In an era when Arabs and Muslims are always the first suspects whenever terrorism is concerned (read the “Correction” here), I sympathize with the gut reaction of many Arabs and Arab organizations in this country to immediately and eternally condemn and distance those who might perpetrate such acts. I wonder, however, if there isn’t a drawback to this expedient tactic that removes the critical distance we should have, not as Arabs but as normal citizens, to these kinds of incidents.
I can understand that the detective lights always shine on us and our communities first, but I cannot accept that, because of this condition, we should have less freedom than anybody else to be openly critical about what we hear. By ‘critical,’ here, I don’t mean we should be oppositional; rather, I only mean that we should be vigilant and inquisitive about what we are told. Mere questioning cannot be considered a crime or cause for suspicion, otherwise the bell has already tolled for our freedoms–and if it is only cause for concern when the speaker is Arab or Muslim, then the condition is double the problem and all the more reason to speak out.
So it is that I looked skeptically upon the Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee’s (ADC) media alert on May 20th, the same day the so-called plot was exposed. By the time the ADC had issued this release, the identities of the alleged perpetrators had not even been announced to the media. In fact, few details were known to the public. All that we knew was that an attack on synagogues was thwarted. Naturally, this would be something to celebrate. But I cannot help but feel that the ADC’s reaction is so transparently self-concerned and cynical that it cannot be supported–even though all the principles espoused in its press release are praiseworthy. That the ADC even beat the pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which only released a statement the following day, speaks wonders. Why should the ADC be so trigger happy as to condemn a thing before it knows very much about it?
I am moved to say this now partly because of skepticism that has been aired regarding the FBI’s role in the NYC synagogue plot. Robert Dreyfuss in The Nation was the first to publicly question the plot, pointing out that the suspects were ex-cons with no connections to overseas terrorist groups. While the suspects were under the impression they were in contact with a Pakistani militant group, their contact was actually an FBI informant. According to Dreyfus, that same informant also provided the plans, materials, and goods to the group, which included a schizophrenic man. But The Times in the UK has really taken this to a new level, with the headline “FBI ‘lured dimwits’ into terror plot.” After reading the Times’ report, I came away thinking that this was not an operation to be praised at all, agreeing with what defense lawyer Terence Kindlon told the paper, “This whole operation was a foolish waste of time and money. It is almost as if the FBI cooked up the plot and found four idiots to install as defendants.” Kindlon makes it sound like an FBI plot to bomb synagogues. As bad as the accusation makes the FBI look, the larger point is not to demonize law enforcement, but rather, to question whether it actually keeps Americans safe for law enforcement to thwart the same criminals it creates.
After reading these two articles, I was even angrier at the ADC. It seems the ADC has two missions that are at odds with one another. One is playing the media game: no doubt the organization was anxious to issue a condemnation of the plot in case the perpetrators turned out to be Arabs, to pre-empt the negative media portrayals that were sure to come. The second is defending civil rights and institutionally empowering Arab-Americans. My sense is that Arab-Americans cannot feel very empowered when their places of congregation are being overrun by FBI spies who are trying to lure them into performing criminal acts or blackmailing them to spy on their neighbors. And their rights certainly cannot be protected when, instead of trying to maintain a critical distance to the events transpiring so that it can take the most coherent and effective position, the ADC instead feeds the media frenzy about an overblown plot. The ADC blew it on this issue because it lost an important opportunity to question FBI tactics and infiltration of Arab-American communities and places of congregation. Its public statement, regurgitating and affirming the FBI’s official story about what happened rather than questioning it, actually furthered negative portrayals of Arabs and Muslims, setting the stage for the ADL–in its own release–to fan the flames with its hyped talk about “domestic Muslim extremists.”
