order them to commit torture, rape, senseless mass murders, burn people alive, behead people, and kidnap innocents because of some perceived or real grievance. Nothing can justify that. My “intolerance” extends to their supporters.
So again: would you fly with with an el Qaida or Nazi supporters on the controls? if not, do not fly with this guy, nor employ him.
Any pilot who flies for any air carrier (pt 135 or pt121) gives up many rights due to all of the TSA (remember them) mandated background checks and other rules. Courts have already held individuals do not have a right to enter an airliner. This pilot already gave up many “rights” by getting the training (type rating), and the pilot position. Give me a break! This guy is lucky TSA didn’t catch on prior to United taking the action they did. Don’t forget the “morality “ clause in the qualification for an ATP. If the FAA chose to enforce that, this pilot would be grounded permanently!
His remarks stated: “a resistance by a brave people [ Hamas / Palestinians ] have endured decades of occupation, oppression, humiliation, apartheid and straight-up murder.” —
That personsl political statement is what clinched his current strife in life and in career status.
Irregardless of the fact that on October 7th when he made that statement out of uniform on his own nickel, and it was then known to the court of public opinion that 1400 Israeli persons had been slain in barbaric form by Humas much the same as ISIS terrorists had performed in years prior.
His remarks were made before 14000 plus Palestinians had been killed in the War by Israeli forces.
We can debate this War and its Tactics on both sides to infinity and beyond, but the court of Public opinion– the flying public — does not want an individual in the front office of an airliner espousing endorsements for a known terrorist group of government power leaders with rhetoric that ” they are a brave people in a resistance movement .”
How many Japanese died after killing 2400 Americans at Pearl Harbor. Probably more than 2400. So should Israel only launch a war to leave 1400 Palestinian Arabs dead after losing 1400 on Oct. 7th ?
The vast majority of employers, including major airlines, have a social media policy. He no doubt violated that policy. Easy decision for his company.
The suspensions of airline pilots and other airline employees involved in the January 6th riots at the U.S. Capitol Building is an example.
I seriously doubt that airline employees were part of the small number of people that actually went inside that Capitol and were violent.
What do you consider a “small number”? And was it okay if they just smashed windows and assaulted police officers outside with clubs, fire extinguishers and bear spray but didn’t enter the building? Call it what you like, but anyone who illegally crossed the barricades and went onto the Capitol grounds broke the law. Drawing the line at the front entrance to the building is nonsense.
Considering the previous 10 months of masses of people burning down cities, and looting, and killing, and destroying public buildings, and killing public officials….
Yea, what went on in that public building that day was minor and and a small number. Keep it real.
Undoubtedly, Mr. Raf Sierra.
These days and in certain circumstances profiling is going to be a necessity. When this guy spoke as he did, end of story for him having responsibility for an airplane loaded with trusting people. Only one choice here to insure the safety of those folks, he doesn’t get to fly them. Unfair? Maybe. But no real choice under our present circumstances. Hope the decision is all wrong. But that’s life in the big city for now.
Life get interesting when you have the reach to dump the contents of your brain to the whole world, doesn’t it?
Total lack of situational awareness. I’d fire him just for that. He’s an example of the main reason I dropped Facebook years ago. I grew tired of postings from total nut jobs who thought they were the smartest ones on line.
You talking about most democrats?
Some pieces missing from this story. As a citizen, Capt. Mossallam has as much right to express his views as Israel’s defenders. If he expressed them in an announcement from the cockpit then United would be obliged to suspend him. But in a Facebook post? Does he identify himself as a United pilot in his FB profile? Does his being a member of the board of CAIR have anything to do with this? Answers needed.
You are missing the point made by many other responders here – he made a statement that will certainly cause many who fly United to worry that he might take direct action in support of his views while piloting a plane. He was an idiot for not understanding the implications/repercussions of his statement – but I’m glad he has been discovered and relieved of his flight duties.
