I have to admit to surprise, however, as I read what sounded to me like lucid, well-thought out case for dramatic action to jolt ADC, like a boycott, that Will kept reminding us that a boycott would be the wrong course of action.  As I write a response to the article, I’m having hard time finding points of disagreement with Will, except for the methodology-I hesitate to say the conclusion because we both share the same goal of, as he put it, “resuscitating ADC,” and restoring it to position of representing the interests of Arab Americans, from which it has deviated.

So I’m going to call for a boycott of ADC, beginning with its convention this weekend, but that’s not all, so hear me out. I do hope that Will still invites me when he makes his famous brunches with Foul and the scrambled eggs with chicken sausage.  Will, may I suggest this weekend?

If you can, begin your boycott at this weekend’s convention, and I mean begin it, it’s a process that needs tending. But if you already paid for your flight and hotel, or your mom is dragging their despite your wishes hoping you would find a spouse, then so be it, but consider voicing your discontent. Get up in the main panel and chant “الشعب يريد إسقاط النظام” (the people want an end to the regime). Tell them this would be the last convention or event you will attend under this antiquated, useless leadership.

On a couple of occasions in his article, Will makes it appear that having an aging old guard on top of ADC is just an anecdote of the organization’s misfortune. I disagree. I think that is the illness itself, and has been the demise of the ADC.

ADC’s leadership is as corrupt and autocratic as your run of the mill Arab regime; with the significance as a governing body that rivals the government of Djibouti, and a record of accomplishments that falls short of Qaddafi’s. As a matter of fact, I think the ADC’s biggest accomplishment in the last few years has been the staggering number of hookups that take place at its annual convention. It puts Match.com’s annual gala to shame.

Today’s ADC is a mere shadow if its former self, a hollow skeleton;  yet it is a skeleton that worth preserving and fleshing out, as it has a history and a record of accomplishment. We just need to lop off the rotten top, and clean out the dysfunctional clutter.

The reform from within approach that Will advocates does not work. It has been tried repeatedly for the better part of a decade, as Will himself knows, having led and participated in many of those efforts. The repeated efforts to reform ADC from within and according to its bylaws were frustrated and thwarted by the current board, especially the members who have sat on it longer than Bashar Al Assad has been in power.

Overtures to the president of the board where met with cynical moves like appointing douche bag yes men like Ray Hanania who lacks just about every virtue, from intellect to social skills, as board members. This was but one of many clear messages that the ADC leadership had absolutely no interest in reforming the organization. It had become their dream toy, an opportunity play socialites in the DC scene, rub elbows with hotshots from Syrian and Saudi despots to DC politicians who openly support policies that harm the community, misappropriating funds to unbeneficial social events, and doing it all in the name of a large organization that manages not to touch anything controversial.

Just like Arab dictators, similar to those in Syria and Yemen, ADC leadership will not leave or relinquish control as long as there is something for them to hang on to. That is why it is important to defund ADC of all content: money, members, and support until the current leadership resigns en mass and transfers authority to the new generation of activists who are still trying to make ADC a better organization.

Don’t misunderstand. I am not calling for you to turn your back on ADC-rather I believe you  should engage them, tell then regularly and repeatedly what your demands are, and remind them that you are suspending your membership and withholding your dues until this change take place. Let’s create a virtual Tahrir Square to tell them of our demands, and tell your friends to do the same.

It’s true that the grassroots dwindled, and nearly vanished, during the Mary Rose Oaker years, but it will not come back while those who appointed and protected Mary Rose Oaker still call the shots. In fact, the grassroots would not be given any authority of significance to influence ADC discourse. A campaign of engaged boycott, where you withhold your support while  continuing to engage and express your demands, may be the best thing that could happen to revive ADC’s grassroots.

And should the rotten old guard actually resign, fear not. We have a cadre of young, energetic, and committed individuals affiliated with ADC who would preserve it through the transition. Those committed individuals, perhaps by virtue of ADC being a disaster, are the right kind of people to have in a large NGO. Since there is hardly any benefit to work for ADC, neither  money nor prestige, most of the new generation at ADC are hardworking, well-intentioned individuals.

So boycott ADC, but don’t give up; we have a lot to gain as a community from rebuilding it. But let us not waiver in reforming it, nor allow its current leaders to cause it more damage.

