By Luke Peterson

July/Aug 2024

The great majority of U.S. pundits and talking heads within the authoritative news media estimate that between 80 and 100 of our country’s institutions of higher learning are currently in turmoil, having seen a wellspring of protest encampments as the Spring semester of 2024 ends. 

Located on many universities green spaces, their occupants gather to protest Israel’s ongoing war against Gazans (and to a less immediate extent, the West Bank) and, more specifically, to seek to compel their respective universities to divest from Israeli war industries. In so doing, they are both defying university edicts against such public displays and facing intimidation and threats from universities and/or city officials who declare such assemblies unlawful, against university policy or, using an all-too-familiar mode of castigation, antisemitic. 

Many of these brave students have been disciplined, punished, censured or expelled for their humanitarian actions for Palestine. In other places, particularly universities across the South, students have been set upon by riot police or National Guardsmen, even though Lois Beckett, writing for The Guardian (May 10), noted that nearly all of their activities have been peaceful and non-threatening to staff or students on campus. 

In all, 2,000+ students and supporting faculty members have been arrested and an untold number maced, trampled or beaten by police. In one case, Columbia and Barnard University students arrested at encampments during the first week of May were tortured via denial of food and water for 16 hours (Akela Lacy, May 6, https://theintercept.com). 

But what has prompted this organic expression of solidarity with Palestine among American university students now? One obvious answer is the duration of Israel’s current cruelty toward Gaza’s civilian population, all funded and at least tacitly supported within their country’s halls of power. 

But a closer look at the proscription of academic discourse surrounding Palestine and Israel may provide a more detailed answer. Indeed, the university system has seen a notable uptick in activity from a number of well-organized and evidently well-funded organizations. Their remit is to censor students, professors and other members of university communities nationwide who accuse Israel of crimes against humanity or suggest that its targeted attacks against Palestinian civilians — 40,000+ deaths in Gaza since October 2023 — constitute genocide (Julia Frankel, https://apnews.com, April 6).

One such organization that exists solely to target and condemn any human rights advocacy in North American academia is the online extremist organization Canary Mission (https://canarymission.org/). Its raison d’être is to meticulously document any scholarship and advocacy that is even remotely critical of Israel or its primary paymaster, the U.S. Canary Mission has organized branches in North America for the stated purpose of documenting “individuals and organizations that promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews on North American college campuses and beyond.” Their scope and reach is as ambitious as it is broad, and they clearly view their remit in contemporary political discourse as critical — their website tagline reads, “Because the world should know.”

In that regard, that organization and this author agree. The world should know that, despite protestations to the contrary, Canary Mission is an explicitly political organization whose operational goals have nothing to do with creating safe spaces for university students or protecting marginalized or vulnerable populations. Rather, it seeks to silence every utterance of Israeli criminality, past or present, across North American university campuses. 

For example, its “Organizations” tab brazenly equates international media organizations like Al-Jazeera with neo-Nazi agitators like the Daily Stormer and the Goyim Defense League. Such falsification of plainly non-existent connections makes Canary Mission’s painfully clear: Paint with as broad a brush as possible, condemn and associate as many individuals as possible and tarnish all who dare to criticize Israel as hateful antisemites no matter the truth or logic of their arguments. It’s a clumsy practice, as dishonest as it is dangerous, and potentially, if defamation laws were to be applied fairly and on balance, an illegal one. 

Operating with an identifiable hubris and self-importance, Canary Mission clearly fears no reprisals for publicly listing the names and affiliations of professors and students, aid organizations and media outlets, who speak out against the ongoing genocide. Its operations seem to grow daily: pointing out and castigating as many critics of Israel as they can, maneuvering with increasing impunity in the wake of the militarized American response to the ongoing university protests, and Canada’s very tepid response to the protests of hundreds of Canadian students and organizations. 

In sum, any U.S. university student questioning Israel’s official narratives about its creation and brutal military record over 75 years, or publicly asking about this country’s uncritical fealty to Israel, is a suitable target for identification. Reminiscent of other oppressive, authoritarian organizations, the Canary Mission’s blacklists continue to grow.

A similarly constituted group, the anti-Palestine propaganda initiative CAMERA (Committee For Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis; www.camera.org) and Camera on Campus, targets and defames pro-Palestinian groups located on American university campuses. Its supporters take videos of pro-Palestine demonstrations and protests, spuriously reclassifies them publicly as hate speech or antisemitic antagonism and then posts the humanitarian demonstrators’ personal details online to engender negative professional and personal consequences for them. 

