By George! Was Endorsing Bush a Mistake?

By Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D.

There were several reasons why American Muslims chose to unite behind George Bush in the 2000 presidential election. Chief among them was the perception that both Bill Clinton and Al Gore were too heavily invested with the Israeli lobby to adopt a balanced approach to the Palestinian issue. American Muslims felt that Bush not only would assume a more balanced attitude toward Palestinians but also would reverse the entrusting of the peace process to pro-Israel American Jews—some of whom, like U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, had a long history of lobbying for Israel. This, they reasoned, made it impossible to expect Democrats to be even-handed toward Palestine. American Muslims and Arab leaders believe that American evenhandedness is absolutely necessary for a fair and sustainable solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

While the Israeli lobby has failed to make any inroads into the Bush foreign policy setup, recent comments made by George W. Bush to the American Jewish Committee suggest that perhaps American Muslims’ faith in the president might be misplaced. On May 4, in his first speech to a national Jewish organization at the 95th Annual Dinner of the American Jewish Committee, President Bush declared, “My administration will be steadfast in supporting Israel against terrorism and violence, and in seeking the peace for which all Israelis pray.

“A top foreign policy priority of my administration is the safety and security of Israel,” he added for good measure. “We will stand up for our friends in the world. And one of the most important friends is the State of Israel.”

Such words of assurance by Bush to American Jews sound very similar to the ones he uttered to American Muslims. The difference is that promises to Muslims were made before the election and promises to American Jews are being made afterward. American Muslims find this Bush posturing very difficult to understand or accept, given the fact that while 78 percent of American Muslims voted for Bush, fewer than 20 percent of American Jews did so.

Both American Muslims and the Palestinians seem to have lost access to the president.

In the first 100 days of his administration Bush has already played host to new Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. While President Bush himself has not said anything, his aides have made it amply clear that Palestinian President Yasser Arafat is not welcome in Washington, DC. Moreover, the Oval Office does not even acknowledge letters written by prominent American Muslim organizations, including those who supported Bush in his presidential campaign.

American Muslims thought they were achieving a breakthrough by uniting behind George Bush. Many American Muslim leaders, remembering the fact that George Bush Sr. and Secretary of State James Baker were tough with Israel on the issue of settlements, hoped for a sea change in U.S. policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Our new president definitely has instituted several changes in the U.S. approach toward the Arab-Israeli conflict—but not exactly in the way American Muslims had hoped he would. The bombing of Iraq within a few weeks of the Bush inauguration was a sign that he had many surprises in store for American Muslims.

True, the visible influence of the Israeli lobby on the White House seems to have diminished. Both American Muslims and the Palestinians, however, seem to have lost access to the American president. During the Clinton presidency, not only did American Muslim organizations have access to the White House, but Chairman Arafat had accumulated an enviable amount of frequent-flyer miles on his trips to Washington, DC.

American Muslims are not happy with the changes in the U.S. role vis-à-vis Palestine. The new role of the American president as a detached facilitator of peace rather than a deeply engaged negotiator of peace has paid no dividends at all. America’s hands-off approach has meant that Palestinians are at the mercy of the Israeli army. As settlements grow and Palestinian frustration rises, violence and pain continue unabated.

Sharon has interpreted Washington’s hands-off approach as a license to use disproportionate violence to break the Palestinian spirit. Israeli forces now routinely deploy tanks and helicopter gunships. Sharon also has escalated the rate of settlement building in the occupied territories, in direct violation of international law and the stated policies of both the U.S. and the European Union. He clearly prefers to use Israel’s military superiority to repress Palestinians than to exchange land for peace.

Financing Israeli Violence

At a recent congressional hearing, Secretary of State Powell even agreed to consider that the U.S. increase its financial support to Israel to defray the rising cost of Israeli military operations against the Palestinians. American Muslims were shocked and amazed at this suggestion. Not only was the U.S. not putting pressure on Sharon to reduce Israeli military operations against the Palestinians, it was actually contemplating financing Israeli violence against them.

An American role in the Arab-Israeli conflict is crucial for peace of any kind to be achieved in the region. For the U.S. to be able to act as peace catalyst it must enjoy the trust and confidence of all parties involved. In his first 100 days, George Bush has succeeded in losing the trust and confidence of American Muslims, who supported his candidacy, contributed to his campaign and voted en masse for him. American Muslims have found that Bush does not keep his promises, and Palestinians have found that he does not care for their sufferings.

The decision taken by many American Muslim organizations to endorse Bush was not entirely a democratic one. Yes, the organizations involved did poll their members and consult people whom they considered “important Muslim voices.” African-American Muslims, however, who preferred to vote for Al Gore, were angry with the announcement and also felt alienated from the immigrant Muslims. One prominent African-American Muslim scholar angrily told me that the endorsement of Bush was a declaration that immigrant Muslims did not care for the opinion or the welfare of African-American Muslims.

Younger Muslims, especially in the universities, wanted to vote for Nader and the Green Party. I could palpably sense their disenchantment every time I said, “Our hearts are with Nader, but this time our vote is for Bush.”

In hindsight, endorsing Bush has proved to be counterproductive. We seem to have less access to policymakers now than we did during Clinton’s beat, however cosmetic that may have been. We also have generated a sense of resentment among Muslims that will take some time to simmer down. I hope that, in the future, American Muslim organizations will be more democratic and less presumptuous when making important decisions on behalf of all American Muslims.

Was there any other way out? Would we have been better off if one group had endorsed Bush and another endorsed Al Gore? We surely would not have been worse off, given the manner in which Bush has shrugged us off. His cuddling up to the American Jewish lobby, which tried its best to defeat him, suggests that endorsements or bloc voting is no substitute for real political power.

Perhaps American Muslims are seeking an easy way to power and influence in America. There is no such thing. We will have to dig in and do our homework, the old-fashioned way. Until we have serious access to, or significant control over, the sources of power in American democracy—such as media, think tanks, all branches of the government and the corporate world—we will not be able to make a noticeable impact on American policies. Endorsing Bush was just one small step toward increased access.

Perhaps, however, we did not make a mistake in endorsing Bush. Instead, our mistake may have been to expect too much from this singular act.

Dr. Muqtedar Khan is assistant professor of political science at Adrian College in Michigan. A member of the boards of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists and the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, his articles are archived at <http://www.themestream.com/authors/68815.html>