Mapping the Questions, Politics and location of Resistance

An Interview with Anti-Racist Feminist Sunera Thobani

Sunera Thobani teaches at the Women’s and Gender Studies Program at the University of
British Columbia. She is also past president of the National Action Committee on the Status
of Women (NAC), Canada's largest feminist organization. The first woman of color to serve
in this position, she made anti-imperialism and anti-racism central to the women's
movement. Her book ‘Exalted Subjects’ places new emphasis on the question of
indigenism, race and citizenship within the context of Canada, and makes it clear that
modern nation-states are fundamentally based on violence and relations of power. Her
article ‘White Wars’ in the journal Feminist Theory is a critique of Western modes of
feminism that work within the structure of white supremacy. Dr. Thobani is very clear that
wars inflicted on Muslims and Islam cannot be and should not be justified in the name of
liberation and democracy (for women).

Dr. Thobani traveled to West Bank and Gaza a few months ago. She came to University of
California at Berkeley to speak against the Zionist occupation of Palestine, and to participate
in the conference “Decolonizing the University” that took place in February 26-27. It was an
absolute honor to meet with Sunera Thobani during this time and to discuss more about her
work as an activist-scholar. We thank her for supporting the work of Chintaa.

Tanzeen Doha: I was just reading your book. I will start with that. But I think it’s because
it’s related to probably your speech, because you just went to Gaza…in September?

Sunera Thobani: I was in the West Bank in July, and then Gaza in September.

TD: I will start with a quote that I found in pg. 56 of your book. "Violence in this context
was more than the individual caprice of unscrupulous settlers, it was the necessary
condition for the preservation of the colonial order." So, I want to ask you because this is
the Canadian context… Is there a similar relationship when it comes to Gaza? Your
observations on Gaza and the violence that Palestinians are subjected to in order to
maintain the Zionist state of Israel.

ST: You know one way in which the violence in Gaza gets constructed in the West is that it’s
a humanitarian crisis, that the Israeli blockade has led to a humanitarian crisis, and
therefore they need more aid. That’s how the violence in Gaza, the suffering in Gaza gets
constructed in that kind of way. You know all of the Palestinian activists I met in Gaza all
said to me that it’s not a humanitarian crisis. This is the political, the logical outcome of the
occupation. It is not a humanitarian crisis. To construct it as a humanitarian crisis is to
depoliticize it. And when I look at Canada today you have a similar construction about
aboriginal reservations, about how aboriginals are treated. That they don’t have enough
services. They need help, they need aid. And you know it gets constructed in the same kind
of way. And of course the Canadian nation state even today continues to be reproduced
through the ongoing dispossession of aboriginal peoples, and violence is at the heart of it.
Violence has been made into law. And where I see the similarities between Canada and
Gaza, the situation in Palestine, is that both are settler colonies, both are settler societies.
You know, Canada is a settler society that remains deeply colonial and yet it’s trying to
transform itself into a liberal democracy, which it is for a certain portion of its population,
for Canadians, right, but not for aboriginals. And so, you know there are so many
similarities between the Canadian situation and what’s happening in Gaza because you
know basically they are both settler societies… both based on the dispossession and
occupation of indigenous people’s lives. So, you know I see both orders really as ultimately
resting on violence.

TD: What is the role of the intellectual within the context of global imperialism? What kinds
of risks do you have to take in order to do that? And, what are the consequences of doing
that?

