Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Thursday, October 30, 2008

McCain Racism, Hypocrisy on Khalidi Issue

The increasingly sleazy John McCain, who once promised to run a clean campaign, has now attacked my friend Rashid Khalidi and attempted to use him against Barack Obama. Khalidi is an American scholar of Palestinian heritage, born in New York and educated at Yale and Oxford, who now teaches at Columbia University. He directed the Middle East Center at the University of Chicago for some time, and he and his family came to know the Obamas at that time. Knowing someone and agreeing with him on everything are not the same thing.

Scott Horton has a fine, informed and intelligent discussion of the issue. Likewise Barnett Rubin ("My Friend the Neo-Nazi") and Chapati Mystery suddenly alarmed about the Hyde Park crowd.

I know it may seem a novel idea to people like McCain and Palin, but it would be worthwhile actually reading Khalidi's book on the Palestinian struggle for statehood. (I urge bloggers interested in this issue to link to his book, which the American reading public should know).

At the least, read a whole essay Khalidi has written.

Far from being a knee-jerk nationalist, Khalidi has been critical of the decisions of the Palestinian leadership at key junctures in modern history.



McCain's and Palin's attacks on Khalidi are frankly racist. He is a distinguished scholar, and the only objectionable thing about him from a rightwing point of view is that he is a Palestinian. There are about 9 million Palestinians in the world (a million or so are Israeli citizens; 3.7 million are stateless and without rights under Israeli control in the West Bank and Gaza; and 4 million are refugees or exiled in the diaspora; there are about 200,000 Palestinian-Americans, and several million Arab-Americans, many living in swing vote states). Khalidi was not, as the schlock rightwing press charges, a spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization. He was an adviser at the Madrid peace talks, but would that not have been, like, a good thing?

Much of the assault on Khalidi comes from the American loony Zionist Right, which quietly supports illegal Zionist colonies in the West Bank and the ethnic cleansing of the remaining Palestinians. They have been tireless advocates of miring the US in wars in Iraq and Iran to ensure that their dreams of ethnic cleansing are unopposed. They are a tiny, cranky but well-funded group that has actively harassed anyone who disagrees with them (at one point, cued by Daniel Pipes, they cyberstalked Khalidi and clogged his email mailbox with spam for weeks at a time). All opinion polling shows that most American Jews are politically liberal, overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and support trading land for peace to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Khalidi is their political ally in any serious peace process, which many have recognized.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has repudiated the "Greater Israel" fantasy that drives the Middle East Forum, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Commentary, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Hudson Institute, the American Enterprise Institute and other well-funded sites of far-right thinking on Israel-Palestine that have become, with the rise of the Neoconservatives, highly influential with the US Republican Party. Olmert's current position is much closer to Khalidi's than it is to the American ideologues.

That McCain should take his cues from people to the right of the Neoconservatives shows fatal lack of judgment and signals that if he is elected, he will likely pursue policies that are very bad for Israel, forestalling a genuine peace process (which would involve close relations with Palestinians!)

McCain even compared the gathering for Khalidi that Obama attended to a "neo-Nazi" meeting! I mean, really. this is the lowest McCain has sunk yet.

McCain is bringing up Khalidi in order to scare Jewish voters about Obama's associations, and it is an execrable piece of McCarthyism and in fact much worse than McCarthyism since it is not about ideology but rather has racial overtones. Not allowed to pal around with Arab-Americans, I guess. What other ethnic groups should we not pal around with, from McCain's point of view? Is there a list? Are some worse than others?

Ironically, as the Huffington Post showed, while John McCain was chairing the International Republican Institute, he gave over $400,000 to Rashid Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank.

Here is Lou Dobbs letting McCain have it over this piece of hypocrisy.



The rightwing American way of speaking about these issues is bizarre from a Middle Eastern point of view. Lots of real living Israelis have close ties to actually existing Palestinians. There are 12 Palestinian members of the Israeli Knesset, and they have helped keep the Kadima government in power. Here is PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas with current Israeli Prime Ministerial candidate Tzipi Livni; Livni has repeatedly negotiated with the PLO as foreign minister of Israel. McCain's entire line of attack assumes that Palestinian equals "bad" and ignores Israel's and the Bush administration's support for the PLO against Hamas.