Professing to be non-partisan defenders of the truth behind Zionism, Camera on Campus (https://cameraoncampus.org/), like other anti-Palestine hate groups, deliberately ignores Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948-49, its mass confiscation of land designated for a future Palestinian state via the U.S.-funded settler movement since 1967. Camera on Campus also deliberately obfuscates the idea of indigeneity within historic Palestine, using an indigenous spokesperson from American Samoa in a highly skewed and historically inaccurate video on their X page to praise with false laurels the Zionist colonial project. 

The intent of this loose coalition of anti-Palestine groups is to quieten any and all criticism of Israel on American university campuses and to do their best to dehumanize Palestinians to the greatest extent possible. This hate campaign is being conducted alongside a simultaneous repackaging of organic pro-Palestine university demonstrations as thinly veiled antisemitism, a baseless hatred of Jews as a whole. 

In effect, these groups intend to gaslight membership of the American academy by convincing the public writ large that the Palestinian victims of genocidal oppression are in fact the victimizers of Israel and global Jewry. Supporters of Palestine are falsely castigated as mindless thugs, and as modern-day brownshirts who intend anti-Jewish violence simply for the sake of it while having no coherent political agenda to speak of. 

The monitoring, outing and doxing campaigns organized by Canary Mission, CAMERA, and other like minded organizations censor free speech and humanitarian action focused on aiding the besieged and bombarded Palestinians of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They have had real-world, lasting consequences for conscientious student-activists. Emboldened by the false equivalence that equate legitimate criticism of Israel with blanket antisemitism, in the months since campus protests have mounted against the Israeli genocide in Palestine, Zane McNeill notes that a number of otherwise talented and qualified university students nationwide have had job offers rescinded (https://truthout.org, Oct. 19, 2023).

In other cases, protesters for Palestine have been disciplined, fired or denied tenure simply for being outspoken on behalf of Palestinian rights within the context of the American educational and political system (https://www.chicagotribune.com/2019/03/06/steven-salaita-rejected-by-u-of-i-over-israel-tweets-seems-to-have-found-peace-driving-a-school-bus/).

These cancellations, broken promises and false equivalencies continue to haunt doxed pro-Palestinian speakers in the academy and in professional circles around the country. This reality demonstrates these techniques’ effectiveness and the damaging nature of the sanctioned anti-Palestine hate speech now common within popular discourse. As such, it would seem evident that the much-lauded right to free speech said to resonate throughout this country in the contemporary political era continues to be conditioned by that speech’s content and the speaker(s) in question’s proper alignment with the ideological and/or political interests of both the U.S. and Israel. 

Luke Peterson received his Ph.D. from the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies at The University of Cambridge — (King’s College). His new book, “The U.S. Military in the Print News Media: Service and Sacrifice in Discourse,” has been published by Anthem Press.

Tell us what you thought by joining our Facebook community. You can also send comments and story pitches to [email protected]. Islamic Horizons does not publish unsolicited material.  

The post A License to Hate appeared first on Islamic Horizons.

By Sandra Whitehead

July/Aug 2024

After six months of protests and social media campaigns, plus constant calls and emails to government representatives to demand a ceasefire in Gaza, an energetic and astute band of young organizers, who call themselves “Listen to Wisconsin,” decided to take their protest to the ballot box.

“We are one of the states that often determines the presidential election, and by a narrow margin,” Listen to Wisconsin’s communications director Halah Ahmad said March 19 at the launch of the group’s Wisconsin Vote Uninstructed Campaign. “A majority of Americans have called for a ceasefire for months. This campaign is driven by people who are using democracy to make their demands heard.”

Inspired by the success of Listen to Michigan’s Vote Uncommitted Campaign, which secured more than 100,000 (about 13%) “uncommitted” votes in Michigan’s February Democratic primary, Wisconsin ceasefire advocates decided to register their own protest vote in the Democratic primary against the Biden administration’s support for military aid to Israel during its offensive in Gaza.

Israel’s post-Oct. 7 bombing of Gaza “is one of the most intense civilian punishment campaigns in history,” said University of Chicago political science professor Robert Pape, quoted by the Associated Press, Julia Frankel, “Israel’s military campaign in Gaza seen as among the most destructive in recent history, experts say,” AP Jan. 11, 2024.

The Palestinian death toll in Gaza from Oct. 7, 2023 to April 3, 2024 stood at 41,000, according to Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor. It included 15,370 children, 9,671 women and 37,676 civilians. (The Gaza Health Ministry’s official casualty total was lower but widely viewed as incomplete, NPR reported.)

Leveraging the Power of the Vote

“We are focused on immediate policy impact,” Ahmad announced to the small crowd in front of Milwaukee’s City Hall for the Wisconsin Vote Uninstructed Campaign launch. “We want the White House to take action right now to stop the violence in Gaza.” 