If Arab-Americans were a camel, the ADC’s recent treatment of Malek Jandali is the final straw to break its back. I respectfully refuse the suggestion that Arab-American youth should attempt to fix a broken institution for the sake of maintaining its symbolic existence. In fact, I refuse to entertain the notion that the ADC’s most current blunder is an isolated incident in a long history of altruistic work. The ADC’s statement regarding Jandali assures that the conference, still on schedule, will offer up a fruitful debate about the Syrian regime. It also ensures its constituents that the ADC maintains its dedication to speak with “one-voice…to succeed in combating the challenges facing Arab-Americans.” What the ADC failed to mention in its statement is that the unified voice against “hardships” would have only one mouthpiece. Its no wonder that an organization that is using the familiar rhetoric of an authoritative regime would consider the Syrian government’s action an opportunity for debate. Any Arab-Americans with a shred of conviction to human dignity would consider the “dialogue” about the Syrian regimes massacre a moot point. Most of us have moved on to dialogues aimed towards figuring out ways to support the democratic movement, not question its legitimacy.

And lets not forget the uninspired Ray Hanania, a leader in the ADC that claims to be in favor of defending Arab-Americans, unless they happen to “fan the flames” of outrage to the door step of the Syrian government.  I point to the debris of Hanania’s career not to beat a dead horse, but to remind readers that justice still has not been served. The fact that Hanania is still welcome to the ADC, let alone a board member, is a traumatic reminder of the regime that our youth generation is up against- the regime of the privileged Arab-status-quo. Yes, we are a severally under-represented segment of the American population, and yes, our increase in affluence and participation in politics has not made the salty dose of government witch-hunts for brown folk any easier to swallow. But this does not mean that blind docility is the answer to our problems. The rhetoric used by the ADC and those in support of a “dialogue” with it offers the ultimate opiate to the angry Arab-American masses.  As I write this, Hanania managed to rationally reconcile tweeting, “ADC fights discrimination against American Arabs, not dividing the community” and “Kabobfest hate Jews and Christian Arabs” within the same 24-hour period. Besides not holding any logic, Hanania’s echo of ADC defenders sounds surprisingly similar to the tyrants under fire since the immolation-inspired uprising in Tunisia: “We are the only ones fit to lead, so follow.”

It’s not enough to click “like” on a Facebook post about Libyan rebel fighters or Syrian demonstrations. We too must resonate with the revolution and help finish what our un-hyphenated counterparts started. A key stipulation of the youth revolution in Egypt was the ousting of the old regime’s remnants, and our demands should be no less. We must be unified in spirit, not in organizational association, and our standards should border the impossible. Whether you’re a musician with a song about the struggles of the Syrian people or just a concerned Arab-American, your representation is not dependant on an organization with a history of poor leadership and corrupt politics. Arab-Americans deserve better and we start asserting ourselves through our dissent of the ADC’s actions and a unified indignation for its leadership.

Of course, this most recent post of his is particularly referring to the so-called extremist Arabs’ attack on ADC’s decision to drop Syrian-American composer and singer Malek Jandali’s performance (to play Watani Ana) from their main annual event.

“I’m a national board member of ADC and I know what it’s like to be attacked” ~ Hanania

We’re supposed to pretend there is no conflict of interest between his membership at ADC and defending ADC’s decision to drop Jandali’s patriotic song, for reasons he does not deny:

“Most American Arabs feel the way I do about Syria. They are conflicted. Why fan the flames of one side over the other…” adding, “Syria has been one of the most faithful to the concept of freedom when it comes to Christian Arabs” and, “Whether Jandali does or doesn’t perform at the ADC conference means nothing to me and probably the majority of American Arabs who are silenced in fear by the activism of a small group of fanatics who brow beat and threaten anyone who challenges their extremist agenda.“

Actually, the majority of American Arabs (or Arab Americans) have been outraged by ADC’s hypocritical decision that even moderates like Hussein Ibish of the American Task Force on Palestine (and former communication director at the ADC), and Muna Khan on al-Arabiya News, have expressed their outrage. Hanania understands very well the source of that outrage as he himself confesses that:

“In a fair world, Malik Jandali should have been allowed to perform his song at ADC. Why not?“

Especially since he clearly explained in the same post that:

“ADC is first and foremost not a political organization, but rather the single group that defends the rights of American Arabs who are targets of bigotry and discrimination. No other group defends Arabs across the board — Christian, Muslim or otherwise.“

ADC states that of their “most significant activities [is] promot[ing] human rights of individuals of Arab origin” … like Jandali?

Doesn’t Hanania think it’s the mother of all ironies that “the single group that defends the rights of American Arabs who are targets of … discrimination” is banning an American Arab from performing a song that calls for freedom and justice for all?

Makes one wonder, how did this schmuck ever receive all these proclaimed awards for (of all things) the excellence of his writing? Oh, I just remembered Thomas Friedman!

