Thinking Race, Empire, and Zionism in the U.S.: Notes for Asian/Arab American Studies

Title: Thinking Race, Empire, and Zionism in the U.S.: Notes for Asian/Arab American Studies

Scope: Critical comparison and coupling of Asian American and Arab American studies to illuminate U.S. empire, racialization, and anti-imperial praxis; foregrounds how domestic racialization and foreign policy abroad are intertwined, especially post-9/11.

Why link Asian and Arab American Studies?

• To recognize an emerging, under-theorized field of ethnic studies that can address limitations of multiculturalist politics and expand comparative analyses of racialized borders.
• To extend a comparative ethnic studies approach that challenges fixed ethnic/racial boundaries and illuminates imperial formations that connect homeland subordination with overseas domination.
• To respond to urgent crises of empire in the contemporary moment and situate U.S. empire in longer historical trajectories that connect movements in Asia and the Middle East.
• To see how categories like “Asian American” and “Arab American” are positioned in relation to empire, and how borders are formed/maintained through imperial power.
• Notes: The argument is that linking these fields is valuable not just for solidarity, but for understanding imperial phenomena beyond national frames (i.e., not only “inside the state” but also how borders and classifications map onto global power).

Foundational premise: empire as a framework for analysis

• Imperial power obscures links between homeland projects of racial subordination and overseas strategies of economic/political domination; domestic and global fronts of empire are interconnected.
• Ethnic studies historically documents boundaries and how race/gender/class intersect within the nation; Asian American studies increasingly acknowledges transnational dimensions and critiques multiculturalist identity politics.
• The meeting of Arab/Asian American studies helps to illuminate borders and the epistemological work of boundaries in shaping power and resistance.
• The challenge for ethnic studies: to confront imperial, not just national or ethnic, politics.
• Implication: to understand empire, one must broaden the frame beyond the nation-state to include transnational and imperial dynamics.

Historical context and key moments

• Asian American studies’ roots are anti-imperial and linked to civil rights/anti-colonial movements; the 1960s-1970s civil rights-era activism shaped its trajectory.
• The 1968 Third World student strike (Berkeley/SFSU) crystallized pan-Asian consciousness and helped found Asian American Studies; this movement was contemporaneous with pan-Arab nationalist awakenings.
• 1967 Arab-Israeli War catalyzed pan-Arab American identity among Arab Americans and heightened anti-Arab racism in the U.S., contributing to a broader understanding of U.S. imperial policies in the Middle East.
• The simultaneity of pan-Asian and pan-Arab solidarities shows how imperial politics orchestrate domestic racialization and overseas interventions.
• Important nuance: the alliance is not presented as universal; rather, the aim is to illuminate imperial formations and forge connections for analysis and resistance.

Empire and the boundaries of ethnic studies

• The essay argues for expanding the frame of Asian American studies to include imperial formations and to critique both formal and informal imperial power.
• It contends with multiculturalism’s limits, suggesting a need to resist co-optation and to foreground anti-imperial, anti-racist politics.
• The text positions empire as a spectrum of strategies: direct military intervention, coercive diplomacy, private contractors, economic sanctions, and cultural/political manipulation.
• It emphasizes that the U.S. has not abandoned colonial administration but has outsourced it, creating a blurred line between formal and informal empire.
• The role of borders: how racialized identities (Asian American, Arab American) are constructed in relation to empire, and how these constructions affect political possibility and knowledge production.

The “empire” paradigm and the making of “good/bad” minorities

• The piece critiques the dichotomy of “good” vs. “bad” Muslims/Arabs within imperial logic (e.g., willing to support liberal democracy vs. resisting empire).
• It also notes a parallel “good/bad” framework for Asian Americans, tied to expectations of assimilation and containment within liberal multiculturalism.
• A key implication: bridging Asian and Arab American studies can reveal how civilizational/fear discourses (e.g., clash of civilizations) sustain imperial projects while legitimizing domestic policing and surveillance.

