American and Arab

American and Arab
Ali Hossaini

Can I be at war with myself? Watching the World Trade Center collapse, then living through the aftermath, begs that absurd question. I’m American, with a Muslim name but nondescript appearance. No one takes me for Middle Eastern—I was born in West Virginia, and I’m only a quarter Arab. But thanks to the peculiarities of history, and naming, I have an Arab-American identity.

The attack on the World Trade Center puts me in an awful place. On the one hand, I’ve been deeply fortunate. Neither my loved ones nor I were injured. Like everyone else, I am horrified and angered. I could have been there, munching a bagel on the observation deck. I can’t imagine how someone could have planned such an attack, and my shock is turning into anger and mourning. At the same time, I feel excluded from the national unity that happens after such a tragedy. Why? As an Arab-American, I’m subject to reprisals. I’m nervous, wondering if I will somehow share the blame. Slurs, threats and even violence have already been leveled against anyone associated with Islam, and I wonder what will happen to me. I’m looking for work—will I be denied a job? What if a wider war breaks out? Will I lose my liberty?

Some friends have said I should go to Egypt for safety. They meant well, but their comments betrayed a misunderstanding that verges on racism. Hard as it is for the safely white to comprehend, there is only one place for me and other hyphenated Americans: the United States. America produced me. My grandparents hail from four different countries. Where else could they have created a family? If I’m out of place here, thanks to my name, I’m certainly out of place in the Middle East, where I stick out as an American. What is left for me? Do we have to pick sides in the end? And what can I do if neither side will have me, if both treat me as the enemy?

I’m at a loss to answer these questions, at least under the current logic. Some of my fellow citizens are striking out at American Muslims. Some are even calling for a firestorm to be rained upon Islamic nations. Don’t they see that the terrorists had the same inspiration? The Afghanis were caught between the Soviet Union and the United States for decades. Their country has been reduced to rubble. They have no hope. Violence occurs in cycles, and, if we respond senselessly, striking innocent people in our search for criminals, then we’ll create more radicals, more suicide bombers who embody the despair of poverty and war. The monopoly on violence is broken, and I shudder to think what comes next.

I’m living in fear, and my identity leaves me no shield. I often fly from Newark to San Francisco. Was the attack a one-time event or the first of many? Will our cities ever feel safe? Then, again, what will I face in my day-to-day existence? Will I get mocked and beat up? Are my tears for the dead less potent? Will my name become a Yellow Star that excludes me from society? Will I share in the collective healing that must come?

My situation brings a special clarity, one that opposes the clarity of choosing sides. What do I see from my hyphenated perspective? The absurdity of labels, indeed, of the whole idea that race, religion or flags divide humanity. I have a Muslim name, but my grandfather was Serbian. How would that fly in the Balkans? Is the world becoming a vast Balkan state?

I’ve wondered if I will ever have to choose a side. If so, here is my choice: pacifism and dialog. I choose love, I choose humanity. I may symbolize Islam to some, and America to others, but I transcend these distinctions. I am proof that love conquers hate. My grandparents conquered tradition to found my family, and I stand tall as an American born from a unique and tolerant soil. What race produced me? The human race. Let me plead for understanding and compassion. Chase the criminals if you must, but let us then begin to fight. Let us fight not for oil, money or revenge, but for a world where hatred and weapons belong to a distant, barbaric past.

Filed Under: Geography, News Tagged With: , ,

Austin Against War Statement on U.S. Airstrikes

Austin Against War Statement on U.S. Airstrikes
Call to End Bombings on Afghanistan Cities

Austin Against War has repeatedly called for a judicious response to the tragic attacks of Sept. 11. We were encouraged by Bush’s refusal to implicate Islam as a religion, his seeming reluctance to bomb Kabul, and the acknowledgement of the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Afghanistan. As America began to recover from its initial grief at the horrific atrocities of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, cooler heads seemed to prevail.

Now, however, we are witnessing the sort of indiscriminate attack that we feared most: the bombing of cities with large civilian populations. People are dying simply because they live in the same country as the man the U.S. claims to have coordinated the Sept. 11 attacks.

We share the nation’s desire to bring the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks to justice. But further bombings only add to the tragedy. Kabul does not have sophisticated military technology; there is nothing there to be destroyed, except people. Afghanistan is, as one reporter put it, “the most devastated, ravaged, starvation-haunted and tragic country in the world” (Fisk, Independent, 23 Sept., 2001).