ST: Well, the risks have increased tremendously now with the “war on terror”. There is a
battle going on. You know, certainly in the media and the public sphere… and university
campuses it is very intense, and especially around pro-Palestinian politics. So, you know the
risks have increased tremendously, but I feel the necessity to speak out and to break
through this kind of ideological construct that is the frontline of the “war on terror”. There is
also the kind of ideological battlefield on which these ideas have to be contested and they
have to really be confronted. So I think it’s become even more urgent for intellectuals to
speak out. But not just speak out, you know, we have the cases where intellectuals are kind
of horrified with what the Bush administration did, and so in principle they are opposed to
the war, but they don’t actually want to engage with the ideas of the society… They don’t
want to engage with the movements that have emerged to defend those societies. So I
think that intellectuals certainly need to speak out in opposition to US imperialism, to
Canada’s role in the “war on terror”. Canada’s been a staunch partner of the U.S right from
the launch of the “war on terror”. Canada is one of the major partners in Afghanistan. So
certainly there is a need to confront and contest the imperialist ideology. But I think there is
also responsibility on intellectuals to engage with those who are opposing U.S imperialism
through out the Middle East and Central Asia. And you know there’s been such a
demonization of Muslims, of Islam that has made any kind of intelligent discussion
impossible. You get attacked, you get called an apologist for terrorism. So I think it’s the
role of the intellectuals urgently needed now. It’s not only to speak out against this
imperialist war, but also to engage with… Where is the resistance coming from to U.S
Empire? And, on what basis are they articulating that resistance? There is a lot to be
learned from them. And it’s just easy to just demonize it. I guess my concern is that,
intellectuals speak out but what are they speaking out for, and who are they engaging with
in doing that. Because with the fiasco of the Bush administration, with the sheer
incompetence, it is in a way also become fashionable for intellectuals to distance
themselves- Oh that was the Bush craziness, so of course that was stupid. Iraq was the
unjust war. But they continue to defend Afghanistan [war]. They still see it as a necessary,
just war. And in Canada it’s very, very strong, this idea. Canadians are so invested in this
idea that they are saving Afghan women, that they are sending little afghan girls to school.
There is the only justification, that they have in Canada, is sending little Afghan girls to
school- we are saving Afghan women. So, in a way, you know intellectuals need to speak
out, need to confront their own states in the western world, but also they need to engage
with- what are these forms of resistance? There is no dialogue, there is no understanding.
It’s just a one way kind of monologue that we see in the media. There is no engagement
with people who are actually resisting. They have been demonized so thoroughly. I think it’s
the role of the intellectuals living in the West today to engage them, to break through this
demonization. So I think it’s a more complicated process than just speaking out.

TD: The very act of speaking out is basically a State sanctioned form of resistance even if
you call “speaking” a form of resistance. Whether Western trained intellectuals are even
capable of having any kind of discourse that is beyond the liberal discourse [is debatable],
because the structures of that discourse has inherent, implicit hierarchy. So every time
someone who is resisting, or coming from an indigenous perspective, will that even be
within the discourse? And a lot of feminists have participated in that particular discourse,
which automatically by participation you become sort of the second class voice within that
discourse. How can intellectuals break free? Is it just speaking? What kind of engagement
can happen to bring up this notion of indigenism? And, so what can we do other than having
an engagement? And the whole notion of dialogue, which has actually been one of the main
things the Obama administration, post-Bush, is talking about. He gave a speech in Cairo.
Dialogue itself… As soon as you sit down you make a concession. How can the intellectuals
deal with that paradox, that contradiction?