As the Young Turks pointed out, before the 'straight talk express' became the 'mealy-mouthed train wreck,' McCain advocated direct negotiations with Hamas when it was in control of the Palestinian Authority after the 2006 elections.

25 Comments:

At 8:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good post Juan: 'mealy mouthed train wreck' indeed......

 
At 9:32 AM, Blogger El Cid said...

I think that like all of the people who believe that 'supporting Israel' means 'backing nothing except right wing ultra-hawk Israeli occupationist policies', they're always pushing the principle that there can be no such thing as a legitimate Arab or Muslim figure who backs Palestinian nationalism and who criticizes Israeli occupationist actions.

Anyone from an Arab or Muslim background -- U.S. citizen, born and raised or not -- who ever criticizes Israeli militarist politicians and policies and strongly backs Palestinian rights is pretty much the functional equivalent of a terrorist sympathizer.

 
At 10:06 AM, Blogger R Will Caverly said...

It's a shame that this garbage is getting spouted. Unfortunately, I don't think we can rely on Obama to correct McCain/Palin because of his courting of AIPAC. I hope I'm wrong, though.

 
At 11:30 AM, Blogger Redshift said...

Not allowed to pal around with Arab-Americans, I guess. What other ethnic groups should we not pal around with, from McCain's point of view? Is there a list? Are some worse than others?

It's pretty damn obvious:

"Real America" = White America

(And I say that as a white person.)

If that's who the Republicans want to be, they're welcome to it.

 
At 12:09 PM, Blogger Leila Abu-Saba said...

Thank you so much for this response. The controversy has bothered me more than any other of this ugly campaign. I must go back to practicing detachment unto utter ignorance. Keeping up with the campaign is not good for my psychic health.

I am very grateful for your cogent, detailed, linked-in answer to McCain's racist attacks.

 
At 12:19 PM, Blogger Esther said...

I can't believe there are no comments posted on this very important post. Perhaps it is because the Khalidi issue seems to have faded for the moment and it seems best not to resurrect it. However, people like Khalidi, at least as stereotype-breaking as Obama himself, deserve much publicity and much praise.

 
At 2:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What I think looks especially bad for McCain in terms of this is that by dismissing Prof Khalidi so arrogantly - someone whose work is respected and familiar to anyone interested in Palestine - he shows that he has no respect for him, and by extension it seems to me, at least, that he implies that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is one that he wouldn't have the courage to take a reasonable and fair approach to if he was in office. If he can't listen treat a renowned American scholar with respect, and is willing to throw him overboard in the most obviously racist manner, how would he deal with the Palestinian people if he presides over decisions that would affect them? And it sickened me as many others have said that when Palin mentioned Khalidi's name in her speech, just the sound of an Ay-rab name attracted boos and hisses from the crowd.

 
At 3:38 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

McCain's camp attempted to smear Barack for his affiliation with Rashid Khalidi who's only offense is his ethnicity (Palestinian) and his opposition to the military occupation by Israel of his homeland. And that's offensive because why?

 
At 5:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow - now they are taking the opportunity to smear two at once. In addition to smearing Obama, they get to smear a respected, mainstream scholar like Rashid Khalidi. I love it!

 
At 8:00 PM, Blogger Garvagh said...

Great piece. McCain deserves contempt for his attack on a Palestinian intellectual who deserves the support of both US political parties.

 
At 9:25 PM, Blogger InplainviewMonitor said...

All McCain does is spinning ages old GOP points like fighting terrorism and cut the taxes.

The problem is, dems tend to ignore these points 95% of the time and if they start to retaliate, it is only just before the elections.

Let us hope that it will work this time, but without persistent 24*7*52 ideological work, they won't survive.

 
At 10:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

McCain Funds PLO?

See http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/mccain-funds-plo/

 
At 1:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, McCain hit what I call the "terror trifecta." Bill Ayers was at the dinner along with Khalidi AND Obama. It must've made some McCain opposition researcher salivate.

The fact that this is out and out Islamophobia & anti-Arab racism never crossed their mind. Since when is it a criminal offense to be a Palestinian academic??

Thanks for the link to my blog post about Khalidi, Juan.

 
At 8:19 AM, Blogger Flatlander said...

FOX news morning show is currently smearing Khalidi right now, at 8:10 AM, with one of their famous "ambush" reports, asking questions about his ties to terror....

God help us, why is America so stupid? The mind set of American hegemony is not only ignorant, it's outright dangerous.