Listen to Wisconsin’s demands include:

• An immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza,
• An end to the siege of Gaza,
• Reinstating humanitarian aid and UNRWA funding,
• And an end to unrestricted aid to Israel.

“Our hope is that by pressuring Biden in the primary, we can change his position on the war to align with the vast majority of voters who want a ceasefire,” she explained. “How people vote in November may just depend on what Biden does between now and then.”

Success in the Primary

When Listen to Wisconsin launched its campaign on the state’s first day of early voting, it had just two weeks to secure 20,682 “uninstructed” votes in the Democratic primary—Joe Biden’s 2020 margin of victory in Wisconsin against Donald Trump. (“Uninstructed” is an option on Wisconsin’s primary ballot to vote for none of your party’s candidates. Some states use the terms “uncommitted” or “no preference.” Not all states have this option on their primary ballots.) That would show Biden he needs to change course to win Wisconsin, organizers said.

As vote tallies came in on election day, Listen to Wisconsin’s lead strategist and Wisconsin Vote Uninstructed Campaign manager Reema Ahmad said in an interview on Al Jazeera, May 22, “We only need to show around 20,000 votes tonight … We know we have more than that in terms of supporters. We know we’ve got momentum at our backs and the unique opportunity to deliver this message once and for all—that Biden needs to listen to a majority of us saying, ‘End this genocide. We need a permanent, unconditional ceasefire and an end to military funding.’”

That evening, Listen to Wisconsin’s election watch party buzzed with victory. Within an hour of the polls closing, Wisconsin Vote Uninstructed Campaign surpassed its goal. “That means we can show we have the margin of victory,” Reema Ahmad exclaimed in a post-primary press conference. “In a typical primary election, voter turnout is on the lower end, and we had abysmal weather yesterday. Despite that, we not only exceeded, we more than doubled our goal.”

The campaign passed its goal two and a half times, winning more than 47,800 votes. 

At the post-primary press conference, Halah Ahmad described her feelings about the campaign’s success. “Everybody was overwhelmed by the opportunity to finally be heard in a way they haven’t felt for the past six months on the streets, in phone calls, in emails,” she said. “It has been very gratifying to feel that moral clarity echoed and reflected in everyone around you.”

Demonstrating power

In an interview in mid-May with Islamic Horizons, campaign manager Reema Ahmad admitted, “The Biden administration’s lip service but lack of action has been very disappointing. 

“You can’t call for a temporary ceasefire and at the same time approve billions of dollars more in arm sales,” she said. “You can’t drop food aid and bombs on a population. That is unacceptable.

“When you see what is happening with our tax dollars, it’s incumbent on us to take a stand,” she added. “We have a duty to the people experiencing a man made famine to do everything we can to stop it.” 

The ability of five swing states to demonstrate the power of the vote gives hope, she noted. Statewide polls of five battleground states show “Gaza voters” could impact the November presidential election. Ceasefire advocates hope that gives Biden an incentive to make a course correction.

Americans for Justice in Palestine Action, a nonprofit organization advocating for legislation supporting the human rights of the Palestinian people, commissioned YouGov, a global public opinion and data company, to conduct surveys in early May to assess the impact of Biden’s Gaza policy on his reelection chances. It surveyed a representative sample of 2,500 voters registered as Democrats or Independents across five states (Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin). 

A critical margin of voters (roughly one in five) across all five states were found to be less likely to vote for Biden because of his handling of the war in Gaza. Voters polled showed overwhelming support of a ceasefire, with 40% saying that imposing an immediate and lasting ceasefire, conditioning aid to Israel and ensuring full entry of humanitarian aid would make them more likely to vote for Biden in November (see https://ajpaction.org/thegazavote/).

In addition to demonstrating popular support, the Wisconsin Uninstructed Campaign received the endorsements of more than 25 Wisconsin elected officials, 20 grassroots advocacy organizations and 25 faith leaders.

“What we have right now is a mandate from Wisconsin, from a critical margin of Biden’s base saying, ‘You need to change course. You need to finally listen to a majority of Americans calling for a permanent ceasefire and an end to military funding,’” Reema Ahmad said. “Then we can look at November. That is how we open up the pathway to save democracy at the end of this year.

“We still have several months until the election,” Ahmad noted. “We have been clear about what we want. The ball is solidly in Biden’s court.”

*Halah and Reema Ahmad are sisters from Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Sandra Whitehead, an author, educator and journalist based in Milwaukee, is the lead reporter for the Wisconsin Muslim Journal.

 Tell us what you thought by joining our Facebook community. You can also send comments and story pitches to [email protected]. Islamic Horizons does not publish unsolicited material.  