The rest of his post is filled with childish, egocentric rant about him being a Christian and his wife and son being Jewish, identities which he conflates with why whom he refers to as extremists (Hanania names KabobFest and Ikhras as his examples) attack his views. So, in his post for example, he preemptively bashes them (and labels anyone who agrees with them as extremists and victims who “find it is easier to beat up on themselves rather than to stand up to the real oppressors“), because he knows very well that his unsubtle support for ADC’s decision to cancel Jandali would arouse a reaction from the Arab-American community, especially those who consider ADC to be their representative that voices their opinions and concerns to the whole world.

Hanania is a schmuck no matter what religious beliefs he and his family claim to adhere to. And by the way, the Syrian government does not defend the freedoms of neither Christians nor Muslims (Arab-Americans are not conflicted about this). If Hanania can’t remember the massacres the Syrian regime had committed in Lebanese and Syrian cities against Lebanese, Palestinians, and Syrians of every sect, the majority of Arabs (whom he fortunately does not represent) do remember. No one is attacking Hanania for who he is, what faith he adheres to, or what his views (shared by quite a few around the world) are. He is sporadically under attack because he insists on speaking on behalf of large populations who clearly do not share his views. Neither himself nor his views represent the Arab-American aspirations, and certainly do not represent the aspirations of Arabs or Palestinians (including Christian Palestinians) anywhere else in the world.

But of course, nothing said here will affect his opportunist, brown-nosing career decisions. He is going to continue to write his contemptible rant for as long as he lives. It is equally true that he himself does not believe he is an opportunist, brown-nosing schmuck. Otherwise he wouldn’t do what he does. Nevertheless, he is like the majority of people who exercise their cognitive dissonance to justify the merits in what they do. Even al-Assad (Hanania’s bodyguard) can sit down and let his thoughts play long enough in his head till he can justify the massacres and torture he is responsible for; he won’t be the first nor the last, and the same goes for Hanania. Each one of us plays their role in history. Hanania is the schmuck, and I’m one of those who point their finger at the naked emperor and says what he sees; must be an extreme thing to do according to Hanania’s worldview.

I will not boycott the convention. I do not blame those who do and many will, but I think it’s the easy way out, not constructive and is short-sighted. So, I advise against it.

Instead, I challenge those of us who are indignant to take ownership of one of the few national Arab-American organizations we have. Arab-Americans must understand that ADC belongs to them but only if they get involved. That means more than being a member.

ADC’s Malek Jandali Mess

When I found out that ADC told the pianist and composer Malek Jandali not to perform a song – Watani Ana – that could offend the sensibilities of those who either work for or support of the Syrian regime, I was hugely disappointed.

As reports come in about Syrian policemen being killed for refusing to fire on unarmed protesters, as activists sacrifice their lives just to have some semblance of freedom in this police state, and as the “Arab Spring” ushers in an era of hope for real reform, silencing a song that is in spirit – not in words – critical of Syria’s government is deeply immoral.

It is quite common, the norm actually, for organizations to put conditions on performers. The first act of censorship is invisible from the outside – it’s in selecting who to invite and who to not.  However, putting politically-motivated limits on the content of invited guests is just plain wrong.  I understand they want to prevent divisive issues from being raised among the membership, especially in these heated times, but once invited, a singer should not be told to keep quiet about those issues.

ADC claims it won’t take sides in the matter, yet when it recognizes ambassadors and prints their letters in the conference book, it is taking sides in a sense. When it asks a performer it invited to not sing a particular song, it takes sides. I found it an inexcusable act.

ADC’s statement on the decision was also in poor form and unconvincing. It was not straightforward, worded to deflect criticism rather than directly counter it (it blamed the media in the first line), and tried to create a false distinction between performances and personal opinions to rationalize the move.  Sadly, it reflected an old style propaganda form that simply fails in a new media age. It was impersonal, cold, un-reflexively unapologetic and probably did little to assuage the rightfully angry and those calling for a boycott of ADC’s convention.

That said, boycott is not the answer. It’s too easy, a substitute for real work and offers little chance for resuscitating ADC – which I think should be the real goal. If anything, this episode demonstrates that ADC desperately needs an injection of youthful energy and participation.

The Right Path: The Long Haul of Loyal Opposition

In 1999, when Jordan’s King Hussein died, I was active with the chapter of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee at the University of Michigan.  We had been focusing our efforts on bringing attention to anti-Arab discrimination on campus, stereotypes of Arabs in media, and the grotesque humanitarian disaster the US and UN were perpetrating in Iraq through the sanctions. When the old Arab monarch passed, we said and did nothing, thinking it had little to do with the group’s work and mission. Plus, most of us resented the Arab despots.

Our lack of note and mourning angered Jordanian foreign students on campus. They came to our next meeting and berated us for ignoring their King.  Our hot-headed President, a Palestinian, had little time for them and fired back about his betrayal of the Palestinian cause. She was right as a matter of history, but as an organization, the President’s politics should not be the mandate, or the mission (otherwise we’re merely copying the Qaddafi style of a personalized regime).