ST: I think you are absolutely right. Because once you engage… I mean that’s why Hamas
is rejecting to recognize Israel. Once they do that they are already in an inferior position.
Once they recognize they lose half the battle. And this is where I think it is really important
not to equalize. Dialogue is between equal partners. And that’s where the biggest mistake
happens. Israeli and Palestinians are not equal partners- one is the oppressor and one is the
oppressed. Same thing, you know Obama going to Cairo. I mean what are you talking
about; dialogue is impossible between unequal partners. So you know, first of all is to
recognize power which has to be central. And you know, any kind of exchange that takes
place has to be with a complete recognition of this unequal relation of power. I’ll take it
back to the question of intellectuals. Before they can have this dialogue, or engage in any
kind of discussion, they have to deconstruct their own position, they have to look at
themselves first, they have to look at their power that comes inherently with their
categories, with their language, their whole construction of these conflicts. That needs to be
the job of Western intellectuals. The way they do it is kind of equalize the two sides. There
are no two sides. It’s much more complicated. So, first thing is to recognize the centrality of
power and violence, to see their discourses completely invested in reproducing that
violence, and in a way kind of cleanse themselves of that. I’ll give you a real concrete
example. When I went to Gaza, I was in a delegation, and people were extremely critical of
Hamas, and they came back, there were all kinds of discussion. And ‘how do we humanize
Hamas’ was the discussion. And there is a part of me that just says: If you want to sit here
and want to humanize Hamas, I have nothing in common with you. What I want to talk
about is why you have dehumanized Muslims. That’s the conversation I want to have. It is
what Fanon said. That the black man in a sense is the artifact of the white man. What has
led you to your position, in your society, in your values, that you can dehumanize an entire
group of people? That’s the conversation I want to have. Not how to humanize, Muslims or
Islamists. It preserves the unequal relationship (binary). In feminism it happens a lot as
well. Feminists in the West approach Muslim women, especially, Muslim women who wear
the hijab, the veiled Muslim woman—- I am free, I am liberated, you are oppressed, let me
help you. That’s not a basis for dialogue. No exchange is possible. No meaningful exchange
is possible. All that is possible is to continue to reproduce colonial relations. Colonialism was
based very strongly on the dehumanization of the black man. Today we talk about racism,
and people feel that racism is about rights and entitlement, civil rights, but in the modern
world racism is about who is human and who is not. Black people in this country were
considered 3/5th human. This is the basis on which racism, processes of racialization
emerge- who is the human. This is the foundation of Western society’s self-construction and
its relation with the other. And today it’s Muslims who have been so thoroughly
dehumanized. The discussion have to start with: What is this society that feels the need to
continue to dehumanize huge groups of people? That is the problem.

TD: I just go on to the next question which is about this article that you wrote- ‘White
wars’- where you actually critique Western feminism and the “war on terror”. What inspired
you to discuss Western feminism in relation to the “war on terror”? Why was that
necessary?
ST: Because I live in a settler society, and I know historically that white women’s
participation in the colonial project was central to making it successful. It was when white
women started to come to Canada, their migration was organized by the State, it was
supported, they were brought there to reproduce British and French societies in the colony.
So, you know, and that then became the basis on which white feminism emerged in
Canada. And the early feminists in Canada saw themselves as the founders of a great nation
and a great race. That was their project. So feminism and you know even in the case of
South Asia lots of work has been done to show how complicit western feminism has been
with colonialism, with imperialism. That’s the history of feminism in the Western world. You
can’t negate that. And what I was interested in, ok that was the case. But then there was a
whole emergence of anti-racist feminism. Many of us struggled very hard to break through
into mainstream feminist organizations, into Women’s Studies departments. And to bring a
kind of anti-racist, anti-imperialist critique, and framing of feminist politics, and so I became
interested because as soon as the 9/11 attacks happened, two things, one was the
demonization of Muslims, and the second thing is the construction of Muslim women as
hyper victims. And that became a way to, I think, mobilize feminists… So, I wanted to look
at, ok so this is what’s clearly happening. Feminist groups scrambling to save Afghan
women all over the world, crying, putting money together. We were all subject to kind of
the crass, patronizing response from Western women to what happened. So I really wanted
to look at- ok, what has been the impact of this anti-racist critique, anti-imperialist critique
that women like myself, many, many of us, I come very late in the picture… there are many
women before me… indigenous feminists, black feminists, South Asian feminists- what has
been the impact of that? How could it have been wiped out in one second, all of our work?
So, I thought I want to look at what feminists are… actually, how are they theorizing what
the war is about? What its courses are? What is their relationship to it? I wanted to identify
what are the strategies they are using that makes it possible for them in this moment to
completely erase the anti-racist third world feminist critique? I think that has been one of
the victims of the war on terror as well, is that that kind of thinking has now been
completely [shunned] with the kind of crass assertions of Western supremacy, Western
civilization that has moved center stage. I wanted to understand how Western feminists
responding to it, and from different theoretical traditions… how are they responding to it?
What are their foundational assumptions? How are they actually thinking about themselves
in relation..? I was surprised when I started to study and write the paper, at the many
shared assumptions between Western feminists who supported the war and those who
opposed it. Their basic assumptions, their foundational construct of the self all came from
the same place, structured by the same discourse, the same values. And the politics led
them to different places, but I think there has been a fall with anti-imperialist and anti-
racist feminists. That you know, we have made allies with white women. I myself, I was the
president of a primarily white women’s organization. Women of color were minorities. I
worked with white women. And yeah they were able to ally themselves with me, and the
other women of color on some issues, on others we struggled. And of course, we know what
the history is. As soon as women of color emerge as leaders, organizations collapse, white
women leave. It’s a very similar politics in the UK, in Canada, in the U.S. So what I wanted
to do was really look at where our anti-racist feminism had been wreaked… that had allowed
this moment to happen. Not to make the same mistakes again. That was really to expose
how much common ground these different feminist theoretical traditions actually [have] and
that common ground is white supremacy. Its white supremacy, whether they are liberal
feminists, postmodern, the white supremacy, the whiten entitlement remains unquestioned.
And ultimately, for an anti-racist feminism we cannot make alliance with white women on
that basis. And I wanted to look at the strategies, identify them. So that way, learn to
recognize what is happening.
TD: You talked about your space within the feminist movement, and other women of color
and their space within the feminist movement. And their responsibilities to question white
supremacy. For example, your occupation in the Gender Studies and Women’s Studies
program. Now, people are questioning, someone like Zizek for example, questioning
multicultural utopias. Where even your inclusion in that is complicit with the liberal notion of
multicultural utopia. So within that structure you have to function. How can that be
challenged in a really meaningful way when in fact your participation in that department, in
this movement actually in a way propagates this hierarchical, white supremacist system?
So, how do you think about that? How do you engage with that? What do you do with that?