Very succinct analysis, Don B. Short answers to your explicit questions: No, No, and It Shouldn’t.
IMO, his mistake was being on Facebook in the first place, but I’ll bet the vast majority of the ones calling for his head are also.
His suspension should turn into termination.
‘How many Japanese died after killing 2400 Americans at Pearl Harbor. Probably more than 2400. ‘
Between 2 and 3 million. Let alone the carpet bombings of WW2 in Europe, etc.
I am also shocked that the precision war conducted by Israel, who could turn Gaza into a pool of blood and waste if they chose to in a matter of hours, seems to escape so many in media and other societies that blindly ignore Israel’s own 9/11 essentially, and the necessary reaction to it. I heard that it actually proportions to having several 9/11’s at once compared to the US. And look how the US reacted from just one.
So far, to me, Hamas is succeeding, as they surely had planned – to gain world sympathy through the old technique of distraction – taking hostages, abusing civilians and schools and hospitals, etc. to garner the world sympathy. Flat out disgusting, but plainly effective.
…
‘IMO, his mistake was being on Facebook in the first place, but I’ll bet the vast majority of the ones calling for his head are also.’
Actually, his mistake was the support of terrorism and its child-like cruelty of immature, closed, weak minds, not the manner in which it was revealed. It would have vomited from him in some other way if not Facebook, these things never stay hidden to simply fade away.
It’s wonderful we have eliminated another potential terrorist attack from another certain terrorist sympathizer.
We all believe in free speech.
Until we hear something we don’t like being said.
Do You consider is it free speech if someone said that Your mother (a straight and most angelical woman) is a b***? Please, do not make confusion between freedom and slavery in imposing the others the nonsenses in what you believe.
Free speech is one thing, judgement is another.
Mr. Ibrahim R. Mossallam can say whatever he wants, and if United Continues to employ him, well, I can choose another carrier. In my opinion, a pilot employed by a part 121 carrier, engaging in this kind of rhetoric is demonstrating poor judgement and I don’t want to fly with someone too stupid to realize what the consequences of engaging in this kind of rhetoric bring. Then again, it’s United, so, this tempest in a teapot will fade in a week or so, and Mossallam will be back at the controls. Lets hope his judgement improves.
Islam is a political construct posing as a religion.
It was founded in the 7th Century and has never had a true reformation.
One of the main tenets of Islam, along with imposing Sharia Law, is its dominance of the worlds population.
This is not discrimination, this is fact. Being that this man is also on the board of C.A.I.R.,
I would express extreme caution concernning his participation in any airline (121 or 135) activity.
Actions have consequences. I’m sure the top dogs of Hamas in their lux digs in Quatar understood what those consequences most likely would be for the populace of Gaza when they approved both the action and the “rules of engagement” to be observed by the terror squads who carried it out. Personally, I find that decision pretty darn scary, but obviously they feel the best and highest use of their populace is as components of a planned mass martyrdom for the cause.
Good morning,
I’m an airline pilot, and I see a lot of discrimination and bias in these posts.
People we don’t like do brave things. Confederate Soldiers were brave. Japanese soldiers were brave. They also committed horrible atrocities.
I don’t support any side in what amounts to an extremely violent and long-lasting civil war based on religious grounds. A barbaric and horrible example of humanity.
I don’t see a problem with the pilots Facebook post. Airlines are free to conduct their investigations and their actions and speech also accept the civil rights consequences of potential future litigation.
Are Muslim passengers comfortable with a pilot that was in the IDF?
I see a double standard here. A sad world we live in, and hopefully in the future a more peaceful and kind one.
This is not a hard one. Free speech is protected from GOVERNMENT censorship, if you say anything that discredits your employer or makes passengers think twice about booking a United flight you are subject to your employers sanctions.
Aside from that I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near this guy, much less in an airliner cabin or flight deck. He sympathizes with a barbaric terrorist group that massacred innocent civilians in the name of Jihad. Just like the 9/11 attackers.