Had the plot been a true threat, and not one pieced together by the FBI as The Times suggests, the ADC’s public position and press release would have been appropriate. As I said earlier, the principles espoused in the release are entirely praiseworthy. But it certainly would not have hurt the organization or the Arab-American community for the ADC to patiently wait until it had seen all the facts at hand to determine its role in the matter. As it stands now, I think the ADC has committed an unfortunate error by jumping on this opportunity to sound an Arab voice against anti-Semitic violence before waiting to understand the full picture. Had it waited for all the facts to come to light, the ADC could have issued a more effective statement, proactively protecting the civil liberties of Arab-Americans by questioning the FBI’s tactics, while also condemning the motives of the alleged suspects, as the two positions are certainly not at odds with one another. Indeed, compared to the ADC’s non-contextual press release, it is obvious that the ADL phrased and structured its own to maximize its political effect. The ADC’s came off more as a face-saving statement than a rational and coherent political intervention in our public discourse. I hope an issue like this does not arise again, but if it does, then the ADC must be more cautious about its public releases, so as not to sensationalize the issues or compromise its ability to defend the civil liberties of Arab-Americans–and that includes our right to live free from government agents spying on, blackmailing, and manipulating us when we are guilty of no crime.
Related posts:
- NYC Synagogue Speaker Calls for Abbassination
- UK Airplane Terror Plot
- BREAKING NEWS: New Terror Plot Uncovered!
- Carter on Palestinian Prisoners
- Remembering Alex Odeh
Its just more of the same self serving nonsense from ADC. I think they just recycle the same press releases. It never fails to kiss up to the FBI, I'm sure they'll all be there at their Convention as usual, with the ADC "leadership" tripping over itself to praise them unquestioningly. Where are the civil rights questions about FBI agents infiltrating the community and engaging in questionable practices and behaviours? What has happened to ADC, its such a shame.
Posted by Anonymous | May 26, 2009, 5:21 amI sympathize with the gut reaction of many Arabs and Arab organizations in this country to immediately and eternally condemn and distance those who might perpetrate such acts. So you have pity, so to speak, for the immediate instinct of Arabs to "distance" those who might perpetrate such acts? What? To immediately and eternally, or permanently, condemn and distance [themselves] from terrorists? You think Arabs should rethink the idea of distancing themselves from terrorists? Because 4 guys got caught trying to blow up a Jewish synagogue (because Islam taught them to hate jews?) What are you trying to say? Why don't you just give up the double-speak and come out and plainly say what you mean…. at least WILL had the courage to do that!
Posted by eagle007blogger | May 26, 2009, 5:51 amI sympathize with the gut reaction of many Arabs and Arab organizations in this country to immediately and eternally condemn and distance those who might perpetrate such acts. So you have pity, so to speak, for the immediate instinct of Arabs to "distance" those who might perpetrate such acts? What? To immediately and eternally, or permanently, condemn and distance [themselves] from terrorists? You think Arabs should rethink the idea of distancing themselves from terrorists? Because 4 guys got caught trying to blow up a Jewish synagogue (because Islam taught them to hate jews?) What are you trying to say? Why don't you just give up the double-speak and come out and plainly say what you mean…. at least WILL had the courage to do that!
Posted by eagle007blogger | May 26, 2009, 5:51 amI only mean that we should be vigilant and inquisitive about what we are told. ABSOLUTELY. For the ADC to condemn terrorist plots says that terrorism should not be considered a problem by race, it is an Islamist problem (a problem of extremist ideology) and these men do not even appear to be Arab – all the more reason for ADC to make their point by immediately condemning plans to perpetrate evil. And now you suggest the plot wasn't a true threat? Catching and incarcerating those who have the will and demonstrate the ability to do these things does not constitute a real threat to you? Interesting. Thankfully it is not people like you that are keeping us all safe.
Posted by eagle007blogger | May 26, 2009, 5:53 amI want to ask you a question, with no offense intended: are you literate? That means, can you read?
Posted by yaman | May 26, 2009, 6:32 amHe's merely an online satirical character.
Posted by SanaKF | May 26, 2009, 6:57 amHello,
This reminds me of the Oklahoma bombing, when it just happened. Geraldo Riviera was live infront of the building, talking about they this and they that… at that time breaking news came in and they shows scetches of McVeigh, and Geraldo was all "but he doesn't look middle eastern. This coming from Geraldo, who every time I used to see him I remembered my fourth grade Arabic grammar teacher in Saudi Arabia.