My response to them was a challenge grounded in the real struggle of building institutions. And it is the same exact one I have now regarding ADC’s outrageous prohibition on Jandali’s song.

ADC is not there to serve you. ADC is the sum of its parts.

I told them that ADC is not there to serve you. ADC is the sum of its parts. With a tiny budget, finite time and energy, it can only do what its constitutive parts let it.  If you are not at the meetings, I told them, ADC is definitely not doing what you want – it’s as simple as that. And even if you are at the table, you, like everyone else, rarely gets exactly what you want. That is the thing about the regularized collective action of institutions.  It ultimately requires that the losers keep playing, hoping to win on the next issue. Every effective group needs both a loyal opposition as well as a tolerance and empowerment of them.  That does not happen if people boycott whenever they are pissed.

I only recognized one or two of the Jordanian students.  I told them that ADC could not be there for them because they were not there for ADC.

I expected my challenge to fall on deaf ears. I knew the mainly well-off foreign students would slouch back into doing nothing about it (I had my stereotypical thinking too!).  To my surprise however my message resonated with one of the students, Ala’.  He joined the group and was soon an agenda-setting power within the group. He committed for fighting for what he believed in within the group, and accepted when he was on the losing side.

Yes, a small campus group is very different than an organization with three decades of work and a board of hard-headed, older generation businessmen, doctors and lawyers – some of whom are apparently in bed with various regimes (from the American to the Syrian).  While the stage is bigger and the politics more complex, the same principle applies. If you are not a member of ADC, if you are not participating in the local chapter, if you do not know people who work at ADC and send them angry messages occasionally, as well as accolades for when they do right, you are really in no position to complain effectively, to advance our institutions meaningfully. You have already surrendered ADC in a sense.

The organization is ripe for young active leadership to help rebuild the chapters and infuse it with new energy. ADC went the way it did on this issue because all the people who are pissed now were not engaged enough to impact the calculation, to make clear that a cost is in place internally for such action.  Boycotting when a) you were not going to go to the convention and b) not a member of ADC is truly pointless. It feels good for many, I understand, especially in light of the difficulty of doing anything to impact the Syrian and other Arab police states from afar. And there is always a place for external criticism and boycotts, but in this case a better answer is involvement.

So I am making case for the long haul.  Yes, that takes time/patience, dedication, energy, commitment, and work. Sending Facebook messages calling to boycott ADC is the easy road. Some good could come out, for example if the boycott brought down the old guard of ADC who think close relations with Arab ambassadors of oppressive regimes is an asset. But, I doubt it will.  Those who were never part of ADC really have no leverage in boycott. Those who are involved know the group is in flux, in a fragile state, making it ripe for new blood.  Boycott will likely drain that blood when what it really needs is an infusion.

Those who are involved know the group is in flux, in a fragile state, making it ripe for new blood.  Boycott will likely drain that blood when what it really needs is an infusion.

ADC’s Struggles

ADC was ruthlessly strained under the mismanagement of Mary Rose Oakar.  Its reliance on Arab regimes, strategy of proximity to the DC government and abandonment of the chapters has been fatal. It must reverse course and go back to the grassroots, but the grassroots must also be there, willing to fight for it.

There are large internal problems in ADC, true. ADC’s been suffering a crisis in membership, fundraising and purpose for some time.  This is partially the result of ADC’s perpetual identity crisis.  For example, look at ADC’s awkward and piecemeal engagement in foreign affairs. I’ve been complaining for years about the dangers of merely dabbling in foreign affairs. It condemns Israeli excesses sometimes, but not consistently enough to make it a credible source. It ignored the Arab dictators’ crimes, and treads carefully on other matters of US foreign policy.  For example, it lauded the extra-legal assassination of bin Laden, which I found hypocritical and unbecoming of a rights-based group even though OBL was a brutal enemy of humanity.  I recommended it establish a real foreign policy project and give it independence to really be an Arab-American voice on foreign policy. Its dabbling is a minefield as we can see more clearly now.

Also, and perhaps more fundamental to its identity crisis, it’s a beltway DC organization yet must piece together a weak string of chapters making it a suspended grassroots organization.  ADC staff have been talking recently of going back to the grassroots and I think this is credible – another reason to not boycott but get involved.

ADC’s tough position is not entirely due to its identity crisis.  Arab-Americans have been loath to care about local and domestic politics, whether about their cities or about civil rights, and have found greater interest in events back home (I am guilty of this as well admittedly). This makes ADC’s domestic work harder to gain support for and pushes them to dabble clumsily in foreign affairs.