Ground this lunatic, He shouldn’t be flying a Cub, much less a Boeing.
Companies can determine whether someone is a legitimate threat or not, within lawful framework.
If the employee in question is not a threat, it becomes a massive discrimination problem. Why? Because airlines fly to Islamic countries as well…sometimes with Jewish, and even on occasion with Israeli pilots at the controls.
How comfortable would a Muslim passenger be with a Jewish or Israeli at the controls? What is that pilot posted derogatory things online. The IDF has also committed atrocities, war crimes, etc.
Would the company react in the same way? If not, the company becomes the problem.
Firing employees for political views is sketchy, even in more conservative and right to work scenarios.
Contrary to what is written in many of the replies most companies will not terminate employees for political speech.
“How comfortable would a Muslim passenger be with a Jewish or Israeli at the controls?” Comfortable enough to stay wide awake through the flight.
‘How comfortable would a Muslim passenger be with a Jewish or Israeli at the controls?’
How would they know? Assumptions? Profiling? Mandatory ethnicity/religious affiliation requirements of flight crews like patches sewn on uniforms?
Are you saying Muslims think Israelis also have a Jihad to establish Judaism as the only legitimate world religion and all others are considered infidels, and hence the Muslim passenger is at risk?
Do you know anything at all about this historical conflict? In the real world, the flight crew would be the ones at risk. A Muslim passenger could sleep peacefully without any worry the entire flight from anyone on the flight deck or in the cabin. Except your occasional drunk Karen or Ken, perhaps.
Is publicly supporting or promoting a particular cause, idea, policy, or group for Hamas by US citizens illegal?
Source: OpenAI soft search –
Advocating for HAMAS by U.S. citizens can raise legal concerns. The U.S. government designates HAMAS as a terrorist organization, and providing material support or advocating for designated terrorist organizations can be a violation of U.S. law. Such actions may lead to legal consequences. It’s important for individuals to be aware of and comply with relevant laws and regulations.
A general overview of some relevant U.S. laws related to terrorism and support for designated organizations. Some laws include:
1. Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA): This law, enacted in 1996, criminalizes providing material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations.
2. USA PATRIOT Act: Enacted shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, this law expanded the government’s surveillance and investigative powers to address terrorism-related activities.
3. International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA): This law grants the President broad powers to regulate commerce in response to an unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States, which could include actions related to terrorism.
4. Material Support Statute (18 U.S.C. § 2339A): This statute criminalizes providing material support, including services and expert advice or assistance, to designated foreign terrorist organizations.
5. Material Support for Terrorism Financing Prohibition (18 U.S.C. § 2339B): This law prohibits providing material support or resources for the commission of terrorist activities, including financing such activities.
6. Executive Orders: The President can issue Executive Orders to address specific issues, including the designation of individuals or organizations as terrorists and the imposition of sanctions.
7. Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA): This law, enacted in 1996, criminalizes providing material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations.
8. USA PATRIOT Act: Enacted shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, this law expanded the government’s surveillance and investigative powers to address terrorism-related activities.
9. International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA): This law grants the President broad powers to regulate commerce in response to an unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States, which could include actions related to terrorism.
10. Material Support Statute (18 U.S.C. § 2339A): This statute criminalizes providing material support, including services and expert advice or assistance, to designated foreign terrorist organizations.
11. Material Support for Terrorism Financing Prohibition (18 U.S.C. § 2339B): This law prohibits providing material support or resources for the commission of terrorist activities, including financing such activities.
12. Executive Orders: The President can issue Executive Orders to address specific issues, including the designation of individuals or organizations as terrorists and the imposition of sanctions.
These laws are subject to change, and new legislation or amendments may have been introduced. 2022.12.31
Thanks for that, Raf.
Ignorantia juris non excusat.
Getting back to the issue at hand, terminating employees for political speech/social media issues is a complicated endeavor:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/24/nyregion/nyu-langone-cancer-doctor-fired-lawsuit.html