The post From Protests to Political Action appeared first on Islamic Horizons.

By Luke Peterson

July/Aug 2024

On May 1, the 118th U.S. Congress passed the so-called Antisemitism Awareness Act (H.R.6090), a sweeping piece of sociopolitical legislation introduced by arch-conservative Representative Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.). The bill easily passed through the House — 320-91 — and, as of this writing, is being sent to the Senate for consideration. To an extent, this bill’s passage reflected the partisan thinking in the U.S. on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: 187 Republicans and 133 Democrats favoring it against 21 Republicans and 70 Democrats opposing (“House approves antisemitism bill amid pro-Palestinian campus protests,” Mychael Schnell and Lexis Lonas, https://thehill.com, May 1).

And though some cracks are beginning to show in the united pro-Israel American political front, as of yet the two mega-parties remain in lockstep in their devotion to the self-declared Jewish state (see this author’s article “Government by Highest Bidder” considering the origins of the U.S. support for Israel in the May-June_24 edition of this magazine.  

At the heart of this new legislation is a semantic though critically important alteration to the standard definition of antisemitism to be applied within the federal Department of Education (DoE), the office responsible for creating and implementing policies that affect this nation’s schools and institutions of higher education. The new definition to be adopted would mirror that used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism.

A Vaguer Definition for Antisemitism 

IHRA was established in 1988 by former Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson as “an effort to foster international cooperation on disseminating information about the Holocaust.” Upon his invitation, former Prime Minister Tony Blair and former President Bill Clinton joined in. This staggeringly broad definition identifies antisemitism as any form of print or speech that enforces “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” Writing for Aljazeera on May 8, Federica Marsi’s article asks, “Will the US adopt IHRA’s anti-Semitism definition? What’s the controversy?”. 

She further notes that this vaguely worded definition, now one step away from becoming legal policy in all institutions under the DoE’s purview, goes on to impugn “Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism … directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities” (emphasis added). 

Under this new federal framing, antisemitism could rationally be said to include any rhetorical argument against Jewish persons or indeed, against non-Jewish persons or property for reasons construed by the observer to be antisemitic. At the level of the federal government, soon this term will mean whatever an observer of that speech wants it to mean with all associated castigations and punishments 

In essence, much like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s censorial definition of obscenity and pornography in 1964, the Antisemitism Awareness Act aims to give the federal government the vehicle through which to identify antisemitism as anything it deems to be antisemitic, or, in Potter’s words, “I know it when I see it.” 

This overbroad and clearly fallible definition is soon to become official federal policy. Moreover, the penalties for violating this new, elastic legal pretext could be incredibly severe. Clearly designed to handicap pro-Palestine speech and/or any humanitarian action, its authors intended to create an impossibly elastic definition, such as the one adopted by the IHRA, to further extend federal protections for Israel in contemporary American discourse. At the same time, adopting it would have the concomitant effect of tightening the noose around those with a humanitarian defense of the Palestinians, their right to life, even their very humanity within Washington’s operational halls of government. 

Consequences

Identifying Israel as a settler-colonial enterprise, for example, would violate the new act despite the similarities between Israeli actions in Gaza and the West Bank with previous settler colonial states like France in Algeria and Britain in Kenya. Additionally, any assertion that Israel’s policies are genocidal or resemble, in intent and/or implementation, that actions of the Nazis toward those they deemed “unworthy of life” would likewise be a clear violation and could very easily confront the author with legal consequences associated with racist hate speech. 

To put a finer point on it, for those who might consider this kind of sweeping legislative and discursive defense of Israel a positive step, it is not hyperbole to suggest that several Biblical passages would be sufficiently antisemitic to warrant censure and punishment for it states that the Jewish elders of ancient Palestine’s Jewish community were responsible for Jesus’ arrest and eventual crucifixion. Following along from the IHRA definition, wouldn’t the preservation of this long-held Christian tradition be tantamount to antisemitic hate speech under the expansive new federal definition? 

The new measure would therefore portend much more than a conditioning of speech around a marginalized American population. Rather, legislation such as the recent HR 6090 intends to criminalize speech or acts moving outside the standard of Washington’s current policy priorities, namely, the unapologetic sustenance and support of Israel regardless of the level of violence it perpetrates upon the Palestinian people. The measure recalls previous instances of federal legislation and attendant legal proceedings nakedly intended to promote one line of political thought while criminalizing another. 

