Letter to Mehdi Hassan

Dear Mehdi Hassan,

First and foremost, I want to acknowledge your steadfast dedication to amplifying the voices of Palestinians and raising awareness of their ongoing struggle. Your commitment to this cause is both admirable and essential. However, I feel compelled to address your recent endorsement of Kamala Harris in The Guardian US, as it raises serious concerns.

I believe that Western nations lost their moral and political legitimacy long ago, particularly following the events of 9/11, when policies seemed more interested in consolidating power than in achieving justice. After the events of 7th October, it has become abundantly clear, not only to those politically aware but to ordinary citizens as well, that no individual, institution, government, or branch of the U.S. retains legitimacy on the global stage. This is not about supporting the “softer” candidate or hoping Harris will bring change. At this stage, U.S. moral and political credibility has evaporated, and endorsing any representative of this system seems to ignore the magnitude of what is at stake.

The world now needs a new order, free from the dominance of regimes that prioritise power over humanity. By endorsing Kamala Harris, you continue to lend support to a system that has funded and armed Israel’s brutal campaign against Palestinians—a regime many regard as fascist in its actions. This endorsement appears as a troubling acceptance of a status quo complicit in perpetuating the suffering of occupied people.

You suggested that Harris’s background as a Black and South Asian woman might make her more attuned to struggles within America, especially when compared to 81-year-old Joe Biden. However, the assumption that a diverse background guarantees genuine advocacy for marginalised communities is, I believe, naive. As a seasoned journalist, I would expect you to recognise that a Black president with African heritage and Muslim ties, like Barack Obama, ultimately did little to advance the causes of Black Americans or Muslims worldwide. Many in the Black American community felt deeply let down by his administration as systemic injustices continued unchecked. At the same time, his foreign policy record is marked by the bombing of Muslim-majority countries—Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan—which brought widespread suffering and loss. Rather than addressing injustices, Obama’s presidency exposed how symbolic representation alone is inadequate when a system continues to perpetuate harm.

In your interview, you mentioned that Harris might at least recognise Palestinians as human beings. If the starting point for any world leader is simply to acknowledge the humanity of people facing occupation and suffering, then it only highlights the hollowness of endorsing such politics. This is not compassion; it’s an indictment. To support a candidate on the basis that they “might” humanise Palestinians points to a worrying naivety about the severe limitations of this approach.

You rightly noted that Harris is unlikely to impose an embargo on Israel and may instead “humanise” the tragedy of Palestinian lives lost. But we must remember that U.S. foreign policy is driven by strategic interests, not by the humanitarian instincts of individual politicians. Harris, like any other U.S. leader, is navigating an intensely polarised political climate, but this does little to change the entrenched structures that continuously fail those they purport to represent. As you observed in your conversation with Sayeeda Warsi, Muslims in the UK, like those in the U.S., know all too well that when it comes to Muslims and Gaza, there is no room for negotiation. 

Looking ahead, it seems inevitable that, after the U.S. election—whether under Trump or Harris—Israel will return to the negotiating table for a ceasefire. The two-state solution may be revived, likely brokered by one or a few of the despots in the  Gulf. Yet, this is nothing more than political Chess. Both Democrats and Republicans share fundamentally aligned positions on Israel and U.S. interests in the Middle East. Whichever party occupies the presidency will no doubt claim victory over the ceasefire, but the impact on the ground will remain tragically limited.

If your argument rests on the hope that the Democrats might at least acknowledge Palestinians as human beings, I find this stance profoundly weak and short-sighted. As a prominent journalist with global influence, you bear significant responsibility. To endorse a party and politics that has lost all credibility in the world after supporting a genocide is, in my view, a serious misjudgment.

It has been a long year for Muslims globally, particularly for those enduring the harsh realities in Palestine. The resilience displayed by our brothers and sisters there—standing tall, adhering steadfastly to their faith, and confronting occupation with unwavering strength—serves as a powerful testament to their belief in Allah. Yet, outside of Palestine, I’ve witnessed troubling shifts in perspectives, from calls for an end to occupation to imams endorsing Trump and now your support for Kamala Harris. This trend is concerning. Despite the distressing images and narratives flooding our screens daily, we must not succumb to despair or adopt weakened positions that compromise our principles. Instead, we should draw inspiration from the courageous stance of Palestinians and remain resolute in our advocacy. Our mission should be to call for the end of occupation, and the liberation of Palestine without faltering or yielding to political expediency, for the stakes are too high, and the struggle for liberation demands unwavering commitment.           

I sincerely hope this does not mark the beginning of your voice being co-opted by the establishment. The issues we face demand unwavering integrity and a principled stance, not political expediency.

Best regards,

M Khan