ST: I think you have to think about these things historically and concretely. Yeah, you can
talk about multiculturalism, but I think it goes even further. What I’m really struggling with
in my book is citizenship. For me the institution of citizenship has made people of color
complicit in the genocide of aboriginal people, and in the on-going dispossession of
aboriginal people. Citizenship policies in Canada, in the U.S as well were utterly racialized
until the 1950s. In Canada we were defined as non-preferred races. So Canadians do not
encourage our migration. They have specific laws to keep out Chinese, South Asians, black
people, we know all of that. And people of color when they manage to come to Canada had
to fight for their rights, and they did it through the paradigm of citizenship. They wanted
equal rights with the settlers and colonizers. But in fighting for those equal rights they did
not look at their relationship to aboriginal people. I know citizenship rights are extremely
important and vital. But having access to these rights, we then reproduce the same
relations of power with the aboriginal people. So, how do we conceive of these political
projects which make citizenship not an end in itself? Because you know aboriginal people in
Canada define citizenship as the final solution for them. It’s the extinction of aboriginal
rights- Canadian citizenship. And yet people of color have been completely seduced into that
relationship, which I understand completely being a migrant myself three times in my life I
understand the importance of citizenship. We have to rethink it in a way. We are not
fighting for inclusion; we are actually fighting for transformation of the very institution of
citizenship. And, it’s a really deep political challenge. And I don’t think anybody’s done it
yet. And I will tell you something about multiculturalism in Canada. Multiculturalism in
Canada is official State policy. At that time when multiculturalism became adopted the State
was facing really strong organized anti-racist movements in Canada. And multiculturalism
became a way to really de-radicalize those demands. Anti-racist politics is about politics. It
is not about culture. Its not about- can I have samosas? Can my kid eat samosas in school?
And the State would transform it into—can my kid eat samosa? Yes of course you can.
Right? So, multiculturalism itself was a response from the State to anti-racist politics, and
anti-racist organizing which was about transforming the political sphere, transforming the
political economy, looking at the basis of race and racialization within the economic
structure. That’s what anti-racist politics is about. And the State very effectively re-
constituted that in the Canadian context. De-radicalized it, de-politicized it. Then it became
essentially a way of freezing people of color in these Orientalist colonial constructs of
culture. Their cultures are like that. They will always remain like that. In this moment, even
a defense of multiculturalism, in the “war on terror”, seems a radical thing. But it was
actually a complete cooptation. And I think if we look at it historically then we have the
answers. What were those anti-racist politics about? That is what we need to continue to
make stronger. So, in a way we have to think about it concretely and historically in the
context of this society. The history of multiculturalism is different in the States. But I think
for me the grounding has to be a kind of anti-racist politics, and a critical race analysis of
the global world. Because the modern global order was founded on racialization, and that
was founded on the dehumanization of certain kinds of people and that has remained a
constant. And it is a mistake for people of color, to think that just because for a short time
they have inclusion to citizenship, that somehow our humanity has been accepted. And the
ease with which Muslims have been so thoroughly demonized not just by the State but by
the entire society, shows that they have never become convinced of their humanity, of
other peoples. That’s why they can justify torture, justify targeted assassinations, justify
these drone attacks, killing suspected terrorists. They don’t even know who is getting killed.
But it’s because you can dehumanize these people. And that’s what we are facing in this
“war on terror”. So, multiculturalism is a very small part of what we need to be thinking
about.