Posted by Qusay | May 26, 2009, 9:52 amMy wife and I have been looking into this sort of case for a while. (Take a look at ” target=”_blank”>http://eaazi.blogspot.com and search for SPLC, which often works with the ADL or the AJCommittee.) I need to make a specific blog entry on the subject, but the close relations of these groups with the FBI has led to manipulation of the FBI and the DOJ. These entrapment cases seem to lead back to Amanda Farfel of the AJC Latino Division while all the Islamic Charity cases seem to lead back to Matthew Levitt, who has belonged to the psychotic racist anti-Arabic segment of the Jewish community since he was a student at the Maimonides School in Brookline, Massachusetts.
Posted by ThorsProvoni | May 26, 2009, 10:51 amMy wife and I have been looking into this sort of case for a while. (Take a look at ” target=”_blank”>http://eaazi.blogspot.com and search for SPLC, which often works with the ADL or the AJCommittee.) I need to make a specific blog entry on the subject, but the close relations of these groups with the FBI has led to manipulation of the FBI and the DOJ. These entrapment cases seem to lead back to Amanda Farfel of the AJC Latino Division while all the Islamic Charity cases seem to lead back to Matthew Levitt, who has belonged to the psychotic racist anti-Arabic segment of the Jewish community since he was a student at the Maimonides School in Brookline, Massachusetts.
Posted by ThorsProvoni | May 26, 2009, 10:51 amIn the UK we do not really see these things in Arab terms any more. Ten years ago maybe, it certainly seemed that Islamic terrorists were Middle Eastern (ie Arab) but more recently they are as likely to have been Pakistani, Somalian or black converts. If things develop as I expect, tomorrow's terrorists will be Bangaladeshi. Race/ethnic origin do not in themselves cause tensions, the real problem is culture/belief. The real threat is radical Islam. As an outsider one always sees the similarities but not the differences. I suspect a Moroccon has about as much in common with an Egyptian as I have with a typical Romanian. Guys like yourself as much in common with a ranting Islamic militant as I (a rabid atheist) have with some born again Seventh Day Adventist. But practically speaking, pre-judging people by their ethnic group may be unjust but is it necessarily irrational? Maybe in the absence of any data on the individual, the broad data on a group is a sensible starting point. That car may be a great buy, but only a fool would ignore the reliability reports.
Posted by xoggoth | May 26, 2009, 6:33 pmBy 'critical,' here, I don't mean we should be oppositional… Yeah. Because taht's what KABOBfest is all about. Constructive criticism!
Posted by programmer craig | May 26, 2009, 11:20 pmThis reminds me of the Oklahoma bombing, when it just happened. Geraldo Riviera was live infront of the building, talking about they this and they that… at that time breaking news came in and they shows scetches of McVeigh, and Geraldo was all "but he doesn't look middle eastern. Dude, you must be lying because everyone knows the stereotyping of Arabs as terrorists didn't start until 2001. This coming from Geraldo, who every time I used to see him I remembered my fourth grade Arabic grammar teacher in Saudi Arabia. That's nothing… I remember geraldo in Lebanon interviewing some Lebanese politician about 5 years ago, and the guys ask him "Are you Jewish?" in the middle of a live broadcast. Which was a valid question, because Geraldo's mother is Jewish and I think that technically makes him Jewish, kinda like Obama's Muslim father technically makes him Muslim. Or something.
Posted by programmer craig | May 27, 2009, 2:04 am"Race/ethnic origin do not in themselves cause tensions, the real problem is culture/belief." So, there are good cultures and there are bad cultures – is that what you're saying? What's the basis of measurement for how good a culture is? The real problems in most ethnic conflicts boil down to social, political and economic. When inequality is rampant in these three areas, then issues of ethnicity and religion become easy targets – it becomes easier to fight against someone when you disassociate yourself from them. It's also easier to deem someone inferior based on their differences from you. Of course, let's not forget the greatest source of modern ethnic conflict: the post-colonial aftermath. Look at Rwanda – almost one million killed. Hutus VS Tutsis. They're not ancient foes – rather, they were made into foes when the Tutsis (slightly lighter skinned that the Hutu) were put into positions of power by the big Colonial Power and literally told "you're actually a white man in a black body" – the seed of ethnic difference as something negative and as a facet of power relations was sown. Ethnic conflicts which exist today did not really exist in the same way as they did prior to the Westphalian nation-state system. The nation-state system, along with colonialism, create false boundaries which exploited populations and cultures – divide and rule, remember that wonderful maxim? You can't be so reductionist when it comes to such problems…it's an insult to these conflicts to give them such a simple explanation when the reality is far more complicated.
