News

AMP chairman analyzes MLI program

News

PART I: Shalom Hartman’s MLI Program – A Constructive Engagement Paradigm

By Dr. Hatem Bazian
AMP Chairman
Originally published on AltMuslim

I am writing this article a few months removed from the heated debates on Altmuslim and other media outlets about the Shalom Hartman-sponsored Muslim Leadership Initiative — all-expenses paid trips to Israel for mainly American Muslim leaders to learn about the roots of Zionism. But, the issue are as relevant today as they were then. And now with the third cohort readying to leave this summer, the debate on the subject has only started.

I am approaching the subject first through South Africa’s anti-apartheid and Latin American solidarity movements lens, then I’ll engage in a discussion about the problematic nature of Shalom Hartman Institue’s MLI. The debate on the MLI program and my disagreement with it is fundamentally political in nature and not theological, even though participants entered into the program based on their Muslim identity.

This fact, then, conflates the political with the religious. I am not interested in the religious part of the debate and find the introduction into the conversation of Adab (spiritual courtesy), a complex term that governs relations between Muslims, as a tactic used to mute or alter critical responses to the program.

 

South Africa Anti-Apartheid
In the early 1980s, President Ronald Reagan’s administration and the South African government created a “Constructive Engagement” foreign policy initiative in response to the widespread anti-apartheid movement on college campuses. Constructive Engagement was developed by Chester Crocker, the assistant secretary of state at the time.

The policy was intended to address the growing domestic and international demands for action on a most visible and atrocious human rights crisis, following the 1977 United Nations Security Council Resolution 418, which imposed a mandatory arms embargo on South Africa.

At the time, South Africa was a critical U.S. ally in the fight against the Soviet Union and provided military support, intelligence information and troops to counter “communist” insurgencies in Southern Africa, including full-fledged wars in Mozambique, Namibia and Angola.

The machinery of Constructive Engagement included visits by civil society leaders, academics, music groups and corporate investments in South Africa’s black-owned businesses. Certainly, the policy was a reversal of the Carter administration’s approach to South Africa, which focused on human rights and constant criticism, if not isolation, in the hope of bringing an end to apartheid. Crocker’s policy was based on trusting the South African government and expressing empathy with white fears and security in approaching the subject of change in the country.

Through confidence-building measures, “improving black lives” in the country and gradual change over time, the policy posited that apartheid would come to an end. The policy was gradual, focusing on U.S. regional interests and opposing immediate enfranchisement for blacks by standing with whites against the African National Congress’ demand for one man, one vote and a truly democratic South Africa.

In addition, the strategy included concerted de-legitimizing efforts directed at anti-apartheid activists in the U.S. and Western Europe with the direct involvement of South Africa’s intelligence, Israeli Mossad and England’s MI6.

In addition, the Anti-Defamation League in the San Francisco Bay Area deployed an undercover agent to collect information on Arab, Muslim, Palestinian, South African and Irish activists and organizers, and then exchanged the data with both the British and South African intelligence services to help identify anti-apartheid organizers and Irish struggle supporters. The ADL began in earnest to target progressive and leftist groups by labeling as anti-Semitic any criticism of Israel’s relations with South Africa.

Critically, the de-legitimizing efforts included discounting and belittling the impacts of the boycott movement, while asserting that it only hurts the black working class South Africans who badly needed jobs and economic empowerment. Crocker, before coming to the State Department, was an academic who served as director of African studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown University. He was also associate professor of international relations at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service.

Crocker wrote a report titled, “South Africa: Strategy for Change,” which contained the main lines for the Constructive Engagement policy. At the time, Crocker personally opposed racial discrimination and offered testimony to this effect. However, Constructive Engagement was centered on appeasing and working with the South African government and being sensitive to white fears and security concerns while constantly refusing to meet legitimate black South African leaders involved in the struggle and who were opposed to the apartheid regime.

The South African government had handpicked black African leaders to meet and interact with whenever an occasion called for it. Ironically, they were brought from the Independent Homelands, which were created under the apartheid system itself. Among the key figures serving in this role was Chief Mangosuthu G. Buthelezi who, with the support of the South African government, set-up the National Cultural Liberation movement (Zulu Inkatha ye Nkululeke ye Sizwe) as a counter to the ANC.

He also often invited the U.S. to express opposition to the anti-apartheid movement. In this context, the South African and U.S. governments had a black face, an actual Zulu chief to imply local support for the existing policy (Buthelezi was already on South Africa’s government payroll before Constructive Engagement and was a very important instrument for its implementation).

