Mubarak Awad: Was Israel justified in expelling him?
This article is reprinted with permission from FLAME (Facts and Logic About the Middle East). Visit FLAME’s website, factsandlogic.org, to read every one of their excellent articles debunking common misconceptions about the history and current events of the Middle East. — Admin
For the last few months, there have been almost daily stories in the press and on television about Mubarak Awad, an American citizen of Arab-Palestinian heritage. The Israeli government expelled Awad and returned him to his adopted country — the United States. Our government has taken interest in the case and has expressed its concern to Israel about this matter. It’s easy to get confused.
What are the facts?
Awad’s background. Mubarak Awad is an Arab, born in the eastern sector of Jerusalem. Like all other Arabs resident in Jerusalem, he was offered Israeli citizenship. He declined that and chose to remain a Jordanian subject. In 1969, Awad immigrated to the United States. He married an American citizen and became himself an American citizen by naturalization. Israeli law stipulates that a non-citizen resident who lives outside the area for seven years loses his resident status. Availing himself of his U.S. citizenship, Awad started making periodic visits to Israel. During his sojourns as a “tourist” and under the cover of his U.S. citizenship, Awad organized the “Palestine Center for the Study of Non-Violence.” That organization promotes general civil rebellion of the Arab population of Judea/Samaria (the “West Bank”) and Gaza. In his writings and exhortations, Awad describes such tactics as “supplement to the ‘armed struggle’ for liberation.” In the Middle East setting, “armed struggle” is a notorious code word for terrorism.
Having exhausted the forbearance of the Israeli authorities, the government of Israel decided to expel him and to send him back to the United States, of which he is a citizen. This, almost inexplicably, produced much outcry and was cited by some as another example of Israeli ruthlessness and disregard for human rights. But one basic attribute of sovereignty is that a nation can determine which foreigners may or may not reside in its country and to expel anybody whom they consider undesirable. The U.S. routinely refuses entry into the country to those whose political activities we think of as being contrary to our interests. Until recently, we even barred those whose sexual orientation did not conform to the norm. And we routinely expel those who are here illegally, who have overstayed their visas, or who are engaged in activities that we consider contrary to the interests of our country. In most cases, these matters are handled summarily. Usually only in cases of American citizens, such as in the case of the mass-murdered Demjanjuk, who was ultimately extradited to Israel, does it take judicial action.
Abuse of rights. How then can the Israeli government possibly be faulted for expelling Awad? He totally abused his rights as a tourist, because the real purpose of his visits was to incite the Arab population of Israel and of the administered territories to insurrection, civil disobedience and “armed struggle.” The Israelis would have been quite within their rights not to allow him to enter the country in the first place, or to expel him during the term of his visa. But they allowed him to stay months after the expiration of his visa and expelled him ultimately only after he emerged as one of the top leaders of the current Arab uprising against Israeli authority. Even then, and in deference to the United States, Awad has allowed to exhaust every judicial recourse and, in a process that took months, carried his case to the Israeli Supreme Court. That court, which, just as in the United States, is totally independent of the government, unanimously decided that the expulsion was legal. Awad was put on a plane and sent back to the U.S.
Why martyrdom for Awad? Those who are determined to bestow the mantle of martyrdom on Mubarak Awad call him an “apostle of non-violence” and compare him to Gandhi and Martin Luther King. But the reality is quite different. Dr. King deeply loved America and tried to strengthen it through his campaign of non-violence. By explicitly supporting the terrorist PLO, by declaring violence to be a legitimate means of advancing Palestinian political goals, by viewing non-violence as a tactical complement to violence in the Palestinian uprising, and by subscribing to the PLO’s concept of “armed struggle” and to the ultimate liquidation of Israel, he revealed himself as what he really is: a revolutionary to whom “non-violence” is only one of many revolutionary weapons.
