This is a great example of what sometimes gives academic scholarship a very bad name in the non-academic world. [Note: almost as soon as this posting went up on Ibishblog, the link to the paper became inoperative, but can still be accessed online in cached form, see citation below] This genius of a professor attempts to argue that there is no such thing as Arab secularism, except among a “Westernized-globalized class” which is not only inauthentic, but is also by definition an agent of imperialism and “Orientalism.” The essential idea here is that because secularism as an aspect of contemporary political life originally arose in a European context, it is therefore not only alien to the postcolonial world, apparently especially the Middle East, it is also by definition a mechanism of Western colonialism and Christianity. The plain implication is that Islamists are “authentic” whereas Arab secularists are simply co-opted tools of Western culture and authority and part of an “inauthentic” elite that is alienated from its own history and culture, and all aspects of genuine popular sentiment. The author even tries to Shanghai the ever-abused Edward Said as an authority for the view (not original to himself, but still preposterous) that “Secularism is Orientalism. And Orientalism is Christianity.” If there is anything that defined Said’s thinking and his intellectual and political affiliations it is his passionate commitment to secularism in all its forms. He even described his methodology of literary criticism as “secular criticism.” Since Said spent much of his career promoting “secular criticism” against habits of thought arising from Orientalist traditions, one can only imagine how he would have reacted to the suggestion that what he was doing was, in fact, not only Orientalism, but also, at its heart, religious Christianity.

As with so much of low-level academic discourse, this pigs-breakfast of a paper attempts to dress up an extremely simple and indeed simplistic idea – in this case, that Arabs are naturally and authentically religious and that secularism is not only alien but hostile to the Arab way of life – and dress it up in all kinds of laughable jargon and dubious citations. The title of the conclusion, “when/where time becomes space,” is extremely provocative, to the point that it ought to be impossible to write something banal on the subject (this proves not to be the case). The problem is that this formulation has absolutely nothing to do with what the author is trying to say, it just sounds sexy. All he is a really doing is supporting the idea that Hamas is an “authentic” and legitimate political movement that supposedly represents the Palestinian majority, whereas secular nationalists in the PLO are simply agents of colonialism and “Christianity.” This guy has obviously not bothered to consult the trajectory or the ebb and flow of Palestinian opinion polls over the past, say, 10 years.

All of this is itself fetishizing and indeed entirely “Orientalist” (in the worst sense of the word) in that it, in effect, posits an essential characteristic to Arab culture and political life (religious affiliation, not to say fanaticism). It takes sides in the current major political and social divide in the Arab world firmly on the side of the most reactionary and authoritarian forces, that is to say the religious ultra-right, and stigmatizes anyone who would suggest that religious heterogeneity in Arab societies mandates that reasonable government ought to be neutral on matters of religion (that is to say, a properly secularist point of view).

Worse still, it makes one of the most fundamental errors to be typically found in academic writing on postcolonial realities: it treats modernity as if it were an à la carte menu in which the postcolonial world (or the academic in question) can simply pick and choose which elements of modernity it wishes to pull off the shelf and put in its basket, leaving others for the next customer. Quite obviously, it doesn’t work that way. Social, economic and political modernity, which is and has been an ineluctable and pervasive force in the colonial and postcolonial worlds, carries its own inbuilt logic of connections, dichotomies, causes and consequences. It is absolutely ridiculous to take one troublesome aspect of modernity in a postcolonial environment (in this case secularism in the Arab world) and dismiss it as an inauthentic imposition of Western colonialism, as if all or many of the other aspects of modernity were somehow less “inauthentic” or less of a tool of colonialism. Modernity is a package deal; you take it or leave it. And, since pre-modern formations were generally unable to successfully resist or remove colonial domination, and for many other reasons, the embrace of modernity in the postcolonial world has been irreversible for well over 100 years.

However, the very dumbest aspect of an incredibly dumb argument is this author’s apparent belief that contemporary Arab Islamism (or other religious politics) are somehow less influenced by European culture, colonialism and modernity than are secular nationalist forces. The only way to arrive at this conclusion is to fall hook, line and sinker for a completely ahistorical and obviously fraudulent claim on the part of Islamist parties to be resurrecting or continuing some form of premodern, precolonial tradition in the face of the “onslaught of Western culture.” In fact, of course, all forms of Islamism in the Arab world (and beyond) are entirely the products of modernity and the postcolonial experience, as least as much as secular nationalism ever was. Islamists are not trying to “return” to anything, they are building something entirely new and entirely modern, however reactionary and obscurantist, and they know it.