With a domestic black homeland leader supporting the counter ANC strategy, which was centered on the boycott movement, the South African government managed for a while to make inroads and obfuscate the issue among un-organized and un-affiliated conservative African American business leaders and among church leaders. The campaign to counter the successful efforts included bringing black and white South African speakers to tour and talk about the “reality” on the ground, because the naïve liberal campus and grassroots activists were unable to comprehend the complexities involved.

Essentially, the activists in the movement were strategically constructed as “infantile” young kids who didn’t understand how the adult “real” world of policy works. It was also said that an insider approach was the only way to bring change because those promoting the boycott movement on campuses did not understand the full context of the situation or how Washington operated to be relevant and gain access or success.

Shalom Hartman’s Constructive Engagement Project
Fast-forward to current boycott, divestment and sanctions efforts directed at Israel; the Shalom Hartman MLI program carries within it the same strategies and tactics that were employed against the South African apartheid boycott movement. The current strategies pursued by Shalom Hartman are a mirror image of the Constructive Engagement approach with minor modification.

At the heart of the MLI strategy is Zionism and Israel’s narrative, which relegates the Palestinian narrative to the periphery or worse, blames Palestinians for their own dispossession. During the South African anti-apartheid campaign, we always insisted that the black South African narrative led by the ANC was central to the struggle against apartheid. As such, all decisions and policies impacting their struggle was to be deferred to them directly.

As an anti-apartheid activist in the 1980s, executive board member of the United States Student Association and chairman of the National Student of Color Coalition, and as someone who wrote the national campus platform, which was voted on by university student body presidents and which adopted the national boycott, I was aware of Pretoria government invitations to student leaders to visit South Africa.

Each time, I would consult with South African activists in New York to seek their opinion and I would give their perspective primacy over any other considerations.
Yes, all-expenses-paid trips were offered and some short-sighted conservative campus leaders visited South Africa and came back espousing the Constructive Engagement philosophy. Interestingly enough, the pro-Israel Hillel on campus, ADL, AIPAC and JAC all supported Constructive Engagement and opposed divestment. Only in the early 1990s did they shift their position after apartheid was no longer sustainable and Mandela was released from prison.

Latin American Solidarity Movements
A similar circumstance faced activists in the Central American Solidarity Movement, which was successful in ending U.S. aid to the death squads in Latin America. A type of Constructive Engagement was offered by bringing the extreme right wing Alianza Republicana Nacionalista or ARENA party leaders to American campuses to educate the students, invite them to visit in efforts to block their successful activism.

Once again on many campuses, including San Francisco State University and UC Berkeley, Hillel hosted events for ARENA party leaders and urged students to embrace political figures who were behind the death squads in Latin America.

Also, it might surprise some that when then-Vice President George Bush asked and got Saudi Arabia to provide $25 million funding for the Contras in Latin America, we actually protested and opposed it. The fact that the funds came from Muslims did not change or influence our position nor did it cause silence, because funding the Contras wrong and contrary to Islamic ethics. In the Latin American Solidarity Movement we had Jews, Muslims, Christians and every other creed and political trend but all were united on the principle that justice is indivisible. Opposing Saudi Arabia policy at the time was right and just.

What is disturbing in Imam Abdullah Antepli’s article is that he once again conflates opposition to Israel with anti-Semitism by using his own experience to generalize about the Muslim world. While I am not in any position to cast doubt on Imam Antepli’s own anti-Semitism, I do take issue with the generalization he made in the article and the resulting conflation of opposition to Israeli policies with anti-Semitism.

Such a conflation is very destructive and harmful to defeating real anti-Semitism. It has far-reaching implications for Students for Justice in Palestine and Muslim Student Association activists on campuses as the massive de-legitimizing campaign is directed at them. It might be the case that the ADL or mainstream Zionist organization shared their data, which often conflates both in attempts to silence Palestine solidarity activism.

I am fully aware and follow the ADL’s work on anti-Semitism; however, since the organization abandoned its praiseworthy civil rights mission and acts as Israel’s and Zionism’s thought police, one has to discount its work when it comes to the issue of pro-Palestine activism. To be sure, some activists do harbor anti-Semitic sentiments, but they are in a small minority.

PART II: Muslim Leadership Initiative and Understanding BDS, Zionism and Israel (Part Two)
By Dr. Hatem Bazian
AMP Chairman
Originally published in AltMuslim

In a May 22, 2015 article published in The Huffington Post, Kamal Abu-Shamsieh, the only Palestinian participant in the Shalom Hartman Institute’s Muslim Leadership Initiative (MLI), officially and publically disengaged from the program. Abu Shamsieh’s disassociation concluded, “As the third cohort of the Muslim Leadership Initiative gets underway, it has become impossible for MLI to meet with any credible Palestinian. Without a Palestinian narrative, MLI risks becoming a Hasbara program, Israeli-propaganda.”

