What Exactly Did Tlaib Do?
A Closer Look At A Censure Measure
My political writings are now on Substack — I’d appreciate it if you could read over there.
It’s been a while since the US Congress’ only Palestinian-origin lawmaker, Palestinian-American Rashida Tlaib.
My views on the situation in the Levant are complex, and I’ve tried to explain them in a detailed article. Nonetheless, it seems to me that Tlaib’s censure was illogical at best, and unethical at worst.
Yes, she definitely could have been more cautious before posting a video containing such an incendiary phrase. I’d argue that from a position of a responsibility — she should have been more cautious. But most critics fail to realize that many other politicians, if not every one of them, makes the occasional gaffe. It’s a little more than a harmless gaffe when people think you’re out to kill them, though. I’d probably rank this as slightly worse than George W. Bush’s “crusade”. From that sense, I do think that’s something good about the measure — Tlaib will be much more careful with her words now.
It does remain a gaffe, however. A silly, dangerous, mistake. Until Tlaib explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel, it cannot be much more than a gaffe. Look, I think it’s clear that she hardly likes the existence of Israel. Most Muslims don’t. And that’s a huge problem, as I’ve argued in my previous article (linked above), but censuring her for falling to societally induced hatred — especially when she tries hard to be really fair — is just plain unethical. When George Santos, who’s clearly been doing a lot of wrong and is an actual disgrace to the Congress, isn’t censured — Tlaib cannot be given the harshest condemnation excluding expulsion.
Get Safwan Samsudeen’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
There is another, more potent, reason for not censuring Tlaib. It just won’t work — just as Amnesty International’s declaration of Israeli apartheid didn’t. Harsh condemnation is probably the most useless thing anybody can do in politics — most people with a skin won’t back down, they will double down. Constructive criticism is far better — and I’m afraid the censure measure comes nowhere close to that.
I’m now going to review a few of the points she made in a speech of hers following the censure measure.
“Let me be clear”, she says, “my criticism has always been of the Israeli government and Netanyahu’s actions”. Well, perhaps she should have been more clear early on. It’s easy to say this every now and then, but in real life, you must emphasize it every time you criticize the Israeli government or Hamas — it’s all too easy to think that you’re criticising the Israeli people or the Palestinians.
“The idea that criticizing the government of Israel is antisemitic sets a very dangerous precedent” — very true, but this argument seems finicky to me. Yes, many far right folks think this — but most people don’t. Why does she use it?
“The cries of the Palestinian and Israeli children sound no different to me. What I don’t understand is why the cries of Palestinians sound different to you all. We cannot lose our shared humanity, Mr. Chair”. We have a major problem here. For most of the world, the cries of the children from both communities do sound very different. More accurately, they choose to ignore one set’s cries. Tlaib’s defense of herself here seems valid — but with the vast majority of the Muslim community, they just don’t acknowledge the Jewish crimes. And Tlaib should criticize that. Because if she doesn’t, it seems that she’s blaming the loss of our shared humanity on the other community, the eternal “them”.
“I am inspired by the courageous survivors in Israel who have lost loved ones, yet are calling for a cease-fire and the end to violence”. So am I. But Tlaib didn’t lose a loved one — so she needs to be a little more emphatic of this. More on the article above.
In short, I do think Tlaib has a lot to work on if she genuinely wants to bring about peace — but the censure measure was just plain wrong from every sense possible.
And oh, people? If you’re trying to redefine controversial phrases, please give the explanation before using them. Don’t disturb people and then try to justify it. Not gonna work with anybody, man — plus if you’re the one who’s been disturbed, I’m pretty sure you (and I) wouldn’t accept this. Thank you so much.
