Muslim Students at Berkeley Respond to Wajahat Ali’s Atlantic Piece, “A Muslim Among Israeli Settlers”

Since The Atlantic published Wajahat Ali’s piece, “A Muslim Among Israeli Settlers,” a firestorm has erupted within the North American Muslim community, largely focused on what seemed to most Muslim and pro-Palestinian readers to be an apology for Zionism, and the author’s relationship with the controversial Muslim Leadership Initiative.  I personally found the piece offensive for many reasons, particularly the way in which it tended to equate the religious fanaticism of the Israeli settlers with the determination of the Palestinians to resist their messianic fantasies.  I was particularly offended by his incredulous reaction to the Palestinian in Khalil (Hebron to those unable to move beyond the time frame of the Old Testament) who, despite being surrounded by fanatic Israeli settlers, was unwilling to sell his house to them for $4 million, or for any price.

In any case, there have been several excellent critiques of this article on Facebook, including this one by Sylvia Chan-Malik, deconstructing the sympathetic language Wajahat used to describe the Zionist settlers, with the judgmental and hectoring rhetoric he reserved for the Palestinians.  Hafsa Kanjwal also had on her Facebook page an excellent critique of Wajahat’s attempt to set the Kashmiri struggle against that of the Palestinians and exposed it for a classic case of “whataboutery”, noting her disgust as a Kashmiri that her struggle would be used to undermine that of the Palestinians.  Many others have been disgusted by his reaction of running to the Atlantic, and publishing there a complaint about the Muslim reaction to his first piece, which led the Islamic Society of North America to disinvite him to their annual conference.  He is now taking on the appearance of a free speech martyr as a result.

I have said before, and I will say it again: I greatly admire Wajahat’s work on Fear, Inc., the Roots of the Islamophobia Network.  It is ironic that since teaming up with MLI, he is actually cooperating with some of the very same funders of the Islamophobia Network in the name of inter-religious dialogue.  In a brief exchange with Wajahat on Facebook a couple of weeks ago after his first Atlantic article, I told him that he was not entitled to speak anywhere, and that he had to take responsibility for his participation in MLI, and he could either admit it was a mistake (which I counseled him to do), or defend it, and try to persuade us that we are mistaken.  But he could not attempt to hide from it, pretend it was not a big deal, and then resent being excluded by Muslim groups who find collaboration with Uber-Zionists to be, well, at a minimum, distasteful.

What many of us may not have heard, however, is the voices of Berkeley MSA students from the years Wajahat mentioned in his Atlantic piece. One of them sent me an essay he wrote in response to the Atlantic piece, defending the Berkeley MSA against Wajahat’s charges, and basically calling him out for many half-truths.  With his permission, I am reproducing the response below:

This is an informal (and long for FB) but necessary reply to Wajahat’s vulgar and ahistorical article and documentary in The Atlantic. His deeply offensive and inaccurate depiction of the Muslim Student Association at Berkeley, which I and others were proudly a part of during my undergraduate years when he was also present, is also unacceptable. I limit my riposte here to 14 specific examples because I enjoy neither the time nor patience to write a full length publishable rebuttal (nor desire to engage further, although I have been asked to write a piece by several friends). The article and documentary suffer from so many flaws that an appropriate response would easily consume many more pages.

1. He writes: “The conflict in the Holy Land superseded all other Muslim suffering, including the ongoing occupation of Kashmir, the repression of Chechen Muslims, and the daily racism experienced by many African-American Muslims.”

First, nobody disputes that Palestine is a central cause for Muslims for numerous reasons. Second, the second intifada broke out in 2000 (during our time at Berkeley) when the war criminal Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount. This further catapulted Palestine into the conscious of students. Who could forget the disturbing footage of 12 year-old Muhammad al-Durrah executed by the Zionists while crouching in the arms of his father?

Third, there were many events that covered Kashmir, Chechnya, and racism experienced by African-Americans. I can recall 7 off the top of my head, including but not limited to, an event where a Chechen doctor spoke of how his Hippocratic Oath forced him to treat Russian soldiers, numerous events on Malcolm X and racism against African-Americans, and a panel where Professor Algar spoke on Kashmir.