Also, after 9/11 and the rise of islamophobia, the Arab-American identity is less at focus. Greater religiosity in our community has also shifted the balance away from the Arab-American identity, as well. It is no surprise that ADC is in such a fragile state and so confused.

However, I should note, I would hope the Arab spring boosts that identity and that ADC capitalizes on its spirit of progress. The Jandali affair called into question that hope, admittedly.  I am staying involved in ADC and the convention in an effort to help the group find a new way forward.  But it will take lots of new participants.

What else can we learn from the Arab Spring?  ADC’s board has clearly grown out of touch with younger generations and represents older modes of thinking.  Malek Jandali has exposed this profoundly – preventing a song that anyone can hear on YouTube is just plain silly.

They are a generation that should be stepping out of the way, moving into a position of support, of passing down their rich knowledge, experiences and wisdom.  However, sitting at the top for too long is an Arab disease and its playing out with precision in the Arab Spring.  The ADC challenge is to turn this episode into a moment of re-invigoration.  Let each outraged person attend the convention, get involved or start local chapters and run for the board. If disappoints us, it is because WE let it.

A Way Forward and a Request for Boycotters

I am not against boycotts in general. They can be very useful and make sense in certain contexts.  While I think they do not here, let me make a request: If you must boycott, at least lay down the principles, propose a vision of how ADC should be instead.  The case of Malek Jandali was not an isolated incident but a symptom of ADC’s larger problems – which requires a sustained and critical engagement from the community.  The calls to boycott I am reading are not well thought-out, not grounded in a rationale. Do it for the sake of building something better. I will not condemn or fight boycotters, I just ask they do it the smart and useful way.

Some will resist my challenge to join ADC and fight to take it over.  Why not start a new organization, they may ask. Like boycotting ADC, that seems easier, but ultimately this does little for the greater good. ADC has three decades of history, did a lot great stuff in its history, even lost a member, Alex Odeh, to an assassin’s bombs, and has been part of the community.  If we do not take ownership and rebuild it, we lose what others did. That amounts to lost time, energy and failed progress.

Also, this trend of what Edward Said used to describe – for every three Arabs there are four organizations – must end. It will not get us very far as each new organization will eventually be replaced by another one.

If you are too displeased to attend the convention, go ahead and voice your protest that way.  But do not leave it at that.  The first step in the ADC challenge is join or start your local chapter.  We must shift the weight of the organization away from the center and to the chapters. Building institutions is key for future generations of Arab-Americans, we must make this the long goal. Or else, what do we leave for them? Will our legacy be weak and fragmented, or many tiny, institutions? I’d prefer not to be remembered for that personally. Do you?

UPDATES

-One of the administrators of the famous Khaled Said Facebook page that was an early forum for dissent against the Mubarak regime in Egypt set up a Facebook Cause called, “ADC: Human Rights or Human Wrongs?” It could be a good forum for discussion.

-At my panel on “social networking” with Jillian York and Dean Obeidallah, which is at 10:45 AM Saturday, we plan to discuss this issue and the role of social media.

“Kennedy said, “Look, you all letting this thing go too far.” And Old Tom said, “Boss, I can’t stop it, because I didn’t start it.” I’m telling you what they said. They said, “I’m not even in it, much less at the head of it.” They said, “These Negroes are doing things on their own. They’re running ahead of us.” And that old shrewd fox, he said, “Well if you all aren’t in it, I’ll put you in it. I’ll put you at the head of it. I’ll endorse it. I’ll welcome it. I’ll help it. I’ll join it.”

~ Malcolm X, Oct 10, 1963

Majd Yaseen remembers the first time she went to an ADC event in Raleigh, North Carolina: “I was a college freshman back then, and had just recently emigrated from Saracen lands. The hall looked too fancy, and it was filled with at least five hundred people. Each person was served an entire grilled chicken. I thought to myself: “wasteful! Who eats a whole chicken all by himself?” Plus, it tasted like it came out of a microwave. The event then began, with key speakers and projected videos. That was the first time I watched The Arab Dream (الحلم العربي) video clip. I was truly touched by it. When they turned the lights back on, I found out I wasn’t the only one crying.

“Then more speakers came up on stage to deliver strong messages to our cause, in particular Palestine and Iraq. And then suddenly, in the middle of a touching speech, a strong voice came from the crowd, in Arabic, shouting: “Enough already! Where is the belly dancer?” And hundreds began to whistle and clap. They had effectively shut the speaker up. He simply walked off the stage, and the host came back up to announce the beginning of the main event. Then loud Arabic music started, and a half-naked belly-dancer showed up on stage. People rose to their feet, clapping and chanting, and scores of beautiful Arab girls and boys got off their seats and danced.