We’ve Seen This Before

Three-quarters of a century ago, the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA, or alternatively, HUAC) heard public testimony from politicians, artists, actors and other well-known figures on the extent of their sympathy for communism as an ideology operating in the post-WW2 world. From 1946 through 1975, this congressional committee sought to identify and shame communists or socialists in the U.S., spending exorbitant sums of money to hunt down and publicly out members of the Communist Party of the United States and its allies. Through these proceedings, HUAC blacklisted artists, sullied reputations and cast a virtually indiscriminate net of aspersions nationwide not for any action that caused actual harm, but for the thought crime of (allegedly) supporting a political ideology contrary to our own. 

Does the proposed blanket and indiscriminate new definition of antisemitism portend the same kinds of consequences today?  If so, does it not conflict directly with that most lauded of American values, the right to free speech? 

Some have argued that it does. Opposing the measure was an odd coalition of progressive Democrats who recognize this newly passed bill’s blatant anti-Palestinian nature, along with a number of conservative small-government Republicans who believe that it goes too far in curtailing the free-speech protections clearly adumbrated in the Constitution. The latter group notably included the 2020 election-denier Greene (R-Ga.) and alleged sex trafficker Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who, on May 1, opined on X that “this legislation is written without regard for the Constitution, common sense, or even the common understanding of the meaning of words.” 

In this debate then, the adage holds true: Politics has once again made strange bedfellows aligning the viewpoints of the few openly pro-Palestinian voices in Congress — Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Alexandra Ocasio-Corez (D-N.Y.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) chief among them — with the opinions of fringe and ultra-conservative politicians like the afore-mentioned Gaetz and Greene. The question remains whether this bizarre coalition will have enough influence to stop the Antisemitism Awareness Act before it passes through the Senate and becomes federal law governing thought, speech and action within the U.S. 

As Israel’s genocidal war rages on, the U.S. enters another feverish election cycle. The office of the presidency is once again to be contested by two venal and self-interested candidates from either end of the narrow spectrum that circumscribes political opinion. As in 2020, in 2024 these same two wealthy, nepotistic, self-serving and ancient white male presidential candidates disagree on virtually every major talking point concerning American domestic and foreign policy. And yet, one after the other they’ve publicly embraced Israel in all of its violent manifestations time and time again (Joe Biden’s recent decision to delay weapons sales to Israel ahead of their catastrophic invasion of Rafah notwithstanding — especially when the U.S. has already supplied $800 million worth of weapons for the most recent Israeli campaign against Palestine). 

And like the rabid, knee-jerk nationalism embraced by the House Un-American Activities Committee during the 1950s and 1960s, the Antisemitism Awareness Act promises to provide whoever should inhabit the office from 2024-28 with ample firepower to continue to identify and criminalize specific forms of speech. In effect, this act would condemn expressions of Palestinian humanity while creating yet more freedoms and discursive space around speech championing Israeli policy and practice no matter how brutal, illegal or inhumane.

Luke Peterson received his Ph.D. from the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies at The University of Cambridge — (King’s College). His new book, The U.S. Military in the Print News Media: Service and Sacrifice in Discourse, has been published by Anthem Press.

Tell us what you thought by joining our Facebook community. You can also send comments and story pitches to [email protected]. Islamic Horizons does not publish unsolicited material.  

The post Hate Mainstreamed  appeared first on Islamic Horizons.

By Luke Peterson

May/Jun 2024

AIPAC has been on a spending spree. In the last quarter of 2023 and in the first two months of 2024, it has been working overtime pouring millions of dollars into the outstretched hands of avaricious American politicians on both sides of the aisle in the politically divided United States. Its current spree is setting records; in November 2023 alone the fervently pro-Israeli political action committee donated $3.7 million dollars to politicians — ostensibly to fund their election campaigns. According to the Federal Election Commission, this one-month total marks the single highest month of giving in AIPAC’s famously generous history.

The largest single recipient of this lavish aid was Rep. Richie Torres (D-N.Y.), whose November 2023 gift totaled more than $200,000. In return, he has suddenly become incredibly vocal in his criticism of fellow party members who have been outspoken against Israel’s indiscriminate bombing in Gaza. This progressive end of the Democratic Party in federal government, the pejoratively named “Squad,” includes diverse, female party members like Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. 

Tlaib, a Palestinian-American, has publicly called upon the Biden administration to denounce Israeli war crimes in Gaza and end military aid to Israel. Torres responded to legislation designed to mitigate the prolific death and destruction wrought by Israel by voting with nearly all House Republicans to censure Tlaib for “promoting false narratives” about the situation in Gaza and, absurdly, for “calling for the destruction of the state of Israel.” 

Donald Shaw, writing for https://truthout.org (Jan. 3), reported that Torres received his largest single payment — about a third of the overall $200,000 haul — just one day after he voted to censure his colleague and fellow party member.