 
At 9:45 AM, Blogger BF said...

I believe that so long as such individuals as Mr Sean Hannity can air their messages of hate (borne out of ignorance and/or sheer malice) with impunity, any broad (i.e. on the national scale) rational discourse on the subject matter is just out of question. Please watch the following short clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esDvEiNMsSE

and notice how Mr Hannity introduces Professor Khalidi to his audience, i.e. the Fox-News-watching section of our society. For comparison, how many people do we think are likely to read the book "The Iron Cage: The story of the Palestinian struggle for statehood", or the article "Palestine: Liberation Deferred" in The Nation? I believe that this concerted campaign of disinformation (in particular falsely accusing people in public of terrorism with impunity --- one imagines that one will have to have undertaken some specific illegal actions before meriting this infamy) will have to be stemmed before one can even contemplate to have a broad and intelligent discussion on the relevant issues that are involved here. It would be a step in the right direction to challenge Fox News Channel in courts of law on some of the most libellous charges that they are in the habit of airing. In the case at hand, either Professor Khalidi is a terrorist or he is not. If he is, then why are our law-enforcement agencies not taking appropriate actions against him, and if he is not, why is Mr Sean Hannity permitted publicly to declare him as being one? Don't we have libel laws in this country?

BF.

 
At 12:05 PM, Blogger Edward Ott said...

Mccain has had this also blow up in his face. he took his greatest asset his honor and flushed it away in his bid to be president.

 
At 3:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just as McCain cynically chose a woman to appeal to women, and is using "Joe the Plumber" to appeal to working people, he is now attacking Obama as an anti-Semite in order to appeal to Jews. The Khalidi attacks are his Florida strategy. It is cynical, it is condescending, and it is devoid of meaning in terms of the policies or plans you would see from him if elected.

The irony of these McCarthyite tactics is that they were simply a poor strategic choice. If McCain were *losing* with "real Americans," the god-guts-and-guns crowd, these tactics would have been excellent choices to boost his numbers. However, he never had to win that crowd--he always owned them. The voters he needs to win are moderates, people who want a safe, sensible choice who will clean up the mess we have without going off in any new, untested direction. He is not winning those people with these hysteria tactics. In fact, he is convincing them that he is the less safe, less predictable choice of the two.

McCain may like to gamble, but I'll bet he is a lousy chess player.

 
At 5:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

richards1052 said...
Actually, McCain hit what I call the "terror trifecta." Bill Ayers was at the dinner along with Khalidi AND Obama.


Wrong-O, Buck-O.

Ayers was not at the dinner.

That was a concoction of the wing nuts.

The L.A. Times denies that Ayers was there.

 
At 5:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"while John McCain was chairing the International Republican Institute, he gave over $400,000 to Rashid Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies"

Which indicates that this isn't even HIS racism. He's cynically doing it because he believes most Americans are racists. Which is about as cynical - and insulting to his audience - as it gets.

 
At 8:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SHAME ON YOU SEN MCCAIN

 
At 8:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem is that most American don't really grasp the complexity of the Middle East. Ignorance is McCain's greatest ally.

 
At 11:15 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Great post. Btw, Livni is not a PM now. Since she couldn't form the government and had to ask for elections, Olmert will be acting PM until elections.

 
At 8:16 AM, Blogger ScottK said...

Great article, but I think it's important to point out that the American Zionist Right supports the establishment of "Greater Israel" because of their faith that it will usher in the return of Jesus. . .

. . .who will then proceed to consign all unconverted Jews to eternal torment. And the Israeli Right knows damned well that's what they think, and relies on their help anyway.

 
At 11:35 AM, Blogger BF said...

For skeptonomist and other interested individuals.

As for the number of Palestinians in the world, this is estimated to be

10,574,521.

For details (e.g. for the distribution of the number of Palestinians in various countries), please consult the following Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian

According to Kimmerling and Migdal in The Palestinian People, in 1883 the total population of Palestine amounted to approximately 320,000 people, approximately 25,000 of whom were Jewish. For details please consult the following Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Palestinian_people


Some technical details are in order. Let the number of people in some group at time t be denoted by P(t). Let the growth rate of this population be g. Then one has (by definition):

(1) d P(t)/d t = g P(t),

where d /d t stands for derivative with respect to time.