“I didn’t know what to make of it at the time. I didn’t know whether to hate the completely insensitive crowd to our cause, or whether to blame ADC for using the cause to sell tickets to a party (حفلة) of food and dance.

“After years of on-campus activism, meetings, presentations, and demonstrations, I have come to learn the self-evident truth: a nonprofit political organization (like ADC, AAI, CAIR, etc.) cannot become that popular without massive donations from other wealthy and corrupt organizations and individuals. The organization that doesn’t succumb to the global power structure, therefore, is always short on money and unable to gain wide support and recognition from the community.”

This phenomenon that Majd observed has been further detailed by Yaman Salahi, in his article “The NGOization of Palestine.”

When Arab-Americans began to call for supporting all Arab revolutions, boycotting Israel, liberating Palestine and Iraq; the American government basically said to ADC et al., “look, you all letting this thing go too far.” And [Abbas*] said, “Boss, I can’t stop it, because I didn’t start it… I’m not even in it, much less at the head of it… These [Arabs] are doing things on their own. They’re running ahead of us.” To which the American government and its corporate lords replied: “Well, if you all aren’t in it, I’ll put you in it. I’ll put you at the head of it. I’ll endorse it. I’ll welcome it. I’ll help it. I’ll join it.”

* – Abbas refers to Ahmad Matar’s poem “عباس وراء المتراس”

A pre-publication draft of the statement was leaked yesterday to KABOBfest’s special assignment correspondent, Chaim Sugarman. The leaked document showed a strongly worded statement from the ADC, taking to task the Department of Homeland security, Delta Airlines, and TSA for negligence and taking lightly the safety of Arab Americans and allowing a security breach into a flight destined to the largest Arab American population center.

“It is obvious that this flight was not subjected to same security standards as flights destined to say, St. Louis or Dallas.” The statement read. “We are demanding that Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano lead an investigation into whether security measures for Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit were taken lightly due to the fact that Detroit area is home to nearly half a million Arab Americans.”

Although the statement refrains from direct accusations, it strongly implies that security officials with the government and the airlines deliberately relaxed security standards specifically because the flight was Detroit-bound. “Look, they either think Arab-Americans are not worthy of protection measures afforded to other Americans, or they think all Arabs are in cahoots with terrorists so Al-Qaeda won’t target Detroit. Either way you look as it it’s sick and bigoted,” an ADC official told KABOBfest on condition of anonymity.

Concerns about security measures rose in the aftermath of the Christmas day incident after it became known that the suspect had been on several Homeland Security and airline watch lists, and that his father had approached FBI officials with concern that his son is about to carry out such an attack.

The press release serves absolutely no function except to notify people that the suspect is not Arab.

ADC should know that if it is trying to fight racial profiling, pointing out a terror suspect is not Arab is just as bad as pointing out that s/he is–unless the goal is to replace one racist idea of Arabs as the “bad” minority with another racist idea of them as the “good” minority.

More importantly, it’s embarrassingly hypocritical and shameful that an Arab-American organization dedicated to fighting racism and racial profiling (something Arab-Americans and other people of color are quite familiar with) seizes upon this opportunity to dodge the terror lime light rather than to stand in solidarity with other innocent groups of people that suspicion now shines upon.

It is important for Arab-Americans to connect their struggles with similar struggles of other communities in the United States, and Arabs more generally with other struggles around the world. The kind of negligence exhibited by ADC’s press release undermines that solidarity and embarrassingly drops the ball by failing to recognize that it is engaging in the same negative practice that it expends considerable resources to fight when it comes to Arabs.

To be sure, ADC’s expression pales in comparison to others now circulating — but as an “anti-discrimination” committee, ADC has the burden of fighting and rejecting these kinds of stereotypes regardless of whom they fall upon. The press release does not explicitly express animus towards Nigerians, but if the statement is only meant to convey ADC’s opposition to terrorism, what value does the word “Nigerian” add to that expression? ADC especially should be more sensitive to subtle expressions of racism and the development of stereotypes in the media, all the more because that happens to be its specialty.

Despite the new congressman’s previous dedication to international law, which he shared with Adam when they first met in Afghanistan, he quickly developed the famous Palestine blindspot. He shed his previous disposition and voted for House Resolution 867 “Calling on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the ‘Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ in multilateral fora.”

Adam thinks that Congressman Tom Perriello’s vote “resulted from the almost-obligatory fealty to AIPAC displayed by members of Congress – and perhaps his desire to get reelected.” The two go hand-in-hand sadly. When the pro-Israel lobby tackles a politician, it is usually fatal.

Anticipating the pressures of selling out, he told Shapiro he would stay true to his principles when he shared his plans to run for office.