Misuse of American citizenship. As Americans we must be particularly concerned about Awad’s misuse of his American citizenship. In becoming an American citizen, he took an oath to forswear all foreign allegiances and to reside permanently in the United States. He clearly broke his oath on at least those two counts. Before the Israeli Supreme Court, he declared that he had used his “American citizenship and passport solely for bureaucratic reasons of convenience, without attaching any importance and weight whatsoever,” and that he “viewed Jerusalem as his place of residence always.”
He made statements to the same effect on the MacNeil/Lehrer Report of Tuesday, June 14. Mubarak Awad treated the priceless gift of American citizenship with disdain and cynically used it for his political purposes and his foreign entanglements. How fortunate for Awad that we Americans are such good-natured, forgiving and patient people! Any other country would at the very least have stripped him of the citizenship that he had acquired by swearing falsely and with the obligations of which he never intended to comply.
It is clear that Israel was totally within its rights to expel Mubarak Awad, a rabble-rouser who used the cover of his U.S. citizenship and the protection of his U.S. passport to foment revolution in Israel and in the territories administered by Israel. Israel would have been fully justified in expelling him summarily. But they gave him every legal opportunity to have the expulsion order rescinded. Awad’s assumed role as a latter-day Gandhi or Martin Luther King is a sham. Disregarding all other aspects of this case, his true personality is revealed in his cynical and cavalier misuse of his American citizenship.
—————
17
6 Responses to “Mubarak Awad: Was Israel justified in expelling him?”
Leave a Reply
note: by commenting, you indicate that you have read and accept all-encompassingly's comment policy. please print it and keep a copy of the document in your wall safe along with your living will or advance directive.
I’m not going to answer the question posed in the title. You have presented NO credible information to enable the reader to do so. More on that later.
First, Travis, I have to warn you about something as you begin your foray into the dark, confusing world of the Middle East conflict. I think Thomas Friedman said it best:
“When it comes to discussing the Middle East people go temporarily insane, so if you are planning to talk to an audience of more than two, you’d better have mastered the subject (From Beirut to Jerusalem).â€
My warning is to study, I mean REALLY study, this topic before you start posting on it, or you will look like a schmuck. Posting an article by FLAME and presenting it as ‘fact’ certainly puts you in the ‘Schmuck’ category. Any hope you hold for this particular group for “debunking common misconceptions about the history and current events of the Middle East†is probably misguided. It’s like looking for ‘facts’ about the Health Care System on Michael Moore’s website.
Of course, I’m getting at objectivity. This principle certainly applies to the Middle East if you want to really make any sense of it. Without it you will conclude that one side is completely justified and one side is completely insane. How do I round out my opinion of the Middle East, you ask?
Here are three specific pieces of advice that apply to this particular instance:
1) Know your source. Objectivity on this matter is hard to come by. Almost everybody has an agenda and is more than willing to mislead to prove their point. And posting comments by an organization like FLAME lacks intellectual integrity and shows a lack of rigor in researching the topic.
2) Pay attention to place names and know the Hebrew for as well as the Arabic form (e.g. Hebron is called ‘Khalil’ in Arabic, and if you see it referred to as such, you can bet the source is pro-Arab). As a rule of thumb, never trust a source that refers to the West Bank as ‘Judea and Samaria.’ This shows that the author advocates the idea of ’Greater Israel’ encompassing all of the Land West of the Jordan River as part of Israel. This is an extremist view best to be ignored.
3) Also, look up East Jerusalem and examine its history, and you might find out why he passed up the magnanimous offer of Israel to give him citizenship. It’s probably for the same reasons that the US still has its embassy in Tel Aviv.
Let me make something very clear; I love the State of Israel. I think that despite its flaws, it is the best thing going in the Middle East (except for the fact that you can’t find a cheeseburger in Jerusalem). I also think that the only way to achieve peace is to marginalize all extremists (be it Hamas or settlers in the West Bank). You will find that marginal groups wield MUCH too much power over there.