TD: In your speech, the speech that created so much debate you talked about the use of
language. And you said how the language by the West and how it represents others as anti-
democratic and irrational, so on and so forth. Frantz Fanon also discussed the question of
language in a big way, particularly in the book- Black Skin, White Masks. I wanted to see
if you wanted to talk more about the question of language in terms of resistance, in terms
of questioning authoritarian systems. And how can a different way of speaking about things
begin in academia and in activism?

ST: I think historically claiming words and giving them a different meaning has been central
to resistance struggles. I mean the classic example is Black is Beautiful, and that whole
movement. I think that my meaning in this speech was that, the language that was being
used was actually demonizing Muslims. Not just as irrational. But as not human. Not
human. You know the way Muslims continue to be described as- evil, forces of evil, they
hide in caves. The kind of language that gets used actually produces us in these sheer
terms, that we are not fully human. For me it was really important to pull to what was
happening, because by talking about Muslims as not being human, Muslims can then be
treated as if they are not human. They can be cured without any freedom and democracy-
loving citizen saying, what is going on, why are these people being killed? So you know in
my point, and of course Fanon has a very large critique, there is a whole kind of school of
philosophy that looks at language and its use, but for me in that moment, what was really
important was to look at how all of these colonial constructs, how the language of coloniality
itself became mainstream. Whereas from the period after the 1960s until 9/11 there was
racism, even though there was Islamophobia, the strength of movements in North America
put a limit on how freely and how overtly that language could be used. Multiculturalism had
come into place. It was a struggle in many places. In other places like Canada, it was policy.
Nevertheless, it had put some limits on the gross assertion of white supremacy which relies
on dehumanization of everybody else. For the white to become truly and fully human, is
when others are turned into non-humans. There is a larger critique, and I think of course,
language is very, very important. I am backing all the assumptions that are embedded in it,
how it constructs reality, what people come to believe about themselves, how they come to
have their relationship to their own selves is extremely important and Fanon wrote about it
brilliantly. But in my speech what I was really trying to do… was about mobilizing the
women’s movement in Canada, to oppose the war, and to stop the Canadian participation in
the “war on terror”. It was a very modest aim. And, so it was a political motive if you will, in
drawing a tension to how Muslims were being dehumanized in that moment. Of course the
situation has gotten much, much worse than that in the 9 years since 9/11 happened. On
the one hand the demonization of Muslims, and the complete dehumanization of Muslims. It
is now commonplace. Language has shifted in a really dangerous way. Things that can be
said today, 10 years ago were not possible. The things that can be said today, the
completely overt defense of racial profiling for example, its not that people weren’t racially
profiled. In Canada black men were really racially profiled. Many black men were killed by
police. Racial profiling was going on. But within mainstream politics it was impossible to
stand up and defend it. There was always this containment that it had to be apologized for.
It had to be denied. It had to be [considered] an aberration. Since 9/11 that kind language
is everywhere. And racial profiling now is defended by Prime Ministers, Ministers, Police
Chiefs. So, there has been a significant shift in the use of language since 9/11, and that has
to be part of the politics of resistance…