Orientalism and Zionism: overarching concerns and tensions

• Edward Said’s call to stand close to reality and to demystify interpretive communities is a touchstone for analyzing Orientalism.
• The authors urge incorporating Palestine/Zionism into Orientalist analysis, arguing that excluding Palestine from Orientalism leaves the bones of the argument out of the flesh.
• They critique the tendency to treat Zionism and Palestine as separate from broader Orientalist frameworks and imperial projects.
• They argue that Zionist settler-colonialism intersects with U.S. imperialism, shaping foreign and domestic policies.
• They identify a danger in separating anti-Zionist critique from anti-imperialist critique, noting that some anti-imperialist analyses in the U.S. do not fully address Zionist settler-colonialism.
• The authors emphasize that some Asian American studies have historically under-addressed Palestine and Israel, and that this omission hampers a complete analysis of empire and Orientalism.
• They discuss the rhetoric of humanitarianism and “Pax Americana” as a cover for imperial rule, including how liberal imperialism justifies intervention in Muslim-majority societies.
• Syriana (2005) is cited as a cinematic illustration of liberal imperialism’s logic: “good” Arabs/Muslims may be integrated if they align with Western democracy, otherwise they face peril.
• The essay distinguishes between inclusive liberal multiculturalism (which absorbs some targeted communities) and the deeper critique of settler-colonialism and empire that disrupts the logic of inclusion.

Palestine, Zionism, and the politics of censorship and academic freedom

• The text documents a history of intimidation and censorship around Palestine-related discourse in U.S. academia (AIPAC, ADL, Campus Watch, etc.), including surveillance and accusations of anti-Semitism when critiquing Israeli policy.
• Legislative/policy efforts to monitor area studies and Middle East studies (e.g., H.R. $3077$ and H.R. $509$) and the FBI’s National Security Higher Education Advisory Board reflect attempts to align scholarship with national security concerns.
• The authors argue that defending academic freedom requires resisting such monitoring and censorship and pushes for broader critical engagement with Zionism, settler-colonialism, and empire.
• They discuss the historical pressures on Palestine-related scholarship and the risk of moral panic or professional retaliation when discussing Zionism or Israel.
• They also note that liberal Zionist allies and some left-wing critics complicate organizing around Palestine, especially in the Bay Area, where multiple political commitments intersect.
• Mamdani’s analysis is invoked to frame U.S.–Israel relations as a form of settler-colonial alliance and to extend anti-imperialist critique beyond national borders.
• The authors argue for linking anti-Zionist critique with anti-imperialist, anti-racist movements as part of a broader project of transforming ethnic studies from identity-first to power-structure analysis.

The Bandung template: Third World solidarity as a strategic anchor

• Bandung (1955) brought together leaders from $29$ African and Asian countries to resist colonial rule and foster economic/cultural ties in the face of Cold War polarizations.
• The essay uses Bandung as a historical precedent for cross-border anti-imperialist solidarity that transcends narrow national or ethnic categories.
• The authors highlight Nehru (India) and Nasser (Egypt) as emblematic figures of this solidarity, linking anti-colonial struggles across Asia and the Middle East.
• They suggest that the anti-imperialist spirit of Bandung offers a model for Asian American and Arab American scholars to translate their histories into present-day transnational resistance.
• The text also notes other historical solidarities (e.g., Philippines/Philippine anti-imperialism; cross-Pacific and cross-Asia networks) that can inform contemporary organizing.

The transnational, anti-imperial, and anti-racist project: implications for scholarship and pedagogy

• The authors argue for a principled comparative approach that spans disciplines (literature, culture, economics, policy) to articulate a robust theory of empire.
• They insist on resisting Orientalist and colonial frameworks that reproduce dominance, and they advocate a politics of solidarity grounded in shared anti-imperialist struggles.
• They claim Asian American studies should be re-tooled toward critique of empire and settler-colonialism, both at home and abroad, expanding beyond a strictly national frame.
• They propose concrete institutional possibilities, such as building comparative programs (e.g., UC Davis Middle East/South Asia Studies) that bring together Arab and South Asian diasporas, area studies, and ethnic studies to examine nationalism, labor, gender, religion, and transnational movements.

