When Free Speech Doesn't Come Free

Free speech is not without consequence. In the United States, for example, criticism of Israel is tantamount to heresy. Former US President Jimmy Carter felt a societal backlash last year after the release of his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, which condemned Israel’s apartheid-style policies in the occupied Palestinian territories. Consequently, and without foundation, Carter was branded by many in the American press as a one-sided, anti-Semitic propagandist. Similarly, Harvard professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer were lambasted for a paper the two co-authored that discussed the power of the Israel lobby and its adverse effect on American policy. Additionally, Norman Finkelstein, an esteemed professor at Depaul University and author of the bestselling book, The Holocaust Industry, witnessed a McCarthyite-style campaign mounted against him when he came up for tenure. Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, has been an outspoken critic of Israel’s human rights abuses and of pro-Israel apologist and Harvard professor, Alan Dershowitz. Predictably, it was Dershowitz who led the anti-tenure campaign against him; ultimately, Finkelstein was not only denied tenure, but he lost his job at Depaul.

The attacks against Carter, Finkelstein, Walt and Mearsheimer serve as a few well-known examples of the consequences writers and intellectuals face when they breach the line and criticize Israel. Furthermore, the condemnation writers and intellectuals of Arab descent face are invariably higher than Jews of conscience, former presidents, and highly regarded academics. As a result, many writers often acquiesce to the demands of the mainstream. Their self-censorship usually appears in the form of “toning down the message,” be it to please editors or critics—essentially to conform to the reality of purported pragmatism. Yet, this “pragmatism” is a euphemism for acceptance of a repressive status quo and is analogous to the “necessary” practical thinking that silenced a multitude of commentators during the Oslo years—the supposed time of peace. Unsurprisingly, untold Palestinian suffering followed as a result of increased settlement expansion, land confiscation, checkpoints and seizures, and the ultimate failure of Camp David 2000.

Shying away from perceived controversial matters may help to protect a mainstream career, but the intent of a political analyst should not be to produce works of fiction. The vast majority of Americans weren’t open to criticism of US policy during the run-up to the war on Iraq, mainly due to the media’s complicity in promoting the war, but criticism was still the appropriate course of action based on the facts, and Americans would have been better off for it today.

A man who combined principle, activism, and human appeal quite masterfully was distinguished educator and commentator, Edward Said. In the realm of academia and Middle East analysis, Said was by no means viewed as the quintessential radical. Nonetheless, his positions were radical when juxtaposed with “conventional wisdom”: he was a proponent of the one-state solution, an unwavering critic of the Israeli government, and an ardent supporter of the ostensibly controversial right of return. Said was still heavily criticized throughout his career and endured incessant attacks by his detractors, yet his accessible personality and articulate message kept him relevant.

Sadly, Said’s relative acceptance has been the exception rather than the rule. In recent years, there has been increased emphasis on putative pragmatic dialogue. However, this accentuation on so-called rational and balanced thinking has proven to be little more than a sinister means to pressure the oppressed to accept the position of the oppressor. The greatest leaders of the last hundred years didn’t shy away from controversy; they remained persistent, and saw their visions brought to fruition; be they Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, or Mahatma Gandhi. Nevertheless, one cannot overlook that even paramount figures have been castigated for “overstepping” their boundaries, namely Martin Luther King who was chided for speaking out against the war in Vietnam, imperialism, and social injustices that plagued the US.

This week, Palestinians across the US commemorated 60 years of displacement. Yet, the lens the Palestinian people are expected to look through under the pragmatist vision is one that sees a dispossessed people as necessary victims for a righteous state to take form. Unfortunately, waves of writers and commentators continue to adopt this line in fear of retribution, in exchange for nicer houses and comfortable livings, or a combination of both. That is their free will. Free speech is not without consequence. Nonetheless, losing peace of mind is the only repercussion a writer should fear.

Remi Kanazi is the editor of the forthcoming anthology of poetry, Poets For Palestine, which can be pre-ordered at www.PoetsForPalestine.com. Remi can be contacted at remroum@gmail.com.