TD: We saw with the Bush administration the intensification on the representation of
Muslims as negative constructs. With the new president we saw a certain change in the way
he is communicating. I want to know from you- what are the dangers and concerns… This
relates to the Cairo speech, where he talked about how Islam has been hijacked by bunch
of crazy lunatics but most of Islam is peaceful, so on and so forth. Therefore, that needs to
be promoted, and there needs to be dialogue with those people. But there is also quite a bit
of work done within American Islamic discourse where certain people who are not
necessarily outspoken or who were outspoken before have become more interested in the
question of the ethical than the question of the political. And of course, political repression
is extremely high, for example, the imprisonment of Imam Jamil Alamin (formerly H.Rap
Brown) who was a very outspoken former Panther member, and the marginalized voice, the
voice of resistance has become apathetic. So, the question now is, there is a whole notion of
trying to create a role model which is moderate, and which is Western, and which will speak
to the mainstream system. In that case, this representation has been a change. What kind
of strategies should we employ to deal with that in order to talk about Islam not in this
“unprincipled peaceful” manner?

ST: You raise some very, very important points, and there is a lot in that, that needs to be
unpacked. But first as somebody who gets labeled as a political activist, I refuse to see the
territory of the ethical. I don’t make a separation between the political and the ethical. So,
for me the political always has to be grounded in the ethical, and vice-versa. And one of the
strategies to isolate and marginalize activists, or there I say even extremists, is to separate
them from the ethical and say – Oh that’s just political, in the most trivial and trite and
pejorative use of the term political. So, to begin with I wouldn’t separate the ethical and the
political. They go absolutely hand in hand. I think Obama’s strategy is smart, smarter than
the Bush Administration… I think clearly Obama’s foreign policy rests on making a deep
cleavage between moderate Muslims and extremists. And that division is actually very
political. That’s what this strategy is. If we listen to Obama or if we look at any of the self-
styled moderate Muslims, the difference between moderate Muslims and extremist Muslims
is that moderates will not oppose U.S foreign policy, moderates will not oppose
Westernization. Moderates will argue for- whatever their version of Islam is to be their
private concern. It’s a completely- what you do in your home, that whole separation
between the public and the private, and the public has to be secular. And of course the
public is not secular. It’s deeply shaped by Christian values. The whole split within
Christianity between Protestantism and Catholicism, I mean historically that’s how
secularism emerges. So secularism is completely implicated genealogically within
Christianity. So the notion that the secular is somehow non-religious cannot historically be
justified. You cannot sustain that argument. The thing about making that separation
between moderate Muslims and extremists who has supposedly hijacked Islam- the
distinction between them is who will collaborate and accept Westernization and will accept
this kind of blind faith in the Western project if that’s what we will call it, and then the
extremists become the ones who refuse to collaborate, who will not accept American
hegemony. You know whatever the other motives are, but politically this is the point at
which moderate Islam speaks on extremist Islam in the way that U.S foreign policy today is
operated on. So, we have to realize given our own historical experiences that this is nothing
new. Divide and conquer was central to the whole colonial project. And of course, there
were classes; there were elites who were co-opted into reproducing the colonial system. If
they hadn’t, colonialism would not have survived. We have to know that this is nothing new.
This is a historical pattern and this is how power reproduces itself within the colonial
context. Which is again, we are back in that moment of coloniality. This is how power
operates. In standing up and challenging this kind of moderate Islam that is working with
the Obama administration’ s foreign policy and international agenda. We have to recognize
it. It is nothing new. We have to analyze it within that context and not get sidetracked by
this discussion about what is real Islam, who has hijacked it or who has not. That’s a red
herring. And to engage in that discussion actually limits us being able to move beyond that.
We have to see that whatever moderate Islam is, and the way its been constructed by
Obama in the U.S but also by other leaders in other countries and leaders of organizations
in Muslim communities even, particularly in the West, this is a completely collaborationist
agenda and it furthers imperialism. And historically that’s how colonialism and imperialism
have worked. So that has to be I think the place from which we analyze this, instead of
getting caught in debates about what is real Islam.