The state, “Orientalism,” and the politics of knowledge production

• Orientalism is presented as a colonialist framework that creates oppositions to serve imperial projects; thus, analyzing Orientalism helps expose how knowledge production supports empire.
• The authors critique the push to redraw geographic borders (e.g., redefining what is “Middle East” vs. “Asia”) as strategic, not merely descriptive, acts that enable imperial governance.
• They stress that the state’s need for research on target communities (Muslims, Arabs, South Asians) often leads to fluid and expedient mappings that reinforce surveillance and control.
• Ku’s critique is cited: many Asian American scholars invoke Orientalism but fail to engage with Palestine/Zionism as integral to the discourse, thus leaving the bones of empire unexamined.
• They argue for integrating Said’s theory of Orientalism with a robust analysis of Middle East politics and U.S. imperialism to illuminate how race, religion, and region intersect with policy.

Settler-colonialism, Zionism, and intersectional critique

• Mahmood Mamdani’s framework of settler-colonialism is used to connect U.S. and Israeli policies, arguing that both are grounded in denying native sovereignty and pursuing a civilizing mission tied to settler-state formation.
• Zionism is characterized as a settler-colonialist project that dispossesses Indigenous populations; even among Jews, there are anti-Zionist or anti-occupation positions that challenge the state’s legitimizing narrative.
• The text discusses the difficulty of distinguishing anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism in liberal discourse, noting that anti-Zionist critique can be unfairly branded as anti-Semitic.
• The authors call for a nuanced anti-racist/anti-imperialist stance that simultaneously critiques U.S. empire and Zionist settler-colonialism, avoiding simplistic binaries.
• They argue against reducing Palestine to a mere trope in Orientalism and emphasize the need to analyze how U.S. and Israeli policies jointly constitute imperial power.

Political economy of empire: defense of academic space and cross-movement solidarity

• The authors describe a spectrum of state pressure on academia (funding lines, surveillance, and ideology-policing) that jeopardizes open critique of imperial policy and Palestine.
• They highlight the role of civil-rights and immigrant-rights coalitions, anti-war organizing, and cross-community alliances in resisting state surveillance and integrating Palestine-related critique into broader anti-imperialist projects.
• There is emphasis on a politics of solidarity that goes beyond identity-based politics, aiming for policy-relevant analysis and action across communities (e.g., South Asian, Arab, Latino, Japanese American groups).
• They cite practical examples of cross-community activism at UC Davis and in the Bay Area (Third World Forum; Palestine/Philippines solidarity; Deport the INS campaigns; Japanese American anti-racial profiling efforts) to illustrate how these coalitions operate in practice and how they connect to anti-imperialist critique.

Concrete implications for teaching, research, and curriculum

• Proposes the creation or deepening of comparative programs that explicitly link Arab American and Asian American studies, focusing on empire, nationalism, labor, gender, sexuality, cultural representation, globalization, militarism, and criminalization.
• Calls for moving from “a politics of identity” to a politics of anti-imperial solidarity grounded in historical memory of colonization and resistance.
• Encourages scholars to address central issues of U.S. empire today and to develop cross-disciplinary theories spanning literature, economics, and policy.
• Suggests revisiting and reinterpreting Cold War-era area studies boundaries (e.g., the construction of the “Middle East” as a colonial space) to reflect current imperial geographies and to resist simplistic mappings.