The announcement is a very significant development and brings the debate back into center stage.

In late March, both Abu Shamsieh and Imam Abdullah Antepli visited Berkeley, Calif., to discuss with me and others the MLI program and issues emerging from the intense debate and also to open channels of communication moving forward. The discussion was long and spirited, but the differences and gulf between us remained the same.  At the time, I agreed to write an article to express my own opposition to the MLI program and also to highlight the political nature of disagreement.
The issue with the MLI participants is not a question of sincerity or correctness of their faith, rather it is the pursuit of wrongful and counterproductive strategy that is carried out at the expense of and in total disregard of Palestinians. It is a Constructive Engagement approach centering on Israel’s fears and security.

In addition, accepting a fully paid trip funded by Shalom Hartman Institute (operating in an occupied city) is a major ethical failing for individuals. It ignores how one should deal with an occupying power and, at the same time, violates the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions. It dismisses the appeal by the occupied population for solidarity from those who have and can make a choice. The paid trips are mirror the South African experience.
Understanding 

What is BDS
It is important to set the record straight concerning the boycott, divest, sanction (BDS) efforts and what it permits and to illuminate how the MLI program is a clear violation of BDS and how it disregards Palestinian civil society’s call for a global solidarity. Certainly BDS does not oppose people visiting, touring and discussing issues pertaining to conditions in Palestine, which was the same position we held in relations to South Africa.

Imam Abdullah is somewhat correct that the Palestinians do encourage “more Muslims, especially from the United States, to come and visit Palestine, to hear their stories, to see first-hand their daily challenges and to learn about their admirable struggles.”  However, what Palestinians leaders on the ground would insist is that such visits not be done under the rubric of institutions vested in the occupation and paid for by Zionist organizations that promote the Israeli agenda first and foremost, not to mention being associated with groups that fund the Islamophobia industry.

Palestinians would welcome visitors that come to resist and struggle with them through BDS, olive harvest assistance, home rebuilding projects, innovative cultural programs, diabetes clinics, human rights observations and, more importantly, by staying in and spending money at Palestinian-owned businesses. Indeed, what BDS calls for is an economic, cultural and academic boycott directed toward institutions, since the occupation and dispossession of the Palestinians is a structural and institutional project, which Shalom Hartman is fundamentally part of it even though it represents the soft side of Israeli power.

Furthermore, accepting a fully paid VIP trip from an organization that structurally is connected to the occupying power with offices in an occupied and illegally annexed city is a clear BDS violation, regardless of the content of discussions or encounters.

Thus, it is not a mere tour of a land that is at issue here but doing so at the invitation and resources of the occupying power. The resources have been taken away and continue to be taken away from the dispossessed population, the Palestinians, and indeed the all-expenses-paid trips are indirectly using stolen wealth to promote an understanding of Zionism and Israel.

As it stands, the engagement through the MLI program is opposed by Palestinian civil society organizations inside and outside Palestine. In the collective wisdom of those engaged in the Palestine cause, the MLI project is a Constructive Engagement approach and it conveys, whether you dismiss it or take it to heart, the power of the occupier. These trips give the impression that everything is normal and Zionism is just another ‘ism’ in the world to learn from and with which to engage.
Where is the Palestinian Point of View?

More critically for American Muslims is that MLI is not the only program of this sort. Many like it are humming across the U.S., Europe and parts of the Arab and Muslim world. At their core, they are part of the ”Constructive Engagement” of Israel and Zionism, in the hope of keeping the racism, militarism and exclusionary dam intact.
In accepting an all-expense-paid trip, one joins the many who have been through Zionism ‘enlightenment’ tours — every politician, journalist, civic and religious leader, student council members, university presidents and opinion makers – who have come to understand Zionism, Israel’s history, connection to the Holy Land, and the difficult security faced by the “Jewish State” because of these kinds of normalizing trips.  Furthermore, to make the visits appear objective, a few Palestinians are invited to share their views on how best to solve the crisis that only exists because they are present and have refused to go away.

How do you speak when you are already dispossessed and invited to talk to guests who are coming to understand, not you but the dispossessor’s feelings and connection to the land? How do you speak when the premise of the trip is the suffering caused Zionists by your mere presence? When your presence is the problem that must be removed so all can feel at ease?

Let’s be clear that Palestinians don’t need anyone’s help if understanding the occupier is the framing and if it is on Israel’s dime. We all know the saying in America, “There is no such thing as a free lunch!” The question is why Shalom Hartman is buying lunch for American Muslim leaders?  Does anyone really accept that the only way to learn about Jewish attachment to the land and Zionism is to get funded by the occupying power in an occupied and annexed city — Jerusalem?

