New Islamic Directions - Imam Zaid Shakir

Hopefully, Obama is Not a Used Car Dealer

By Imam Zaid on 19 June 2008

In my article, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Barack Obama, and the Fate of America, I mentioned that one of the things viewed as unacceptable to the political mainstream in this country is “a fair and just solution to the problem of meaningful Palestinian statehood.” With his slavish remarks at the recent AIPAC conference, Senator Barack Obama, issued an uncritical endorsement of the program of the most right wing elements of the Zionist movement, and suggested, at least through his words, that he has no real interest in a fair and just solution to that problem.

Obama’s defenders will argue that he had no choice. He had to make the kind of remarks he made if he hopes to be elected president in November. They are right, if in fact Obama is just another politician, a used car dealer who will say anything to clench a deal. In that case, in order to clench the deal with the Zionist lobby, and in order not to be smeared as the “Hamas” candidate, Obama did have to say what he said.

However, if Obama is the candidate of change, as his campaign declares, if he is the candidate who has built his formidable war chest with small contributions from ordinary Americans, as he boasts, and if he is hence not beholden to the entrenched Washington lobbying establishment, then he definitely did not have to say what he said.

By promising to renounce any Palestinian claims to Jerusalem, he eliminated any meaningful chance for a negotiated settlement to the Palestinian conflict by declaring his opposition to the one point Palestinian negotiators are not willing to compromise on, the retention of Jerusalem as the capital of a future, viable Palestinian state.

By insinuating an unwillingness to talk with the leaders of Hamas, he compromised the most promising pillar of his diplomatic strategy, one designed to demonstrate his movement away from the Bush/Cheney doctrine of preemptive, no room for diplomacy militarism—namely, a willingness to talk, in good faith, with our enemies.

If this is an example of the reality of the an Obama-led foreign policy, it leaves little room for the vaunted change he speaks of. While appeasing in the wildest way the most bellicose elements of the Zionist movement, his statements run counter to the wishes of the majority of Israelis, and leave virtually no room for either Palestinian or Israeli peace activists.

They also send a very clear message to Muslims and Arabs, both in this country and globally. If I could summarize that message it would be, “I need neither your good will, nor your support.” While that may be true domestically, in light of the political weakness of the Muslim community in this country, it would certainly not be true globally.

If Obama’s value as an “African American” candidate is largely symbolic, As Michael Eric Dyson and others, including this writer have argued, then that symbolic value extends beyond the African American community, and America at large. It extends to the people of the world. If Africans, Asians, Europeans and Latin Americans view the thus far successful Obama candidacy as a symbol of a changed social and political climate in America that is a harbinger of policies that will bring the interests of the American empire into closer alignment with the interests of the rest of the world, then the Palestinian issue is a litmus test of sorts as to the sincerity of any American politician to pursue a new type of politics. In this regard, Obama has failed miserably.

Why is that so? In his brilliant assessment of the “electability” of Obama, A Bound Man, Shelby Steele mentions that the greatest question surrounding Obama is that we really do not know exactly what he stands for. Steele asks, fittingly, what are the principles or issues that Obama is willing to give his life for? We do not know. Despite spending twenty years with Minister Jeremiah Wright, we know he would not risk everything for his church or his pastor. Despite his advocacy for the underdog and the downtrodden, we know he was not willing to go out on a limb for the Palestinian people. Despite his opposition to the war in Iraq, we know, in light of his comments at AIPAC, he will not wager everything for peace in the Middle East. We do not even know if Obama believes Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel, as he declared in his AIPAC speech, or a final status issue to be decided between the two sides through negotiations, as he “clarified” a day later. Which of these two positions is he willing to risk everything, possibly even the presidency, defending?

Steele is of the opinion that unless Obama can answer this question, “What does he really stand for?” he will not be elected, because eventually the public will see through him, especially when John McCain can answer this question so clearly and readily. It remains to be seen if his assessment is accurate.

Obama’s strength is his perceived sincerity, the fact many of his position papers, and some moving lines in his speeches do create, for many people, those small spaces where hope is found. Those glimpses of hope lead many to believe that Obama is not just another politician. Maybe he isn’t. Hopefully, he is not a used car dealer either.

comments

By Y.S. on June 21, 2008 -- 2:38am

I think one must make a difference between change and transformation. In this whole Obamania, Americans and the rest of the world for that matter, are caught up in this whole change agenda. In this case it would mean a change of party [democrats] and candidate [a Black man] in power. It would indeed be a milestone but it risks not to materialize in anything concrete, thus leading to deception. I think America needs a candidate of transformation, one who would reform health care policy and finally address race relations on top of the foreign policy agenda. It takes a lot to transform, very few people have managed that in the world.

By Tavis on June 23, 2008 -- 3:34pm

Thank you, Imam Zaid. I wrote something similar to your article about a week ago, but you have illustrated my points much more vividly.

Sadly, it seems that most lasting change does not come from within the institutions but rather from those who resist against them. My father used to always encourage me to “assimilate” and then change the system from within.