How many allies do we hear promise the same when they aspire to work “inside the system”? It is as if by the sheer force of their personality and commitment to good that they can force the system to adapt to their beliefs. Little do they understand the power of institutions and political contexts to shape beliefs to exclusion, shaming and other disincentives (principled members of Congress, for instance, can get punished by the party for their positions: for instance, by being passed over for top committee appointments).

In the end, Shapiro is not as bothered by the Congressman’s turnabout as he is by the fact that he was not cynical from the start.

This tale of moral corruption for the sake of political expediency is nothing new. Shapiro’s story is powerful because it shows that even if Gamal Abdel Nasser was elected to Congress, he’d be bound by a certain system. Even if we was representing East Dearborn, AIPAC would find someone to challenge his seat — perhaps a young Anwar Sadat.

Money-politics is the psychic grease that keeps the machinery slugging through; and we tend to invest in the power of ideas, which is why there are no ads on KABOBfest.

That said, we have to think of ways to be involved in such politics without putting false hopes in the integrity of politicians or in the sheer power of ideas. While concepts and messages are important for persuasion, we clearly have a huge advantage in this as a displaced people robbed of our homes.

The question is, how do we play ball without making compromises in our demands and becoming slaves to the dollar? And I am not suggesting that pursue this at the expense of other modes of political activism.

Though I hear activists demean lobbying and gag at the mention of fundraising, we have to participate in mainstream politics even if what we have to say is outside the frame of acceptable discourse — like pointing out how fallacious the two-state proposal is, or arguing that boycott, divestment and sanctions are the key to peace and justice for Israelis and Palestinians.

Shapiro himself is a great model for us. He’s a tireless activist and filmmaker who has founded organizations, such as the International Solidarity Movement, and built an impressive network of like-minded individuals. His films have also had powerful educational and issue-raising effects.

Short of us emulating his superman-like endeavors, we can get plugged into groups doing essential work to organize our money-politics. Organizations like the American Association for Palestinian Equal Rights (AAPER) and the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation offer something of an answer. They are based in Washington, yet draw on the grassroots for financial support and for people power. They, in a sense, will be getting their hands dirty so we don’t have to. It seems, the least we can do is back them and get involved.

The Palestine Center in Washington, D.C., a non-profit I work with, is taking strides to educate the public about the status and history of the Palestinians. It also could use your support.

The budgets and presence of these groups are still minuscule compared to AIPAC bohemoth. Even if you throw in civil rights groups like ADC and CAIR, and civic empowerment groups like AAI, we still do not come close.

In short, we need to continue to institutionalize in Washington. Even if the politics in Palestine is bankrupt and seemingly leading nowhere, or to disaster, Palestinians and their supporters in the United States need build and mobilize here and now. As isolated as we are, the day may come soon for us to assert our voices and make an impact. We cannot take advantage of any political openings if we are sitting back and waiting for politicians to fix things on their own.

Even before I had heard the news about the shooting, I noticed an email in my inbox from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) with a statement condemning the attack and saying they were “appalled” by it.  Later on, the late local news covered a press conference held by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that joined in with statements of condemnation. Why are these organizations so quick to issue such statements? Of course, anyone in their right mind would be disturbed to hear about an incident like this one.  But when these organizations are quick to put out condemnations they automatically link the incident with the respective communities they represent.  Such statements are uncalled for and unnecessary.

Sure, there will inevitably be the usual Arab and Muslim bashing from ignorant, hateful people. Unfortunately, some will probably even commit violent acts on those they believe are Arab and/or Muslim. And I know that ADC and CAIR claim to put out these statements in order to curb such sentiments and attacks. But I can’t help but think that if these organizations stop immediately putting these statements out, especially before any motive has even been reached, then incidents like this will be begin to be viewed in the same light as any another violent attack. Certainly, all are tragic events but ones where the individuals who commit them would be scrutinized and/or vilified and not the communities they are from.

This is a sad story.  But I won’t feel guilty, afraid or ashamed just because the suspect happens to be an Arab and a Muslim like me.  That would be ridiculous.

Even if I detested his policies towards Arabs, I can understand the need for political engagement by our institutions.

I was too curious to see what he would speak about, especially in the hope he would deliver some message from the administration or suggest something that offers substantive support for our foreign policy positions. But now, we are not THAT strong, yet.

He arrived with a grotesque fanfare, with Arab-Americans jumping from their seats to grab pictures of him and to shake his hands like we are trained Pavlovian fans. Instead of giving him the cool reception he deserves as the butcher of Iraq, via sanctions, and the proposer of the anti-terrorism legislation that paved the way for the PATRIOT Act.

His speech was the subject of much debate afterward. I felt it was barely relevant, elementary, and yet implicitly condescending. Others suggested we could not expect anything better or more, and even asked why should he cater to his audience?