How much of this is about ‘us’ Muslims in America wanting to have access, wanting doors to be opened for ‘us’ by those whom we feel are the gatekeepers to America’s power?  If this is the case then Palestine is the instrument for access and position, which puts the cohorts in the same company as Arab and Muslim world leaders, who often sacrifice Palestinians in the deals they cut for open doors and access to power.

Certainly, at times the discussion on social media degenerates into name-calling and away from the substance of the debate. Setting aside the irrelevant issues, an important question for the participants is about their choice to disregard the Palestinian civil society’s call for solidarity by crossing the BDS picket line and participating in a program like MLI.
The published responses from participants on the whole were unconvincing and at times condescending, in my opinion.

A few felt at ease downplaying the effectiveness of the Palestinian initiated BDS strategy and at the same time asserting their role to bring about change to the current state of affairs by engaging Zionists directly through the MLI project.  Not speaking for Palestinians is very positive but acting and participating in such programs without their support is actions that speak loader than words.  Yes, Palestinians are still occupied but continue to resist despite facing Israel and its massive war machine, which is wholly supported by the United States.

Added to this is support from the European Union and numerous Arab and Muslim leaders openly or behind closed doors. It is not those who oppose us who anger or disappoint us; rather it those whom we love, whom we call friends, brothers and sisters. It is from these beloved that we expect principled actions.

A second and just as weak an assertion is that participating in this program is the way for Muslim Americans to understand Jewish attachment and relations to Israel and through it develop deeper relations between both communities in America. There are numerous places and groups that can provide as much or more critical understanding of Jewish relations to Israel.

The narrative that Zionism lays exclusive claim to representation of Jewishness and is the sole valid understanding of the relationship to the Holy Land alone should be sufficient to discredit the MLI project. This claim that accepts the basic premise that Zionism and Israel represent all Jews is a self-serving and contested one.  In fact, many Jews say this singular claim is actually anti-Semitic in nature.

What Are Better Ways to Engage?
Instead of a Zionist-funded trip, why don’t the cohorts reach out to the Israeli soldiers from the Breaking the Silence organization to get their perspective on the meaning of Zionism and how the attachment to the land translate on the ground?  Also, since some participants wear the mantel of human rights and social justice activists, why don’t they then engage with Israeli human rights organizations, such as B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories?

Notice, I am not asking them to visit or engage the Palestinians because the claim is that they know enough about it and they need to learn from Zionism, not its victims. There are a myriad of similar human rights organizations in Israel, which could greatly enlighten those presumable seeking enlightenment.

Lastly, the participants claim the MLI program will open opportunities for American-Muslims to reach groups and communities that otherwise would not have been reached or influenced by the status-quo approach pursued by existing Muslim organizations and individuals. The road to access is a fluid one without a conclusive and singular path ahead.
The big question at hand is how does participation in MLI impact the Palestine cause in the U.S. and on the ground for people under occupation?  If the MLI helps individuals gain access for themselves, then the issue is a self-serving one, not one about Palestine per say but Palestine as a stepping-stone to bigger and better things for the individuals involved.

Let’s be clear that as American Muslims we all have a choice in our actions and enjoy freedoms, opportunities and access, which Palestinians living under occupation are denied. This fact alone, if none other, should obligate everyone, Muslims or otherwise, to defer to those denied freedom and living under occupation to articulate what the best strategies are to change their circumstances.

I completely understand that individuals in the community are free to do what they want and associate and pursue whatever is consistent with their own worldview and career opportunities. The same applies to Palestinians and how they undertake their struggle to confront and undo the longstanding Israeli occupation. The Shalom Hartman Institute’s MLI program is in violation of Palestinian civil society non-violent BDS campaign, which is already globally recognized and is a successful strategy around the world.
Pure and simple, participating in the MLI project violates BDS and is fashioned to facilitate relations between American Muslims and Zionist Americans in the hope of arriving at an ecumenical deal, whereby understanding attachment to Israel is centralized over the silenced and dispossessed Palestinians.

Solidarity has no meaning if one is not open to listening to the voice of the voiceless living under occupation, facing daily assaults, dispossession and human rights violations. The calls from Palestinian civil society were completely disregarded and an ”American Muslims know it best” attitude was offered in response.

Palestine is a global human rights issue. The sad part of the MLI project is that American Muslim activists are opting for regressive political engagement like Constructive Engagement because they are motivated by access, acceptance and politics of integration, and again Palestine is left at the door as a price for membership.
Dr. Hatem Bazian Co-founder and Chairman of the Board, American Muslims for Palestine,  Co-founder, faculty and member of the Board of Trustees Zaytuna College, Lecturer, Near Eastern and Asian American Studies, UC Berkeley, and Director of the Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project at Cal’s Center for Race and Gender.