Posted by SanaKF | May 27, 2009, 3:53 amThe majority of terrorists are Muslim… it's not a racial thing but an ideological thing. Islamism, as a totalitarian ideology, is more similar to other totalitarian ideologies such as Communism or Fascim than it is similar to other religions. So why get all bent out of shape about race?
Posted by eagle007blogger | May 27, 2009, 5:28 amSana are you trying to obscure the fact that the actual problem is radical islam? Since we are talking about terrorism such as the synagogue plot, this is not an ethnic conflict that boils down to social, political and economic things in the traditional sense. It is more about totalitarianism. And it has nothing to do with inequality, as you seem to be suggesting in your attempts to rationalize away what the real problem is. Your attempts to blame this conflict on "post-colonial aftermath" is completely ridiculous. The "nation-state system, along with colonialism: is not what makes the Islamists believe that Islam will rule the world, as they say it once did. The Islamists plainly state that they seek to destroy the Western cultures. They believe that Islamism will rule the world (talk about a bunch of wacked out people) – why would anyone want some backward, socially retarded system like that to take over the world, it's almost laughable if it wasn't so tragic. No this is not satire, my confused little friend, Your attempts to make everything over-complicated simply demonstrates your inability to deal with the truth. What's the basis of measurement for how good a culture is? Well there are some things to consider, such as human rights – and some things such as, say, whether people are stoned for commiting adultery, homosexuals are targets, cutting off heads is a common thing, ect.
Posted by eagle007blogger | May 27, 2009, 5:46 amOh okay. Nevermind. I was wrong. Thanks for setting me straight. I guess research is completely a waste of time. You're a doll, g.
Posted by SanaKF | May 27, 2009, 8:18 amYeah, don't complicate things with "thought," or "logic." It just makes you look silly.
Posted by Anon | May 27, 2009, 1:21 pmYou are right, historically violent conflicts had to do with resources and control of resources. Sometimes religion came into it, such as in Ireland where they fought over independence from Britain and also Catholics fought Protestants because it was about control of resources, land, who got good jobs ect. Also consider Britain's history with Catholics and non-Catholics, whenever power changed people were killed, and they had this barbarous habit of burning people at the stake. As it ended up, it became illegal for a Catholic to sit on the throne. Of course people are more civilized today and more advanced with the passage of time…. I think Tony Blair became a Catholic, I think after he left office, anyway it's no longer that big of a deal. And history has seen a lot of colonialist activity, and colonialist activity is not inherently bad – there were good things and bad things about it – but to try to tie that history into the major causes of armed conflict today is not accurate. More specifically, when talking about terrorism and the radical Islamists, it should be understood that their war is not logical. It's not about any certain region or control of any certain resources as much as its considered a global struggle to basically take over the world. So bringing up "Westphalian nation-state systems" and "colonialism" and "false boundaries" really has nothing to do with that – and it makes it seem like you have a difficult time coming to terms with the truth behind it.
Posted by eagle007blogger | May 28, 2009, 5:37 amCrap… I accidentally deleted this comment when I meant to delete my own response. Does anyone know how I can bring it back?
Posted by yaman | May 28, 2009, 9:14 pmhow about measuring who the majority of people who kill innocent civilians are? what about George W Bush, Putin, Olmert, the Sri Lankan government, the people who did the Rwandan genocide? does it matter if they drop bombs on people's heads or fly airplanes into buildings? are there friendlier techniques of killing lots of innocent people (and please don't say it's all an accident – we're talking repeat offenders here)
Posted by Tom P. | June 1, 2009, 7:56 pm16v1of rurmlfzhsqih, [url=http://eiwzagbdrswe.com/]eiwzagbdrswe[/url], [link=http://smmyxehxixwh.com/]smmyxehxixwh[/link], http://jmajbzzpdloz.com/
Posted by gsurqivwa | June 21, 2009, 1:47 am