Epistemological and ethical implications

• The authors argue that knowledge production must resist opportunistic and sensationalist uses of culture to justify coercive interventions; instead, scholarship should expose how culture can be instrumentalized to normalize empire.
• They emphasize the ethical imperative to foreground marginalized voices and to contest mechanisms that censor or penalize anti-imperialist critique in universities.
• They insist on analyzing the intersection of race, religion, and empire not as mere addition of identities, but as overlapping structures that shape policy, law, and social life.

Notable concepts and terms to understand

• Empire: a structural system of global domination combining military power, economic control, and political influence; includes both formal (direct rule) and informal (outsourced, proxy) forms.
• Formal vs informal empire: the state exercises direct control or delegates governance to private actors/alliances, blurring lines of sovereignty and accountability.
• Orientalism: a frame that constructs the East as an object of knowledge and control, justifying domination.
• Settler-colonialism: a form of colonialism where settlers establish a new political order that supplants Indigenous sovereignties (Mamdani’s framework is central here).
• Zionism as settler-colonialism: a specific instance of settler-colonial logic in a modern political project.
• Multiculturalism: liberal governance of diversity that can tokenize or depoliticize ethnic difference and sometimes absorb dissent without challenging imperial power.
• AMSA/AMSA framework: Arab American, Muslim American, and South Asian American communities; modern political formations that emerged post-9/11 regarding civil rights and racial profiling.
• “Good Muslim/Arab” vs. “Bad Muslim/Arab”: imperial-state logic that valorizes compliance with state interests and demonizes resistance.
• Bandung 1955: Non-Aligned Movement summit that forged anti-colonial solidarity among $29$ African and Asian nations; serves as a historical model for cross-continental solidarity.
• Third World solidarity: coalition-building across immigrant communities and anti-imperialist movements.
• Syriana model: liberal-imperial narrative in which some Arabs/Muslims may be integrated if they align with Western interests; otherwise they are marginalized.
• Palestine/Zionism nexus: central to understanding how Middle East politics intersect with U.S. imperialism and international policy.
• The War on Terror: a framework that has domestic repercussions (surveillance, civil-liberties eroding measures) and global consequences (militarized interventions, occupation).

Key quantitative references embedded in the text (examples)

• Bandung Conference: $1955$; leaders from $29$ African and Asian countries.
• The 1967 Arab-Israeli War and the 1967 pan-Arab mobilization; contextualized as a turning point in Arab American identity formation.
• The 1968 Third World student strike is a foundational moment for Asian American Studies; contextualized as a milestone in pan-Asian consciousness; connected to broader cross-movement solidarity.
• After 9/11, the reconfiguration of activism and organization as AMSA (Arab/Muslim/South Asian American) groups.
• The War on Terror’s global and domestic costs are described; a concrete monetary figure cited is $10{,}000{,}000$ dollars per day in taxpayer funds for U.S. policy in the Middle East.
• The discussion references policy bills and acts: H.R. $3077$ (failed) and H.R. $509$ (re-emerged later) aiming to regulate or shape Middle Eastern studies and research agendas.
• The FBI’s post-9/11 intelligence-recruitment and higher-education advisory structures are cited as part of the security-state integration of academia.
• The text frequently cites years (e.g., $1985$ LA Eight case; $1987$ attack on Palestine-related activists; $2002$ re-opening; etc.) to anchor historical moments.
• Film Syriana (2005) is used as a cultural artifact illustrating liberal-imperial logic.

Examples and ethnographic/political illustrations mentioned

• UC Davis: a comparative program in Middle East/South Asia Studies; a case study for building cross-regional scholarship and coalitions.
• Local solidarity activity: Third World Forum at UC Davis (spring $2005$) with collaborations among South Asian, Palestinian, and Latino groups; coalitions such as Bayan-USA and others working with anti-war and immigrant-rights campaigns.
• Bay Area activism: Filipino American activists allied with Palestine/Philippines solidarity; Japanese American groups participating in anti-racial-profiling protests; broader antiwar coalition work linking occupation of Iraq, Palestine, and U.S. militarization globally.
• National-level organizations and dynamics: AIPAC, ADL, Campus Watch; debates over academic freedom and the surveillance/pressure on scholars who critique Israeli policies; the role of the National Security Higher Education Advisory Board in shaping research agendas.
• Case examples of state coercion and censorship: L.A. Eight (1987) and subsequent monitoring (2002) under Patriot Act frameworks; debates over campus policing of speech on Middle East politics.
• Intellectual genealogy: the essay connects to African American, Chicano/Latino, Native American, and other movement histories, emphasizing a transnational anti-imperialist genealogy rather than isolated ethnic traditions.