Stop Calling Me a Jew! Barack Obama and the Politics of Xenophoia

Barack Obama is not a Jew. He was not raised a Jew, has never been a Jew, and is a committed Christian. Nor has Obama ever prayed in a temple. According to a CNN reporter that is referenced on Obama’s website, Indonesian yeshivas (including the one Obama attended) are not radical yeshivas—unlike the ones in Israel and Brooklyn. Obama is so not Jewish, that even his Jewish stepfather, wasn’t really a Jew. Obama has stated that his stepfather had a “skeptical bent, a man who saw religion as not particularly useful in the practical business of making one’s way in the world.” Obama’s stepfather grew up in Indonesia, a country with the largest Jewish population in the world. To be exactly clear, visit Obama’s page: www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_Jew_1.php

Sadly, if you were to take out each reference to being Jewish in the above paragraph and replace it with being Muslim, you would essentially be looking at the “know the facts” section of the Obama ’08 webpage. Obama and his campaign deemed it not only necessary to defend his angelic image against the scurrilous, absurd claim that he is a Muslim, but found it imperative to address this alarming allegation specifically by adding a separate tab near the top of Obama ’08 webpage, labeled, “on Obama’s religion.”

It’s Barack Obama’s choice to liken being Muslim to getting chlamydia from an underage congressional page, but this man of hope and courier of positive politics has taken the high road often enough, so why not this time? Let me guess, this race (like every race of the last 219 years) is “too important?” If cowering to racism and xenophobia is the remedy, well by all means ladies and gentlemen, let Barack Obama step up to the plate and deliver. But keep in mind, Obama hasn’t been accused of murder; his detractors, which include right-wing evangelicals and pro-Israel paranoids, are accusing him of belonging to a religion that encompasses twenty percent of the world and millions of Americans. The tone in which he and his campaign have responded is particularly disturbing. Obama is becoming the antithesis of his media description; he is protecting his image, instead of his message.

Obama’s raging defensiveness is an unfortunate reality, more so knowing that many Muslim-Americans are campaigning for him and faithfully supporting his candidacy today. Over the last few months, Obama skeptics have been lambasted by individuals championing “the lesser of two evils” rhetoric, but even a self-proclaimed pragmatist’s threshold should have been breached by this point. Obama is going to go as far as his supporters let him. First, he sold out Palestine without conscience because “everyone in politics does it.” Then he sold out Iraq—while Moveon.org crumbled and endorsed him—so he could grab the centrist vote. Then, in an effort to appeal to independents and John McCain supporters, he pledged to add more troops to Afghanistan and vowed to bomb Pakistan if “actionable intelligence” necessitated it. Next to go will be his shoddy healthcare plan, along with his flimsy stance on undocumented workers, and before we know it, he’ll be campaigning for his 2012 reelection.

I recognize that it’s easy to sell out Muslim-Americans. Who actually wants to appeal for their vote, never mind get on an airplane with them, right? But it’s time that Americans grow up and get over their post and pre-9/11 bigotry, and it’s high time that our political candidates take the lead.

As Obama’s hope is swallowed by the raging waters of mainstream politics, Muslim-Americans can dutifully forget about change and accede to the politics of xenophobia. Because what reasonable person would want to be a Muslim today, when that person can be a good Christian like Barack Hussein Obama.

Can I Have My Change Back? Arab-Americans and Obama's False Hope

At what point does an individual stop supporting the lesser of two evils? The question became particularly important this primary race, as one man ascended to political stardom ostensibly breaking free from the evils of mainstream politics and creating a platform based on hope and change. This transcendent figure is presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

Searching for substantive policy, I began to chip away at Obama’s political posturing, and came to a daunting conclusion: there are a multitude of reasons one shouldn’t vote for Barack Obama, especially those within the Arab-American community.

Senator Obama is not anti-war, nor does he genuinely seek appropriate alternatives to militarism in the Middle East. Arab-Americans and putative leftists naively, and sometimes willfully, overlook the fact that he is an ardent supporter of the invasion, bombing, and ongoing occupation of Afghanistan. One also cannot dismiss that his views are consistent with the Democratic Party platform, which aspires to refocus on Afghanistan. Such views bode well with Obama’s plan to deploy additional troops and increase funding, but as with the case in Iraq, it will only intensify the struggles of the civilian population of Afghanistan. Obama fully supported the Lebanon war (even as the Israeli military killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians and leveled civilian infrastructure with tens of thousands of US-shipped cluster bombs), and played up his pro-Israel rhetoric nearly as much as his current Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. As with nearly every other candidate, Obama fully supports Israel’s 40 year occupation of Palestinian land and dutifully endorsed the besiegement of Gaza. Surprisingly, this is a politician who once curried favor with prominent members of the Palestinian community, attending a community fundraiser in which Edward Said was the keynote speaker, dining with Rashid Khalidi in Chicago, and receiving praise from Ali Abuminah during his time as a state senator. Domestically, his shift to the right is glaringly apparent, reflecting weaker stances on undocumented residents, the Patriot Act, gay rights, and a host of other domestic issues.

