Islam and the Antiwar Movement (part III of III)

The “Lowest Common Denominator” or “The Strongest Point of Attack”?

To conclude this 3 part series, I want to take on an immediate question that I hear posed and debated within antiwar groups, demonstrations, etc.

An argument brought forth very commonly is that taking a stand in favor of violent resistance or of talking about Palestine, or other issues such as these will divide the movement and ultimately make it weaker.

There is certainly some truth to the argument about strength in numbers, not to mention political tact and the art of politics. But the questions it purposely skips over is “Unify with whom?” and “Unity on what basis?”

I am for taking the movement forward and deepening the connection and solidarity between Arabs and Muslims and the antiwar movement, not reaching out to people who, for one reason or another, haven’t seen through Bush's lies, who haven’t come to the conclusion that the US military is the key problem and look to military solutions to combat “terrorism.” The same goes for people who have illusions in the righteousness of the state of Israel as a Jewish-only homeland.

Reaching out to the conservative section of the movement is directly counter posed to reaching out to Arabs and Muslims in the US and abroad.

Talking about Palestine, the root causes of oppression and reaction in the Middle East, and identifying with movements of resistance against US Imperialism will push away conservatives at this point.

Those that aren't pushed away are certainly welcome to join the debate. But to reach to the right at this moment in time and history is to push away Arabs and Muslims and the issues they care about AND to ignore the literally millions of people who are on our side already but not yet organized.

No one is saying people’s ideas wont change, or that we ignore people who disagree or things of that nature. What I am saying is that we should actually debate these things. We should have forums on these things, not sideline them or pretend they don’t exist because they make some people uncomfortable.

The antiwar movement will pursue a “least common denominator” strategy at the expense of reaching out to the Arab and Muslim community and to the expense of the movement’s flexibility and strength.

Arabs and Muslims are the community that desperately needs reaching out to. This is the community, and this is the dialogue that will push the movement forward and address the issues of conservative movements, poverty, desperation and terrorism in the Middle East.

And its not a small matter to continually counter the set of myths about Islam and politics in the middle east at every point if we are truly to understand and be able to explain the world in more complex and realistic terms than "Islamo-fascism", "freedom-hating", and the "War on Terror"

In my mind, it is the left's answer to "What is your solution?" What will happen if we pull troops out immediately?

We, as activists and people of conscience in the US, will only be relevant to what actually happens if we make ourselves relevant to the people directly involved. This does mean US soldiers and military families, but it also means genuinely considering and hearing the concerns of the people under the boot of US imperialism. This is building a movement on our strongest point of attack, US Empire, the prime cause of oppression and misery in the Middle East.

I hardly think that is dogmatic, ideological, or rigid. I actually think it’s a realistic approach to a problem the US ruling class seemingly has no answer to but more death and destruction.