A reader asks, "I noticed that you’re affiliated with The American Task Force on Palestine. After googling them, I’ve come to the conclusion that they’re heavily criticized in certain Arab-American circles, but don’t understand why. Can you please explain?” Thanks for that question.

I’ll try to answer, although I agree the vehement anger directed against ATFP by some segments of the Arab-American community is difficult to explain given that most Arab-Americans agree with ATFP’s mission of advocating that an end-of-conflict agreement that allows for two states, Israel and Palestine, to live side-by-side in peace and security is in the American national interest. It should be noted at the outset that ATFP does also enjoy considerable support among the other segments of the Palestinian and Arab-American communities, has seen a steady increase in the support over its six years of existence, and has a large board of directors composed of noted and significant Palestinian-Americans. ATFP’s premier annual event, our October galas, have grown in size and stature with every succeeding year, and our website recently passed the milestone of 1 million hits in a single month. Obviously, while there are indeed vehement critics, there is also a strong bedrock of support.

Criticism of ATFP emerges mainly from the far-right and, especially, from the ultra-left of the Arab-American community. It primarily reflects the split between those who agree with ATFP’s peace-oriented mission and its dedication to the aim of ending the occupation on the one hand and those who believe that ending the occupation is either impossible or undesirable, or both. In other words, there is a constituency in the Arab-American community that simply does not accept the Palestinian national goal of seeking a negotiated agreement with Israel allowing for two states. These include one-state advocates who seek to replace Israel and Palestine with some other, as yet largely undefined, single state, by means as yet unarticulated. It also, more quietly, includes Islamists dedicated to the idea that all of historical Palestine must be dominated by Muslims. Obviously, those who adhere to these two alternative visions that abjure the only plausible means of achieving peace and an end to the occupation find ATFP’s position completely unacceptable. The feeling is mutual.

However, there is also some unease about ATFP’s methods even from some of those who agree with the goal of seeking an agreement with Israel to end the occupation. This is because ATFP has deliberately abandoned a deeply-rooted historical approach by the Arab-American community and other advocates of Palestinian rights in the United States that sees Palestinian-Israeli relations as a zero-sum equation in which everything good for one party is bad for the other, and vice versa. Since its inception, ATFP has been pioneering a new attitude that foregrounds the necessary role Palestinians and Israelis play for each other as indispensable partners in a potential peace agreement, and advocates not only dialogue with pro-Israel Jewish American organizations, but also a national coalition for Middle East peace with all pro-Israel organizations that agree with the aim of a genuine, reasonable two-state agreement. This has been difficult for many Arab Americans to accept because of the deep-seated suspicion the two communities have for each other, and a history of opposition, rivalry and bad blood.

The same attitude is readily to be found in some segments of the Jewish American community as well. It is an extraordinary element of the present discourse on US foreign policy towards the Middle East that Arab and Jewish American organizations that take the same positions in favor of peace are often well-regarded by the other community but viewed with suspicion within their own. This suggests that the ethnicity of any speaker is as important to the reception of what they have to say as their positions are, and that deviation from what is considered to be a normative community perspective is greeted with either approval or disdain based on the extent of this perceived deviation. This explains why some Arab Americans who are well disposed towards Jewish American groups such as Americans for Peace Now or the Israel Policy Forum are nonetheless uncomfortable with ATFP, whereas some Jewish Americans well disposed towards ATFP regard APN and IPF with suspicion. Asking people to move beyond deeply entrenched, familiar and comfortable attitudes, however dysfunctional and counterproductive they may be, is not always easy.

Another source of confusion and suspicion regarding ATFP’s methods, even among some who agree with its goals, has been the Task Force’s serious commitment to working within the political system of our country as it exists today and its determination to join the policy conversation in Washington. Many Arab Americans are used to a perspective of extreme skepticism about the potential of the community to seriously engage with the American political system and to empower itself through the normal processes of American civil society. There is an irrational and erroneous, but widespread, belief that the system is somehow closed to us and that nothing Arab Americans do will gain them greater political empowerment or a seat at the policy table on questions regarding Israel and the Palestinians. The truth, of course, is that this is a self-reinforcing and self-defeating attitude that must be overcome and defeated if Arab-American perspectives are to become more a part of the national conversation, especially on foreign policy.

Some Arab-American critics of ATFP’s methods object to its engagement with the government because they reject the American political system and believe that there is no benefit to seeking such an engagement but rather advocate what amounts to a revolutionary attitude seeking radical change that is extremely implausible. Others are simply uncomfortable with ATFP’s constructive approach to dealing with our national leadership, and our commitment to advancing the American national interest. Many Arab Americans are emotionally invested in a traditional approach to pro-Palestinian advocacy that emphasizes human rights, morality, and international law, and have yet to fully appreciate the necessity to articulate why ending the occupation is in the American national interest. To some, this smacks of instrumentalizing what, in their view, ought to be a purely moral and ethical argument that is entirely self-evident, and arguments that emphasize practical benefits to the United States of ending the occupation seem to debase what they would prefer to be a more "high-minded" approach. ATFP, on the other hand, strongly argues that it is no slight against our fellow Americans to recognize that they would, naturally, ask what the American national interest is in actively pursuing Israeli-Palestinian peace and an end to the occupation.

For a detailed response to many specific criticisms of, and calumnies against, ATFP from other Arab-Americans, please see my issue paper on the subject here.