And Torres is not alone. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), the second largest recipient, has come out strongly against conditioning all or part of the annual $4 billion aid package to Israel and has continued to loudly and proudly proclaim his support for Israel. His devotion to Israel has paid off, literally. According to Open Secrets, AIPAC has gifted him more than $1,250,000 over the last decade. As payment for his support of Israel’s ongoing post-Oct.7 indiscriminate bombing of Gaza, it awarded him an additional $200,000 contribution to his future electoral campaigns. It seems clear that being a vocal supporter of Israel in Washington, in addition to being a vocal critic of voices championing Palestinian humanity, pays very well indeed. 

But AIPAC is far from unique in using financial leverage to steer Washington in the direction of specific policy outcomes. Indeed lobbying, technically defined as “the deliberate attempt to effect or to resist change in the law through direct communications with public policymakers including legislators, legislative staff, and executive branch officials,” has long been entrenched in American politics — even predating the establishment of the federal government (Ostas, D. T. [2007]. “The Law and Ethics of K Street.” Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(1), 33–63. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27673157). Jan. 21, 2010 will mark the day when the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial (5:4) decision that reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections.

During the colonial period, land agents and manufacturing and shipping firms’ representatives beseeched lawmakers to advance the policies most favorable to their interests. Adopting tactics learned from negotiations with British parliamentarians, these special interest groups provided lavish gifts and decadent suppers to legislators. After the revolution, groups organized to petition the newly created federal government for preferential laws around commerce, trade, traffic and taxes. 

For example, former soldiers in the Continental Army of Virginia lobbied Congress for the back pay they felt they were owed for fighting the British. Their success quickly taught them that, when petitioning the government, there was strength in numbers. But this strength was clearly not nearly as formidable as the strength of the dollar.

By the 1870s, in the midst of the Gilded Age, a period of profound division between haves and have-nots. In the full embrace of the Industrial Revolution, hand-to-mouth workers could scarcely sustain themselves on the paltry wages paid by their industrial managers in the North; freedmen and sharecroppers continued to be brutalized and denigrated in the South. But lobbying continued in Washington apace with well-known lobbyists serving as indispensable middlemen between big business and lawmakers on the take. 

Perhaps the most famous member of this clique was Sam Ward, the “King of the Lobby,” whose lavish parties and easy-going charm were the stuff of legend among the propertied and influential classes. In 1875, though, in a rare case of a court bringing lobbying to heel, Ward was charged and ultimately convicted of bribery. But despite this, he famously quipped, “I do not say I am proud—but I am not ashamed—of the occupation.” Further restrictions on lobbyists, both foreign and domestic, were still to come (“Lobbying Timeline.” [July 2014] https://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/lobbying_timeline.php).

In 1938, Congress passed the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which forced representatives working for foreign political or domestic capital interests to disclose their relationships with politicians. The act was intended to make it easier for officials to identify colleagues who had any connections with, or even sympathy for, Germany’s burgeoning Nazi Party and the fascist ideology it represented. Congress worried that those officials with interests in Germany would become a fifth column and begin to flood American airwaves with pro-Nazi propaganda just as the U.S. was moving closer to war against Germany. Narrow in scope though it was, this act marked the first significant piece of legislation concerning the widespread practice of lobbying passed by the U.S. government. 

After the war and amidst continuing fears over the undue foreign influence within the federal government, Congress passed the Lobby Registration Act of 1945, identifying professional lobbyists as anyone who spent at least half of his/her working hours directly lobbying members of the U.S. government. 

In addition to being publicly identified as professional lobbyists, these individuals now had to register with the Secretary of the Senate and/or the Clerk of the House of Representatives and file quarterly reports disclosing the details of their activities within these bodies. The registration, regulation and transparency inherent within this act identified lobbying as a problematic practice on Capitol Hill and attempted to curb the influence of prolific donors and outside operators within American halls of power. 

But the postwar trend of leaning toward transparency of governmental operations naturally couldn’t last. In 1954 (United States vs. Harriss), the Supreme Court narrowed the act’s purview by determining that it applied only to face-to-face meetings between lobbyists and lawmakers, and even then, only when a specific piece of legislation was the exclusive topic of discussion. This extensive mitigation opened the door for the return of old school American lobbying and all but ensured that no federal court would ever catch or prosecute any of its violators. Lawlessness through lobbying had returned to Washington. 