Is it possible to imagine the Muslim Brotherhood movement and network of political parties arising outside of the context of an emerging Arab modernity and without crucial influence of the Leninist revolutionary model? How can any form of Salafism, even apolitical religious versions, be read as anything other than a product of the same colonial and postcolonial realities that also and equally gave rise to secular nationalism at the same moment? Is it possible to imagine Ayatollah Khomeini’s “vilayyat e-faqih” innovation, which is a complete departure from all traditions of political-clerical authority in the Islamic world, arising in any other context than Iran’s postcolonial modernity? Al-Qaeda, as a virtual organization that often exists more on the Internet than anywhere else, is positively postmodern. Plainly, all of these gestures are as much a consequence of modernity as they are some kind of reaction to it, and while they certainly claim forms of superior cultural and religious “authenticity,” it requires a genuinely profound ignorance to accept these fatuous assertions.

The reality is that all political formations in the contemporary Arab world, including Palestine, are the products of the postcolonial experience and emerging forms of modernity. They are equidistant from both tradition and from colonial and Western influences, and claims of “authenticity” are transparent propaganda designed to appeal to credulous and politically unsophisticated constituents. Sadly, some Western professors are not only drinking, but have developed a positive addiction, to this particular brand of Kool-Aid.

[ the paper in question is:
Roger Heacock, “Of the Advantages (and Perils) of the Deficit of Securalism in Contemporary Palestinian Political Culture,” in Roger Heacock (ed.), “Temps et espaces en Palestine,” Beyrouth, Liban, Institut français du Proche-Orient (“Études contemporaines,” no. 25, p. 293-305), 2008.]

Daniel Byman of Georgetown University points out in Laura’s posting mentioned below, “Over the past 15 years, settlements have gone from being seen in Washington as an irritant, to the dominant issue.” I think this is very well put. The Obama administration is absolutely right to be focusing with crystalline intensity on the question of the settlements. The settlements are a dagger aimed at the heart of peace based on two states, the only plausible option for ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. They make the border much more difficult to draw, continuously expand the belligerent constituency in Israel that opposes peace, undermines Palestinian and Arab confidence in Israeli intentions, and for all these reasons and more undermine both the viability and the credibility of peace negotiations. It’s clear that President Obama, Secretary Clinton and others in the administration and in Congress have come to understand this. It is not, of course, clear yet whether or not they will be able to convince Israel to engage in a meaningful halt to settlement activity, but strong American engagement on the issue is probably the only way to prevent the Israeli government from digging the hole ever deeper.

For many months now my colleagues and I at the American Task Force on Palestine have been focused intently on the question of settlements and the need for a freeze. Over the past year or so, we decided, to put it politely, not to so much as visit the powder room without emphasizing the need for a settlement freeze. At the height of the Gaza war on January 8, 2009, ATFP President Ziad Asali spoke at a major conference organized by the United States Institute of Peace conference at the Washington Convention Center, and even at that time of violence and chaos pushed the question of a settlement freeze to the forefront. He said, “This issue of a settlement freeze should be on the top of the new Administration’s agenda,” and indeed it now is – much to the discomfort of the settlement, greater-Israel, pro-occupation and anti-peace constituency.

Numerous well-informed and serious minded people questioned the wisdom of foregrounding the issue of settlements at such a time. In retrospect, I trust that the logic of our refusal to be deterred from continuously returning to this central theme even during times of active conflict has now become apparent to all.

From Foreign Policy magazine’s site. It has a great title too — Netanyahu: "What the hell do they want from me?"

I see that the some of the more alert denizens of the Arab-American blogosphere have discovered, one month later, that I engaged in a well-publicized radio program with Israel’s consul general in Los Angeles on Middle East peace. The only thing surprising about their outrage is how long it took them to find out about it.

Naturally, the program raised the ire of As’ad AbuKhalil of the California Hezbollah Support Network, who as usual accuses me of working for Muhammad Dahlan (of all people!) I have never met or in any way communicated with Dahlan, with whom I have no connection whatsoever. To apply his own twisted “logic,” AbuKhalil has apparently been personally tasked by Hassan Nasrallah to speak for all sectarian Lebanese Shiites. AbuKhalil himself engaged in a colloquy with an Israeli diplomat in San Francisco recently, which was a virtual textbook of pointlessly obnoxious, completely counterproductive and puerile self-gratification. Clearly, this individual imagines himself to be the drum major in some sort of grand Arab march to oblivion, although the ranks behind him are entirely a figment of his own imagination.