Most refused to read between the lines of his speech. Many were compelled by the soft ambiguity of his talk to take away some positive message. I could not help but read the speech at a deeper level. So what I saw was an implicitly insulting lecture, one that boosted a dangerous misperception of Arab-American political issues.

His talk focused on the reality of global interdependence. The world is so connected that what happens in one part, impacts the other. Swine flu outbreak and the financial crisis are two examples; and the environment is the most urgent issue perhaps, with a disaster possible resulting in a breakdown in social order such as the world depicted by a Mad Max Road Warrior film (his example, not mine).

The way the world system is structured, the world is “unstable, unequal and unsustainable.”

Most conflict in the world, he argues, is driven by identity, even though divisions are blind to the fact that we all share 99.5% genetic commonalities. Therefore, we can be proud if our identities and celebrate our diversity, but not let pride in identity turn to hate: “You teach your children their ethnic heritage; their religious heritage; their cultural heritage with no negative reference to anyone else because it’s the only shot we’ve got to make the most of our interdependent world.”

The speech contained some insights, and was mostly full of textbook liberal politics and current world events. Who would disagree with his emphasis on AIDs and the lack of health care systems in the underdeveloped world, the demonstrated shortcomings of unimpeded free market capitalism (despite the Washington Consensus underhis administration), the urgency of the environment, that Muslims and Arabs were among the victims on September 11, 2001, and the dangers of hate?

Sounds reasonable and bland enough, right? If taken out of context, the insult is missed.

First, the focus on identity trivializes the material bases of our positions and politics. We are not angry at U.S. foreign policy and Israel because of identity differences, but because of invasions, occupations and displacements. While he acknowledges the inequality of the world system, he does not consider that our resentment may come from being on the receiving end of oppression. Talking about identity while ignoring this crucial context is in line with analysis that considers Arab resistance to American and Israeli agenda as ‘civilizational’ or ‘cultural,’ or based on ancient hatreds.

Second, I felt he belittled our concerns with the fate of the Palestinians when he mildly encouraged the Arab-American community’s efforts on it after talking about the big issues such as the prospects of environmental apocalypse. So silly was his analysis, he compared the outcome to a mad max road warrior movie – then he excoriated the crowd for laughing? “It’s not funny.” I think his juxtaposition was intended to suggest we are over-concerned with this problem. He was trying to shift our agenda to care about nebulous problems, while discrediting our issues — all implicitly, meaning without direct intents.

Third, he tried to disclaim his failure to say anything substantive, of interest to us, by suggesting he is limited since whatever he says reflects on Hillary, and he will not say anything not within her talking points. That is understandable, but he could have won important points by tying in the administration’s opposition to the settlements to his rudimentary analysis of identity. Does anyone deny interdependence and exhibit negative identity more than the Israeli settler movement?

Like I said, he was not interested in giving the community ANYTHING. And why should he, we’re not powerful enough to get more than a visit. Sadly, that was a major development in and of itself.

Fourth, I read his remarks on identity, especially the last one as suggesting that Arab-Americans should be proud of who they are, without hating others, i.e. Jews. Who else could that refer to?

He may have softened that insinuation with an anecdote about a tall Egyptian-American who he saw after September 11, 2001. He had tears in his eyes in fear of the backlash. He told Clinton he was afraid his country would never accept him. It was a compelling story until he said he thought about that story every two or three weeks, which seemed too much like a politician’s feigned nostalgia.

He also referenced Flying while Arab, winning applause, and thereby further camouflaging the speech’s intents. Did the crowd remember that he proposed using secret evidence in deportation proceedings against Arabs and Muslims? And that many of those cases targeted political involved members of communities with minor immigration violations? This is far worse than most of the humiliations and discrimination suffered by many Arab-Americans at airports.

He also sounded silly when he defended the Lebanese elections — which “no one thinks was rigged” — based on his conversations with his “Lebanese friends.” It almost sounded like the classic racists’ defense.

It was vague enough to leave divergent interpretations, I admit. So some progressive activists were pleased with the speech and were gald he did not get into hard politics, since we would have been angrier with the content. That makes sense, but we cannot accept the content of the speech he did give uncritically.

It seems that by not reading between the lines, we miss the richness of a saavy politician’s work. In terms of politicians, he is great. There he was as a president who authored the Oslo illusion, led a sanctions regime that left one million dead in Iraq, bombed Sudan and Afghanistan unilaterally, sponsored anti-terror legislation and, in sum, paved the way for Bush in many respects. After giving a 35 minute low-energy speech, he wandered out to hordes of conference attendees and fanfare that only comes from his former position, rather than what he did with us.