By the 1980s, lobbyists from every major corporate interest made permanent landfall in Washington, wining and dining Senators and Representatives without any concern for legal consequences. Eventually the recklessness that inevitably results from abandoning regulation led to systemic abuse. In 2004, Jack Abramoff, a Gilded-Age style lobbyist, was arrested for bribery, fraud and embezzlement and was ultimately convicted for what had become common practice among lobbyists overseen and embraced by the Washington elite. This conviction, and the common knowledge that bribery was rife in Washington, led to the passage of the comically titled 2007 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. Lobbyists were now required to file reports twice per quarter, and the size and scope of the gifts congresspeople were allowed to receive from them were limited (“Lobbying Timeline.” [July 2014]. https://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/lobbying_timeline.php). 

But even these miniscule restrictions on the tradition of legitimate bribery were considered too onerous. The solution was simple: rebranding. As a result, since 2011 the number and expenditure of professional lobbyists has decreased dramatically. During that same period of time, though, the number of “advisers,” “consultants” and “counselors” working on behalf of foreign and domestic interests has risen precipitously. And despite its lofty title, federal legislation has not yet caught up to this completely predictable loophole. 

And so lobbying remains part and parcel of our government’s function. More than that, it remains an essential pillar of the American system, a legitimated form of barely regulated bribery enshrined within the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” and sustained by generations of legal precedent self-sustaining policy decisions. These developments leave AIPAC and other blindly unapologetic pro-Israel super-PACs, like the Democratic Majority for Israel, comfortably unconcerned about their conduct within the American political circus. It also leaves the status quo, wherein vocal supporters of Israel are financially rewarded while critics of Israeli brutality are categorically censured, as the operating order of the day. 

To date, AIPAC has contributed more than $18 million to candidates for office in the 2024 election cycle. Experts suggest that they will spend more than $100 million in Democratic primaries alone before this year’s election cycle is over. To date, Israel has killed more than 30,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip since October 2023.

Dr. Luke Peterson received his Ph.D. from the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies at The University of Cambridge – (King’s  College). His new book, The U.S. Military in the Print News Media:

Service and Sacrifice in Discourse is now available for preorder through Anthem Press  The U.S. Military in the Print News Media (anthempress.com)

Tell us what you thought by joining our Facebook community. You can also send comments and story pitches to [email protected]. Islamic Horizons does not publish unsolicited material.  

The post Government by the Highest Bidder appeared first on Islamic Horizons.

By Carissa Lamkahouan

May/Jun 2024

Initially, Karina Guillen just wanted to stay silent about it — at least on her social media channels.

A married mother of two who reverted in 2019 and considered herself relatively young in the faith, she thought it would be better for her to learn about Islam and its practices before delving into the Palestinians’ plight and possibly courting controversy with family and friends.

“I really wanted to stay away from the politics [of it],” she said. “I know how a lot of my [Christian] family members speak about Israel and how they support it, so I wasn’t ready to open that dialogue with them.”

However, as the war dragged on and she saw the atrocities in Gaza resulting in an ever-rising death toll, she began to have second thoughts.

“I realized I had to pay attention,” Guillen stated.

Armed with a desire to educate herself, she learned more about the conflict and its history. She also began viewing the situation not only as one defined by the politics between the two warring factions, but also about the humanitarian crisis that both the Palestinian Muslims and Christians were suffering. 

That knowledge encouraged her to keep learning and, before long, Guillen felt informed and brave enough to post the articles where her friends and family members could read them. To her surprise and relief, no one who’d expressed support for Israel challenged what she was sharing online. However, as time passed, Guillen observed a change in their own public postings.

“My family never said anything to me about what I was posting, but they stopped posting so much about their support for Israel, and I believe I influenced them to see [that] this was a humanitarian issue. I believe I made them more aware and made them think that it was no longer just about religion or just about Muslims; it’s about a genocide and human rights,” Guillen remarked.

In fact, since she summoned the courage to speak her mind, a Christian friend confided to her that her bravery inspired her.

“She reached out to me and commended me for posting, because she doesn’t feel brave enough to speak up against what’s happening in Gaza,” she stated. “She knows it’s very inhumane, but because she’s Christian she feels she can’t support Palestine.”

For Some, Posting Comes at Their Peril

Many Muslims and non-Muslims agree with Guillen’s take on the issue, but not all have had the same positive experience after sharing their opinion. Since the war broke out, several organizations and news programs have reported the fallout people can suffer by supporting Palestine’s right to fight for its freedom.

On Oct. 26, 2023, The New Arab (www.newarab.com) reported that the U.S. civil rights group Palestine Legal was monitoring how some of those who voiced public support for Palestine have been targeted. The group — via several posts on X (formerly Twitter) — identified more than “260 (reports) of harassment and censorship attempts.” It said that it has spoken to people who have lost their jobs or even had job offers rescinded after making pro-Palestinian social media posts or signing statements of support. 