And in any event, the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks were not aided by military technology of any sort in any Afghan city. Bombing cities will do nothing to prevent this sort of unsophisticated terrorist attack in the future. On the contrary, American bombings will only serve to increase anti-American sentiment throughout the world.

During the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S.-directed NATO bombings struck alleged military targets in Iraq. We know the cost: bomb shelters harboring innocent, terrified civilians were destroyed; hospitals, airports, water sanitation facilities, and civilian infrastructures were destroyed; and the result was and continues to be massive civilian casualties. But despite this, Sadam Hussein remains in power.

Autocratic regimes such as Afghanistan and Iraq have caused tremendous suffering among their own people and are consequently not disturbed when the United States causes more suffering. Bombing cities results not only in a tragic loss of life, it is demonstrably useless at achieving American policy objectives.

We call for an end to the bombings at once.

Filed Under: Casualties, News, Operations, Weapons Tagged With: , ,

Liberty at Risk

Like every U.S. citizen, I was shocked and revolted beyond comprehension by the attack on our nation last week. We need to do everything within our power to find the responsible persons and parties, bring them to justice and end the blight of terrorism.

At the same time, we must all remember that just as this horrendous act can destroy us from without, it can also destroy us from within. Historically, it has been at times of inflamed passions and national anger that our civil liberties proved to be at greatest risk, and the unpopular group of the moment was subject to prejudice and deprivation of liberty. In 1798, Congress enacted the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts, making it a federal crime to criticize the government. In 1861, at the beginning of the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, citing the need to repress “an insurrection against the laws of the United States.” Ulysses S. Grant sought to expel Jews from southern states. World War II brought about the shameful internment of Japanese Americans, which even the Supreme Court failed to overturn.

Unfortunately, our response in 1996 to the Oklahoma City bombing and to the first bombing of the World Trade Center does not portend well for today’s discussions. Legislation that began in good faith as an effort to fine-tune our anti-terrorism laws turned into a legislative race to the bottom. It contained sweeping new limitations on habeas corpus for death-row and other inmates. The legislation also severely narrowed the ability of persons fleeing for their lives from dangerous regimes to seek asylum. I sat through the hearings on this legislation and did not hear a single shred of evidence that proved that a single terrorist act could be prevented by limiting the ability of persons convicted in state court to obtain relief from unconstitutional convictions or by denying immigrants their due process rights.

Meanwhile, many laudable provisions were dropped from the 1996 legislation at the behest of the gun lobby. We tried to include a provision allowing for broader roving wiretaps, as has been recommended by Attorney General John Ashcroft, but the conservatives could not stomach this expansion of government power. An exasperated Henry Hyde, who as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee had worked to keep some of the better provisions, was quoted as saying that many in his party “trust Hamas more than their own government.” We also failed in our efforts to ban dangerous “cop-killer” bullets and to require that “taggants” (tracer elements) be attached to explosive materials and that unregulated explosive material (such as the fertilizer bomb used in Oklahoma City) be rendered inert. Instead, we were forced to settle for an ineffective study of these issues.

Certainly, we must update our counter-terrorism laws so that they reflect 21st century reality. But new expansion of government authority should be limited to properly defined terrorist activity or threats of terrorism. And with increased federal power, we must ensure accountability and oversight. We also need to drastically improve airport security by increasing the training and wages of airport personnel. That will mean increasing the role of the federal government and allocating more federal dollars to these needs.

I urge the attorney general to take a fresh look at expanding the federal law to cover hate crimes. Recent days have seen a spate of hate crimes against Muslims, Arab Americans and South Asian Americans. Two persons believed to be of “Middle Eastern” descent were killed in likely hate crimes over the weekend. If we are going to expand law enforcement’s ability to pursue terrorists, we must not neglect the government’s role in protecting Americans from vigilante violence. We are a nation of immigrants, and we are all in this together.

The keys to success in developing anti-terrorism legislation will be balance and prudence. History has taught us that we should not use the threat of violence as an excuse to suppress legitimate constitutional rights and liberties. As Benjamin Franklin stated, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” We must ensure that these acts of terror do not accomplish in a “slow burn” what the fires of the World Trade Center and Pentagon could not — subversively destroying the foundation of our democracy.

- – -

The writer, a Democrat from Michigan, is ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Filed Under: News, Operation Freedom, Society Tagged With: , ,