I do not recall Wajahat at many of these events. In fact, Wajahat was neither a History nor a Near Eastern Studies major. He fundamentally lacks any significant training in undergraduate or graduate school on Palestine and the Middle East. He was not recognized or respected as a decent student on any of these matters while at Berkeley.

2. He writes: “I became a bit actor in a never-ending cosmic drama. I would parrot a script written by others, and serve as a proxy soldier for a tragedy happening across the Atlantic.”

First, the Palestinian cause is not an abstract celestial fiction. It is real and it was real for the students at Berkeley. I vividly recall one of my best friends recounting how his mother miscarried at a Zionist checkpoint because the soldiers decided to act in a cruel manner and prevent her swift arrival at a hospital. Second, Muslims (i.e., those not Palestinian) often spoke about the desire to try and visit Al-Aqsa: should we risk the chance of humiliation, including possible sexual assault at airport security, to visit? It was real and relegating anything to a cosmic drama is ignorant and insulting.

Third, nobody was parroting a script written by others. Who is he referring to here? Professor Hatem Bazian? Professor Hamid Algar? There was certainly no script arriving in the mail. We are deeply grateful for the education we received at Berkeley, and I am forever indebted for the opportunity to be educated about Palestine. Everything I learned has withstood the test of time and the acquisition of more knowledge.

3. He writes: “The Jewish kids from the campus Hillel were my foil.”

In fact, many of the Zionists from the Hillel were the most racist and vile people one could ever come across. Many of them served in the IDF and it is no exaggeration to say that many of them probably engaged in war crimes. They regularly spoke of exterminating Palestinians and taunted Muslims.

Any notion that Muslims were picking on innocent Jewish kids is completely inaccurate and defamatory. While it may be argued that he is speaking for himself, I reject that view within the context of the article. He repeatedly uses the personal pronoun “we.”

4. He writes: “We showed up to ‘debates,’ predictable affairs where each side cheered and booed when appropriate but rarely engaged in a constructive dialogue.”

First, he actually was not present at many of these debates. Second, it was a mix of dialogue and debate.

Third, these debates-and others held throughout university campuses over the past few decades-have played a leading role in informing others about the injustices of the Zionists. The tide has definitively turned on college campuses in part because of grassroots activism. This was a bottom-up movement, and many of the students from our time at Berkeley are now national leaders.  Countless bystanders, including Jews, thanked me and others for taking the time to discuss Palestine.

Jewish groups are increasingly raising their criticisms of policies towards Palestinians and questioning the very identity of Israel as a Jewish state that subjugates non-Jewish citizens, including Christians.

5. He writes: “We thought we were differentiating Judaism from Zionism, the political ideology espoused by Theodor Herzl at the turn of the 20th century, which argued for the creation of a Jewish state in the Jews’ ancestral homeland of Israel.”

First, the majority of us who were far more immersed in these matters DID differentiate between Zionism and Judaism. One simple example: we regularly learned about, relied on, and cited the work of Jewish human rights organizations such as B’Tselem. We learned about the New Historians, Jewish authors (including Ilan Pappe) who are rewriting the false narratives about the founding of the Zionist regime. Second, this is an example of the ahistorical nature of the article: he needs to do his homework on the trajectory of viewpoints of Theodor Herzl.

6. He writes: “I also remain committed to keeping this conflict from continually leaching into America, poisoning the relations between the religions and inspiring the worst, drunk angels of Jewish and Muslim communities to rise and fight in a Pyrrhic battle.”

First, the conflict is not continually leaching into America. America is the foremost supporter and supplier of the Zionist regime, not a third party neutral player unwittingly sucked into the crisis. AIPAC is ranked as the second most influential lobby behind the NRA. He completely ignores the intersectionality of myriad issues—something that American Muslims did not actually sign up for voluntarily.

Second, it is not a Pyrrhic battle. It is a battle for human rights, for dignity, for self-determination, and against genocide. It IS a battle worth fighting, although obviously not for him.

7. He writes: “I asked whether she also blamed the Palestinian youth for instigating some of the conflicts outside her home by throwing stones and burning tires.”