On Dec. 22, 2023, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) reported that Canadian lawyers had been fielding calls from people about losing their jobs or being suspended, as well as from job seekers being flagged to potential employers after publicly expressing their support for Palestine. 

On Nov. 3, 2023, four UN special rapporteurs issued a press release expressing worry at the “worldwide wave of attacks, reprisals, criminalization and sanctions against those who publicly express solidarity with the victims of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine.” 

The press release identified special rapporteurs as part of the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council, which is the “largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system.” According to the press release, “Calls for an end to the violence and attacks in Gaza, or for a humanitarian ceasefire, or criticism of Israeli government’s policies and actions, have in too many contexts been misleadingly equated with support for terrorism or antisemitism. This stifles free expression, including artistic expression, and creates an atmosphere of fear to participate in public life” (www.ohchr.org. Search under “press releases”).

On Dec. 22, 2023, Brishti Basu (senior writer, CBCNews.ca.) posted the following on CBC News: “The [UN] statement said that artists, journalists, academics, athletes and protesters have all been censored, suspended, blacklisted or otherwise threatened with workplace consequences for expressing their views” (www.cbc.ca/).  

The Pressure to Post Comes from Both Sides

While Guillen was initially worried about how her support for Palestine would be received, other Muslims face the same worry — but for very different reasons. 

Recently, writer Asma Khan (not her real name) found herself in a tight spot. As a rule, she had resisted writing on social media in support of Palestine. This decision largely stemmed from her husband’s objection and worry about his career.

“He is concerned about what I post on social media in general and how it could affect his job,” she said. “I could defy him and post whatever I want, but I don’t think that’s the key to a harmonious relationship.”

Despite what would seem to be a safe approach, Khan soon found that not everyone agreed. After being nominated for an award for her work, she was presented with a threat from the award’s panel of judges. 

“They were [all] Muslims,” she stated, “and they made a statement on social media to all the contestants and to their audience in general. I am paraphrasing here, but they said, ‘We are watching what you post or don’t post about Palestine on social media. If you are silent, or if you post any nonsense about ‘both sides’ having a valid point, you will be blacklisted. You will not even be considered for this award, and we’ll tell our followers to cancel you.’”

Khan said the judges’ stance shocked her and made her afraid not to post online about her support for Palestine. The experience led her to question what posting on social media means in terms of decoding people’s views on a subject and even ponder how writing a statement on Facebook, X or any other platform is viewed as a total and accurate reflection of a person’s character and beliefs. She even questioned how much impact posts from everyday folks could have.

“I would argue that social media is not necessarily the most effective way to support Palestine,” she said. “I would also argue [that] leaders and influential spokespersons for the Muslim ummah have a greater responsibility to post because they have a wide following and might actually change some minds.”

For Some, Speaking Out Sparks Fear and Guilt. For Others — Defiance

Houstonian Hannah Ali has only shared her support online for Palestine once or twice since the war began. Active in her subdivision’s homeowner’s association, the move left her feeling worried about how neighbors might take it and how they might treat her and her family if they disagreed.

In fact, she said she’s used Khan’s argument to justify not writing more or more forcefully about her views on her social media platforms. 

“When I think about posting something, I’ll stop and ask myself, ‘What can my posts even do to make the war stop?’” she related.

Nevertheless, her decision has left her feeling guilty, particularly when she views graphic videos coming out of the war zone, especially those featuring harm or even dead children.

“On many levels I really want to share everything I see so that people can see how bad it is in Gaza. But I rationalize away my decision not to post by thinking to myself, ‘Oh what good is it gonna do?’ or ‘I’m probably going to rub someone the wrong way with this and end up in a fight on Facebook.’”

Although Idriss Assal understands Ali’s reasoning and her hesitance, her attitude doesn’t work for him, especially as the fighting in Palestine has dragged on for months and more people are seeing the scale of the damage and death toll. 

The Texas-based finance manager said anyone who wants to make their solidarity with Palestine known online should feel empowered to do so. His reasoning: The more people who speak up, the less risk involved.

However, many would likely disagree. On Jan. 28, the Chicago Sun-Times reported on university students and recent graduates — including Jinan Chehade — losing job opportunities as a result of their public support for Palestine, support specifically tied to social media postings. The students’ experiences mirror those of others around North America, which can be found by a quick Internet search.

Carissa Lamkahouan is a freelance journalist based in Houston. Her work has appeared in AboutIslam.net, The Houston Chronicle, Inventors Digest, Animal Wellness, The Muslim Observer and other publications.

Tell us what you thought by joining our Facebook community. You can also send comments and story pitches to [email protected]. Islamic Horizons does not publish unsolicited material.  

The post First Amendment Gone Awry appeared first on Islamic Horizons.