If you, as a third party, want to learn about a topic like this, you would do well to check your biases at the door (as much as possible anyway). You’ll have a much more rewarding time of it if you do.
wait, i’m not clear on which facts in the FLAME article were wrong. could you clear that up for me?
your only response to FLAME’s biased facts is: awad can’t be expected to accept israeli citizenship because east jerusalem sucks. presumably, as someone who has “REALLY stud[ied]” the middle east, you could do a better job of debunking the article better than that. i mean, that isn’t even the central point of the article.
you dislike that i would read the work of an advocacy organization. you dislike the conclusions the article draws. you dislike my source of facts (though you do not contest any of the facts in the article). you sound exactly like the whiners [see exhibit a and exhibit b] (or, if you prefer, ’schmucks’) who have concluded that everything ann coulter says is false because it comes from her.
i know that coulter, FLAME, and the man you mentioned, michael moore (whose work i happen to enjoy), each have their own biases. but i use my functioning brain to detect where their conclusions do not follow from their facts.
well, i would say that attempting to vilify a source without presenting a single contradictory fact shows either (1) an incredible lack of “intellectual integrity” and “a lack of rigor in researching the topic” or (2) the source might just have it about right.
Ok, we can agree on something. I did not address the central issue addressed in the article. I don’t know enough about this case to really argue the point. I made no pretensions about it in my response, nor do I now. I am not contesting their conclusion. Could I have done a “better job debunking the article?†Certainly. Again, that wasn’t my point.
So, this is my point: If you want to read this kind of material, have at it, man. But don’t expect people who follow this topic VERY closely, and who constantly come across all kinds of trash written by various ‘advocacy groups’ not to correct you.
It’s not that I dislike you personally, it’s just I think too many people get bogged down by preconceived notions and never really get a chance to delve in and figure this issue out.
Also, let me answer some of your conclusions about my likes and dislikes:
“You dislike that I would read the work of an advocacy organization.†Not true. I couldn’t care less what you do on your spare time.
“You dislike the conclusions the article draws.†Again, not true. I don’t care what they think any more than I care about the Alien Baby Born in the Jungle that the Weekly World news is fortunate enough to uncover every couple of years. If this is a vital issue, or an issue with any importance, I will read about in other sources.
“You dislike my source of facts.†True. You got me on this one. As someone who understands the importance of assessing sources when studying a topic, I just find your source lacking, and your approach to this issue invalid.
I really enjoy talking about this topic. I would be more than happy to direct you to a smattering of sources that might round out your understanding. Send me an email if you want, Travis.
Your “correction” appeared to be nothing more than name-calling in both of your comments. With VERY large amounts of knowledge on the matter, you make a pathetic rebuttal offering no refutation other than citing the name of the organization the article came from.
Note to readers: disregard anything Moderate Extremist writes, he is not to be trusted!
this is my point: correct me (or, actually, FLAME) if you can. don’t come here and call me a schmuck for relying on a source that has its facts straight.
and yet you conclude that i am a schmuck, intellectually dishonest, and a lazy researcher because i endorse a source that is completely accurate. perhaps i do not know as much about the middle east as you do (that still seems to be an open question at this point), but i have taken an interest in the topic and i have read quite a bit from a politically diverse spectrum of sources. i realize that one short introductory paragraph may sell this knowledge short. during the last decade, i have attempted to evaluate the credibility of the various sources i have consulted. consistently, FLAME has been one of the few of which i approve. you say that my source is lacking, and my approach to the issue is invalid. but your argument is rife with strawman fallacies (comparing FLAME’s serious work to that of michael moore and the tabloid, weekly world news).
further, you would completely ignore FLAME’s work because you have not read their conclusions anywhere else. (the problem with this filter is that middle eastern history is not carried on an AP wire; if it was, it would look like this anyway). FLAME’s role is vital for the very reason that you discredit it: no one else is doing PR for israel.
maybe we could just cut to the chase and you could tell me what research you have uncovered that has convinced you that israel is in the wrong. feel free to cite any facts that prove this generally or in specific instances. i am curious to see all the sources you would recommend. you can leave a list below or send them to me via my email address found under the ‘contact us’ tab.
You beat me to the punch.
I ♥ strawman fallacies!