The growth rate g can depend on t, as the following graph shows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_population_increase_history.svg

so that g should be more precisely denoted by g(t). For a g(t) that is constant (i.e. independent of time), Eq.(1) has the following exact solution:

(2) P(t) = P(t0) exp[(t - t0) g],

where exp[] denotes the exponential function.

Note that g (or g(t)) has the dimension of inverse-time so that when t is expressed in units of year, g should be expressed in units of 1/year (i.e. per year).

Assuming that g is independent of t, from Eq.(2) one deduces the following expression for g:

(3) g = ln[P(t)/P(t0)]/(t-t0),

where ln[] denotes the natural logarithm function (it is the inverse of exp[]).

Now, according to the UN estimate, in 1951 there were 711,000 Palestinian refugees outside Israel:

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/93037e3b939746de8525610200567883!OpenDocument

If we subtract from the total number of Palestinians in the world the present number of Palestinians in Palestinian territories, we have

10,574,521 - 3,760,000 = 6,814,521.

Assuming that the latter number of Palestinian people are the above-mentioned 711,000 Palestinian refugees of 1951 and their descendants, and assuming that the growth rate in this population has been constant since 1951, from Eq.(3) one has:

g = ln[6,814,521/711,000]/(2008-1951) = 3.965% per year.

This value is far in excess of the peak value of the global population growth rate, namely 2.2% (measured in 1963).

If one takes t0 = 1883 (instead of t0=1951, which was used above), with P(t0)= 320,000, under the assumption that since 1882 the g for the Palestinian population has been constant, from Eq.(3) one has:

g = ln[10,574,521/320,000]/(2008-1883) = 2.798% per year.

Subtracting the number of the Jewish population of Palestine in 1883 from 320,000, one obtains P(t0) = 295,000, whereby

g = ln[10,574,521/295,000]/(2008-1883) = 2.868% per year.

According to the CIA Factbook, 2008, the growth rate of the population in Gaza Strip is estimated to be 3.422% per year:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2002.html

Consequently, the population growth rate of 2.798% (or 2.868%) per year is reasonable; that of 3.965% seems far too high. This is attributable to a variety of reasons, such as the UN estimate of the number of the Palestinian refugees in 1951 being too low.

Incidentally, the exact solution of Eq.(1), for all g(t), is of the form

(4) P(t) = P(t0) exp[int_{t0}^t dt' g(t')],

where int_{t0}^t dt' g(t') denotes the integral of g(t) over the interval [t0,t] (i.e. the area under the curve g(t) over the interval [t0,t]). Even though the functional form of g(t) may be unknown, with g_{min} and g_{max} denoting the minimum and maximum values of g(t) over [t0,t], the exact P(t) can be shown to satisfy:

(5) P(t0) exp[(t-t0) g_{min}] \le P(t) \le P(t0) exp[(t-t0) g_{max}],

where "\le" stands for "less than or equal to". Knowledge of g_{min} and g_{max} enables one to estimate (through the use of the inequalities in Eq.(5)) the maximum deviation of the function in Eq.(2) from the exact solution of Eq.(1) in the cases where g(t) depends on t; naturally, when g is independent of t, g_{min} coincides with g_{max} whereby the inequalities in Eq.(5) imply the function in Eq.(2) as the exact solution of Eq.(1).

BF.

 
At 3:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Juan - Just as I agree that it is a shame some have a problem seeing things in nuanced terms -ie. calling Khalidi a terrorist because of his writings - I think we have to be mindful of instances in which we may be guilty of the same thing. Calling the Washington Institute for Near East Policy "A far right wing organization driven by the desire for Greater Israel is frankly ridiculous"

One of the most senior and influential advisors at the Washington Institute is a man by the name of Dennis Ross - a man who just so happens to be probably the most influential advisor to Obama with regards to Israel and a member of the Obama foreign policy team. He also happens to be a man who fought tirelessly under Bill Clinton to negotiate a peace settlement in Camp David that would have divided Jerusalem. The institute also recently hosted Obama senior foreign policy advisor Richard Clarke who spoke of Obama's Israel policy before the institutes largest annual policy forum.

To say that WINEP is a "far-right" organization drive by a desire for "Greater Israel" is about as ridiculous as claiming that Khalidi is a terrorist. I urge you to be more mindful of nuance and not be too quick to throw out innaccurate hyperbole.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home