Obama may have voiced opposition to the Iraq war five years ago, but his “courage” came at a time when it minimally affected his political aspirations. Since entering the senate, he has voted in favor of nearly 300 billion dollars in war appropriations and will continue to appropriate billions more if elected president. Obama is already playing up his ability to be hawkish on foreign policy (e.g. his illustrious declaration that he’d bomb Pakistan on “actionable intelligence”) and has tried to validate himself as a “tough when necessary” type of leader.

Post-911, inexperience with foreign affairs has been a sore point for all Democrats. There is nothing more troubling than a field of candidates trying to prove themselves to their opposition. One only needs to look at the rise of Amir Peretz as Defense Minister in Israel. He was a well-known leftist against the Israeli occupation before coming into office. In an attempt to demonstrate his intestinal fortitude and establish himself among the Israeli public, he championed the destruction of Lebanon, and defended the decision as fervently as any right-wing activist. At best, Obama’s inexperience will limit his capacity to control the military occupation of Iraq, as it would every Democrat and most Republicans during the inaugural year. Additionally, expectation for his vaguely outlined phased withdrawal, which creeps well into midterm election campaigning, further denies the mechanics of mainstream American politics and Congressional trepidation. No Democrat or Republican can afford to lose seats in the house and senate; it’s precisely why little is achieved during election years. Potential voters may find it useful to recall the excitement engendered after the 2006 midterm elections when a pullout was “imminent;” assurances were given that mass hearings would take place on Capitol Hill, and accountability was declared to be the wave of the future. Predictably, campaigning supplanted accountability, while the people of Iraq were left hanging in the balance. Ultimately, no viable political candidate will be able to pull out of Iraq before the 2010 elections.

Contrary to public perception, Obama is not a humanitarian. He consistently places the onus of solving the conflict in Iraq on the Iraqi people alone, absolving the US of its responsibility for an illegal invasion and occupation. Nor does he support a sustainable future for the Iraqi people or their right to reparations; rather, he supports an eventual end to the war primarily to alleviate America’s financial and militaristic burden. His position illustrates a profound difference between a humanistic and militaristic approach to Iraq, the latter of which will have a dramatic negative effect on Iraq’s civilian population. Moreover, Obama squarely blames Iraqis for their own misery, focusing little attention on the US campaign. The incessant mantra that Iraqis refuse to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and accept democracy ignores a simple reality: it was never presented to them in the first place, nor has there been a serious attempt to rebuild Iraq infrastructurally or economically.

Arab-Americans should not be confused. No matter how appetizing the Bobby Kennedy-style rhetoric and charismatic speeches may be, if our community keeps acquiescing to the status quo, it will never change. We must begin building solid coalitions with other groups that face similar challenges (i.e. the Latino and African-American community), or our small vote will amount to little more than election-time pandering. Unfortunately, organizational work and outreach is in its infancy stages. Many of the organizations that purportedly speak for us have become part of the system, consequently stripping away their constituents of their legitimate demands. Furthermore, our community has become enthralled with general election politics, but it isn’t sufficiently focused on working at the state and local levels, where we can have the most impact. Barack Obama may lend more support to our issues than Mike Huckabee, but if our community starts supporting candidates who do not recognize our plight (as well as the plight of other minority groups) our community at home and our families abroad will suffer for endorsing him.

One question still remains: which viable candidate is left to vote for? Unfortunately, in its existing capacity, our vote isn’t strong enough to make a viable impact. Reaching out to prospective candidates can be effective, but it must be coupled with a plan to comprehensively inform the field of where we stand on the issues. Enthusiastically endorsing candidates who refuse to appreciate our concerns is a fundamentally flawed approach. If the system is broken and the game of Washington politics is corrupt, then playing it with a weak hand only strengthens that system. The naysayer will proclaim that our votes count in swing states. Yet, if this was truly the case, our vote would be coveted, not ignored. No viable candidate on either side of the aisle even bothered to show up to the Arab-American Institute's National Leadership Conference in Michigan, where the largest portion of our constituency resides.

Our current predicament underscores the limitation of the two-party system: small voices have no voices. The only way to build a better future for the Arab-American community and positively impact policy toward the Arab world is to invest in ourselves, and begin to build coalitions, where smaller voices can come together to effectively change society. This method will legitimately allow us to empower ourselves without acceding to a blind principled stance. We can’t just hope for a better future; we have to work for it, and sadly, the empty rhetoric spewed by Barack Obama, and the rest of the mainstream candidates, only serve to solidify our problems in perpetuity. So, Yalla Vote! But do it in good conscience, and in a way that makes sense for our community.