Angry complaints also came from the Hamas Fan Club at the University of Chicago, also known as Ali Abunimah, who twittered, “Who asked ATFP’s Hussein Ibish (not-Palestinian) to ‘negotiate’ for Palestinians & surrender their rights?” This nonsense about “surrendering rights” aside, I work for and with all-Palestinian leadership and Board of Directors of ATFP, if he hasn’t figured that out already. Of course, the fact that I am Lebanese by both birth and dual citizenship never bothered Abunimah during the many years in which we collaborated and co-authored in opposition to the occupation and in support of Palestinian independence (a position he has now completely abandoned, in favor of, as he puts it, a “go Bibi!” pro-Netanyahu approach). Now that we disagree, my background is suddenly not only relevant, but disqualifying. Contrary to claims made in some of these tweets, I have never “passed myself off as a Palestinian,” even if some journalists have made this mistake, although I’m proud to work for a Palestinian-American organization. Indeed, I remember firmly demurring several years ago when the late Hisham Sharabi, at a formal meeting he was hosting, referred to me as “an honorary Palestinian.” I told him and the entire group present that in my view this is a meaningless expression, but that it is my honor to serve the dual and compatible causes of Palestinian national rights and peace in the Middle East.

And where would Larry and Moe be without Curly? On cue, and with their usual sophistication and maturity, the scintillating intellectuals at Kabobfest chimed in with this epic fail. This, of course, is the same blog that has in recent weeks denounced the arrest warrant issued against the president of Sudan for massive war crimes in Darfur, rushed to the defense of a Somali pirate and lauded Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s lamentable speech at the UN racism conference in Geneva.

It might be argued that if one is to have critics, it is best that they are slightly unhinged, so such preposterous blog postings and tweets do no harm whatsoever to me personally. However, the attitudes and sentiments that they promote reflect precisely how and why the Arab-American community has so effectively and for so long marginalized and defeated itself. We know precisely what this idiotic approach produces: nothing. Clearly it is high time for something more serious and more effective, and that is a theme that will no doubt become a regular feature of future postings this site.

Ever since I came to Washington DC 10 years ago and began working on Arab-American issues at the national level, people have been encouraging me to start a blog. For complex reasons, I never have until now. However, the proximate cause for beginning this blog deserves mentioning at the outset. Recently, a visiting scholar from North Africa at the Wilson Center came to see me to seek my advice on a project. She was attempting to study Arab-American political engagement by looking at community newspapers around the country, and was predictably dismayed by the quality and quantity of comment and analysis to be found in these publications. As we spoke, she began to wonder whether expanding her project to include Arab-American political blogs might produce a richer database that could form the basis of her research. She asked me if I could point her to the major Arab-American blogs on the Internet. 

This question threw the rather grim reality into sharp relief. I tried in vain to think of any reasonable, constructive and intelligent Arab-American political blog. In the end, I told her to take 24 hours and see what she could come up with on her own, as I did not want to take responsibility for pointing her in the direction of any of the well-known and frequently updated existing Arab-American blogs of which I am aware. Frankly, it was impossible to think of any major Arab-American blog that is not maintained by angry idiots, political extremists or overgrown juvenile delinquents. The next day she called me up and recited the same list of blogs I would have given her, and it was obvious that she recognized immediately that this commentary, if you can call it that, was not likely to add any depth to her project. My impression was that she had pretty well decided to change focus altogether given the paucity of serious social or political analysis either in print or online. 

I’m not sure what happened to her project, but this exchange led me to the conclusion that something needed to be done. My intention in this blog is to add a serious, responsible and constructive perspective to the Arab-American blogosphere, to reflect the universal values in which I deeply believe, and to provide a much-needed corrective to irresponsible and destructive rhetoric of many varieties, including political extremism of the left and the right, bigotry including both Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, opposition to peace in the Middle East, and religious fanaticism of all stripes. It is my hope that readers will find the commentary and analysis that is forthcoming to be interesting and engaging, even if they do not always agree with it. Above all, it is my hope to add a thoughtful, sincere and positive voice to the shrill din that passes for much of Arab-American political discourse online, that will reflect my decade of experience working in Washington DC and, I believe, the often-unrepresented views of many people in our community who want to seriously engage with our fellow citizens, our government and our political system.