Concluding call to action

• The linking of Asian American and Arab American studies is necessary to re-center anti-imperial and anti-racist work within ethnic studies; it is not merely a strategic expansion but a fundamental reorientation toward understanding empire as a global condition.
• The authors encourage building institutional programs, curricula, and research agendas that reflect imperial critique, cross-disciplinary dialogue, and solidarity-based activism.
• The conclusion asks not why link these fields, but why not—emphasizing the potential for cross-pollination to regenerate both Asian American studies and Arab American studies at a moment when empire demands critical interrogation.

Practical recommendations for scholars and students

• Develop comparative programs that explicitly include Arab, South Asian, and other diasporic communities to study empire, nationalism, labor, gender, sexuality, and globalization.
• Create course offerings and research seminars that connect area studies with ethnic studies through themes like anti-imperialism, colonial histories, and resistance movements.
• Build coalitions across universities and communities to expand the scope of anti-imperialist scholarship and to safeguard academic freedom in the face of political pressure.
• Use Bandung-era solidarities as a template for contemporary cross-border collaboration: translate historical memory into present-day organizing and pedagogy.
• Acknowledge the ethical complexity of anti-Zionist critique within broader anti-imperialist work, engaging diverse Jewish and non-Jewish perspectives while remaining committed to justice for Palestinians.

Key takeaways to remember for exam preparation

• Empire is a unifying analytic for understanding both domestic racialization and foreign policy—linking Asian American and Arab American studies is a project to illuminate this nexus.
• Orientalism and settler-colonialism provide critical frameworks for analyzing both the construction of “the Orient” and the legitimacy of interventions in the Middle East.
• Palestine/Zionism should be integrated into analyses of empire rather than treated as a separate or peripheral issue if one aims for a coherent anti-imperialist critique.
• Multiculturalism alone is insufficient to challenge empire; a more radical, cross-community, transnational, anti-imperialist framework is needed.
• Concrete institutional projects (curriculum, cross-disciplinary programs, and cross-community organizing) can operationalize the theoretical aims of Asian/Arab American studies in the service of social justice.

References and touchstones mentioned in the text (for further reading)

• Edward Said, Orientalism (theory of how interpretive communities obscure political reality; emphasizes “closeness” to issue).
• Mahmood Mamdani, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror (set of arguments about settler-colonialism and imperial power).
• Syriana (2005) as cultural analysis of liberal imperialism and “good Arab” narratives.
• Bandung Conference (1955) and the Non-Aligned Movement: anti-colonial solidarity across Asia and Africa; Nehru and Nasser as key figures.
• José Lipsitz (George Lipsitz) on identity politics and solidarity, and other scholars cited in the notes.
• Various footnotes tie to a broader scholarly conversation (Omatsu; Wei; Banding unity; campus activism; anti-imperial studies; and debates around academic freedom and Middle East politics).

Final synthesis

• The piece argues that building strong, critique-oriented connections between Asian American and Arab American studies can rejuvenate both fields as anti-imperialist, anti-racist projects capable of theorizing and contesting today’s imperial politics, from the War on Terror to settler-colonial actions in Israel/Palestine. The authors insist that the path forward requires rigorous cross-disciplinary work, honest engagement with Palestine/Israel politics, and the cultivation of political solidarities that extend beyond conventional identity politics to address the structures of empire.