This is the question regularly posed by the worst war criminals. In the most generous reading of the question-one that assumes the best intentions-it may have been posed to provide space for a Palestinian response. Yet it still falls completely flat for two reasons. First, the mere framing of such a question elicits the most repulsive lie: that Palestinian youth deserve some blame for the conflict. Second, it is a lie that has been refuted a million times over again and thus any such question contributes nothing new to the debate.

8. He asks a settler: “It is almost like the settlers are building homes on hot lava.”

The implication is clear: Palestinians are like lava ready to explode like a volcano. For somebody who claims to be a journalist, he is surely cognizant of such blatant bias.

9. He asks the same settler: “Are they (settlers) helping create this cycle of dysfunction?”

Again, the framing of the question is silly and insulting. A similar question: Did slave owners help create inequality and dysfunction? Except for children, the settlers are fully aware of the choices they are making. Their behavior does not deserve to be normalized.

10. After meeting the father of a Palestinian who chose to attack the settlers, he states: “I didn’t see any remorse, I didn’t see any condemnation.” Antepli responds: “No kidding, Omar is a hero now?”

First, Palestinians have every moral, religious, and legal right under international law to participate in armed resistance against an occupying force that is engaging in genocide. Second, nobody has the right to judge them otherwise—particularly those who fly in and fly out on a fully paid and choreographed visit.

11. He reflects: “Israel is on the edge of losing its soul.”

That train passed a long time ago.

12. “Israel and Palestinians hijacked by absolutists from all sides.”

Yet another inaccurate depiction that presumes, at a minimum, a current and historical balance of power. No wonder Jeffrey Goldberg, an ardent Zionist serving as editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, is circulating the article and documentary.

13. He writes: “But what my first trip with the initiative did for me was this: It turned the Jews into complicated humans. It exposed me to their narratives.”

This is stunning: as a grown man did he not realize that Jews, like all other humans, are complicated? Again, very bizarre and extraordinarily immature. Perhaps a strictly personal reflection would have been more appropriate.

14. He reflects: “I’m just curious if these two sides could even talk.”

Another example of the absurdity of the piece, one that projects two equally unwilling parties. Palestinians have repeatedly engaged in talks, as has the larger Arab and Islamic world. Remember the Oslo Accords?

Final thoughts.

First, it is Wajahat that is parroting a script. Part of that script entails engaging in what Professor Norman Finkelstein calls the “mystification” of Palestine. What does this refer to? It relates to the efforts of Zionists and their collaborators to complicate the nature of the Zionist project and to present the crisis as an epistemological abstraction with competing “truths” where nobody is correct. This is not the case.

Second, the depiction of the MSA and student activism must be placed in the broader context of the efforts of the Shalom Hartman Institute and Zionists to delegitimize activists as immature, irresponsible, and harmful to peace. The Zionists are working on multiple fronts, including courts and legislatures, to criminalize support of BDS and criticism of Zionism on college campuses.

Third, those who say Wajahat is being employed as a pawn are incorrect. Give him his respect. He knows exactly what he is doing. Many people have kindly reached out to him and he has rejected the pleas of those infinitely more knowledgeable than him about Palestine. He is making informed decisions, despite his insouciant invitations for dialogue.

Fourth, he regularly points out various biases, including in media and in movies, against Muslims. On the other hand, he disregards the reality that these biases intersect with Palestine and that the Zionists need to garner support for their regime by vilifying Muslims and Arabs. Again, these biases cannot be an error that gets resolved with statements assuring his critics that he is praying for everybody.

Fifth, for the uninformed, the article and documentary obfuscate numerous issues. For the informed, contrary to any solipsistic pretension of Wajahat, there is little contribution to any discussion/debate.

Of course, he is entitled to his own opinions. The many organizations that are boycotting him and his collaborators are equally entitled to their rightful position.

Finally, he is, however, not entitled to skew the record and the righteous activism of the MSA at Berkeley; to directly and indirectly disparage our teachers; to exaggerate his own role and experiences at Berkeley; to project his own moral, spiritual, and intellectual failings as an undergraduate and adult on to others; and to day trade on the Palestinian cause in a deceitful and inaccurate manner to advance his own career.