TD: I have to ask you a more direct question. You made a presentation, a slide
presentation with pictures and photographs from Gaza, and you compared some of the
photographs in West Bank. You did a whole presentation on the occupation in Palestine. We
are talking about representation and language. What’s interesting were the children, the
drawings that they have in Gaza. The merging of a politics of, possibly a politics of
solidarity. Because they had pictures of Yasser Arafat and they had pictures of the spiritual
leader of Hamas. What did you see? Your observations on Palestinian self-representation in
terms of the spirit of resistance and in terms of their political support for a specific type of
resistance there? How do you look at that as probably an alternative strategy from the
perspective of Muslims to resist imperialism? How do you look at the Palestinian movement
from your observations?

ST: Well, from my observations, and I want to limit this to Gaza only. Because you know
there is a tendency to romanticize communities. And Palestinians are divided by class, by all
kinds of divisions that come in any group. But in terms of self-representation , of course
Hamas’s self-representation is very clear. It opposes Israel and defining itself as an
oppositional force so far. At least this far, this is how they have represented themselves.
That self-representation is very evident within Gaza. I showed some of the images of the
big billboards, Hamas fighters with their guns, pictures of Hamas leaders, Fattah leaders
even, Yasser Arafat is featured very prominently. Then, very important is the
representations of Jerusalem all over the place. So Hamas is claimed to not be marginalized
and contained within Gaza, but actually its vision is a national vision. Its vision is a united
Palestinian community and a nation. The vision is clearly there. It’s nationalistic. The way in
which Hamas gets represented out here, as one faction, and people in Gaza are held
hostage by Hamas, that’s a very popular kind of construct. I did not see that at all when I
was there.

TD: You saw it as a movement of the people…

ST: You know, for the people of Gaza, what is clear is that, the support for Hamas has
increased as a result of the economic blockade and as a result of the Israeli attack on Gaza,
support really strengthened for Hamas because of that. People do see Hamas as
representing the Palestinian occupation. Where else is it coming from? It’s not. Certainly
there are individuals, there are groups, I’m not trying to trivialize that, but in terms of
political movement this is what people see. And we must remember that Hamas did not
think it was going to win the election itself. When it won the election, in some way, it was
the will of the people. It was the expression of the people who live in Gaza. And as I said
when I started my talk, Hamas was surprised that it won the election. So, it was an
expression of what people wanted and what they were choosing in that moment. Outside of
course, Hamas is just been branded as a terrorist organization. Primarily Israel kind of
constructs that definition, which has been embraced completely by the U.S, by Canada, UK,
so their populations mainly also see Hamas as this terrorist organization. Palestinians do not
see it like that. and in Gaza, my experience, for a limited time, I agree, I was there for a
short time, support has consolidated around Hamas, because Palestinians see what is being
done in Gaza is not being done only to Hamas, but its been done to all Palestinians. And
secular human rights activists in Gaza who do not necessarily support Hamas, of course
they support them in this struggle, but their political vision would be different, even they
said very clearly, what was happening in Gaza is the outcome of the occupation. It was not
just targeting Hamas. Any form of self-determination that was being expressed by
Palestinians will be attacked in the same way. And that’s how Palestinians in Gaza were
responding to us. That’s where I think their support for Hamas came from. They did not
separate themselves from what was happening to Hamas. This idea that somehow the
population can be punished into withdrawing their support from Hamas, it has had the exact
opposite effect.