What I discovered, alhamdulillah before it was too late, was that in order to even take the first step (assimilation), you must give up pieces of yourself. Some people spend the rest of their lives trying to reclaim their true selves. For many they never succeed.

By altaf on June 23, 2008 -- 5:42pm

An interesting, well written, and insightful article. I’d like to however, address the following:

“By insinuating an unwillingness to talk with the leaders of Hamas…namely, a willingness to talk, in good faith, with our enemies.”

First, neither Hamas, nor Hizbullah, nor Iran are “our enemies.” Hamas and Hizbullah are Islamic Resistance movements, rooted in the Muslim people of the region who have been occupied by the zionists.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is the only state in the region that is not being ruled by a puppet, and is pursuing an independent foreign policy, i.e. independent of US imperialism.

This does not make Iran “our enemies” - this means that they are acting like any republic would and should do, i.e. not accept the bullying and aggressive tactics of the US.

When saying “our enemies” - I think it is important to distinguish that, for the most part, US imperialism runs counter to the interests of not only the rest of the planet, but also against the interests of those who live within the political entity called the US.

Our enemy is US imperialism. Not Hamas, Not Hizbullah, Not the Islamic Republic of Iran.

IF Obama becomes President, he should, of-course, talk with any and all representatives of the people of the region. That would be the least we (the people of the world) would expect from any reasonable country. Unfortunately, the US empire has become so rough, that even this minimum is up for debate.

We should not get caught up, or begin to identify ourselves with this kind of a mentality. Our identification must be with the victims, those being oppressed by the US empire.

By student on June 29, 2008 -- 4:35pm

Dear beloved Imam Shakir.

Even if we assume a capitulation on Israeli extremism(which I also doubt) don’t we have a much more principled and peaceful candidate with Obama?

What about the lessons we are taught about the treaty of Huthaibiah and having forbearance for the greater good?

May allah help you in guiding us all this election season. I love you for the sake of allah.

wassalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,
-anwar

By Iman Hamdani on July 5, 2008 -- 12:40pm

Obama is a hot topic on our site also.

Somehow, I think that he has lost much trust in our Muslim community.

Ultimately he will follow suite of the democrat party that pulls his strings! He is a better choice of the two but I think that he will be little different than the others on issues important to us muslims.

Iman

By Besnik Sinani on July 8, 2008 -- 6:31pm

as-salamu alaikum,
I sent an email to Obama’s website discussing a recent New York Times article that reported about the distance Obama has been keeping with the muslim community. I added that although I had been inspired by his candidancy, I don’t entend to vote for someone who does not ask for my vote. I received an email saying that due to the amount of mail they receive they cannot read them all.

By Hamzah bin Taalib on July 15, 2008 -- 5:20am

Firstly, I would like to thank Imam Zaid for that insightful article.

But I would like to reply to brother Anwar…

I disagree with your perspective on “more principled” and “the greater good” in regards to Obama.

As for his principles: There is no proof that Obama has any real principles in the first place; he denounced his spiritual leader, he has not made any significant action to change the status quo for the poor and the exploited people while in the senate, nor has he proven that he can keep his word on major issues like Iraq and government eavesdropping.

Secondly, in regards to “the greater good”: If you consider that taking “some” of the american forces out of Iraq, replacing them with mercinaries, expanding the army, and then redeploying them into afganistan is the “greater good”, then I believe that your perspective is completely flawed.
Also, how can he be better if he is the strongest vocal supporter of the Zionist regime and army expansion?
The only thing he seems to be better at is public speaking and putting a black face in the oval office, which is a great contribution to the hope of minorities, yet that is nothing compared with the “greater harm” that he has said he will produce.

And remember, you always have the choice not to support neither candidate.

I strongly believe that some Muslims are more fooled about Obama than they were with Bush when many of our Arab brothers voted for him in 2000. It is unfortunate to know that we still haven’t learned our lesson yet.

Allah knows best. Wa Salaam

By Mariam Sultana on July 28, 2008 -- 5:12pm

Very well put, Imam Zaid. Thank you for that insightful article. I had not seen Obama’s position, or should I say lack of, from this perspective.

By Laila on October 10, 2008 -- 8:57am

Assalamu alaikum,

Very nice.

By al Philly on October 12, 2008 -- 12:10pm

Good article. I personally am happy that finally an African American can be elected to the highest office in the country.

But, people just need to realize that Obama “is what he is”, an African American who will be president, simple as put. He will not liberate the Muslims, he will not decrease funding to Israel and he most certainly will not solve the 50 year old Middle East crisis.

The Israel/Palestine issue is 50 years old and the Palestinians fight amongst themselves (recent Hamas/Fatah struggle) so I would not expect Obama to solve this age old problem.

Pakistan is currently being “bombed” and will continue to be, regardless of who the president is. The same can be said about Iran. Obama is not “the hand that rocks the cradle.” That agenda is already set in stone.

All we can do is vote for the lesser of two evils, and pray that God liberate the Muslims.