TD: I want to concentrate on South Asia. We saw the demise of the Project for a New
American Century, as an institution, basically was closed down. Brzezinski who is part of the
Trilateral Commission has an entirely different neoliberal agenda, has a huge focus on South
Asia and Far East Asia. There are big similarities between Obama’s foreign policy and what
Brzezinski has outlined earlier. Obama himself have called Brzezinski one the most
important American scholars. In his book The Grand Chessboard there is clear indication
of what the possibilities are with regards to a more dialogue based foreign policy in the
Middle East, and much more militarily serious policy in South Asia. We are seeing its central
in South Asia with the bombings that are going on in Pakistan. Which is not a Bush war at
all. The bombings in Pakistan are clearly something that Obama has started. They are
refocusing, increasing troops in Afghanistan. What is your take on that? How should we look
at that? There has been this whole notion that Obama was elected as an anti-war president,
so on and so forth. That was some kind of expectation for some although some quarters
were cynical from the beginning.

ST: My observation is that, clearly Obama has expanded the “war on terror”. He is
expanding it into Pakistan. He is expanding it into Yemen. So there is no doubt about that
Obama is expanding the “war on terror”. In terms of the expectation from Obama that he
was a antiwar candidate- this shows you… one doesn’t want to get into a discussion on what
Obama really wants, it’s just the limits to an individual, how much change an individual can
bring. And Obama clearly was an establishment candidate. He would not have won the
democratic nomination if he wasn’t. He would not have won the election if he wasn’t.
Clearly, after the fiasco of the Bush years, really they needed Obama. In a way they would
have to invent him if he didn’t exist. Obviously, it’s terrible what Obama is doing with the
“war on terror”. I still keep thinking, lets hope it will change may be. Who knows what he is
thinking. But it’s clear that he’s embraced the “war on terror”, expanded it. But I also worry
the impact this will have on people. During Obama’s election young people in the U.S who
were voting for the first time, voted for Obama in huge numbers. The impact of this kind of
disillusionment and what it will mean in terms of cynicism about politics is something I think
we have to think about very seriously when Obama is done with, whatever his own agenda
is. But the impact it will have on politics and young peoples, kind of empowerment through
their own political mobilization, I think we will see a serious negative impact on that as well.
But the one thing that Obama did say was to social movements--- push me, push me.
Where are the social movements in this country? Where is the antiwar movement in the
U.S? You know, they thought Obama was in, and they could just fold up their bags and go
home. What are the social movements in this country? So its fine to say, Obama sold out.
Whatever one might say of him, which a lot of activists are now saying- what a
disappointment, why did I support him? But where are the social movements? Because
ultimately, which social activist worth their souls would put their faith in Obama as opposed
to building their own movements? Who would have done that? That would have been the
sloppiest kind of politics imaginable. So, where are the social movements in the U.S? That’s
the question I would ask.

TD: I will bring it back to the context of Bangladesh. There is a movement in Bangladesh to
adjust Islam to indigenous ideas to go beyond the binary of Arabization and Americanism.
So, what do you think about this urgency to make Islam compatible with indigenous ideas?

ST: I have to say that is very, very important. But this is a really important moment. I am
not talking about Bangladesh because I have not studied the situation there. I’m talking
about my experience living here. That there are divisions which are increasing amongst
Muslims- oh these are the extremists, oh this is Arab culture. Self-orientalizing is a huge
thing that is happening within Muslim communities all over the world. I think that is
something that really needs to be guarded against. Its kind of Muslims doing the same
thing- I am the good one, the Arabs are the bad ones. That is front and central. The
temptation now for Muslims to engage in self-orientalizing and construct other Muslim
communities is incredibly seductive; there are great rewards to be had for doing that. I
think that has to be a critical, political perspective that has to be central to our politics.

TD: It has to be anti-Orientalist.

ST: It has to be completely. But also within Muslims. We think about Orientalism, we think
Western societies doing it to Muslims, which is true.

TD: Self-Orientalism is a big deal right now.

ST: Self-orientalizing. I hear it in my own community- you know it’s the Arabs, they are the
ones that hate women, we are not like that. Its those who are violent, we are not. Even
inside Muslims communities- good Muslim vs. bad Muslim- is really emerging strongly.