Arab-Baiting in the 1986 Elections

By James J. Zogby and Helen Hatab Samhan

The Middle East was an issue in the 1986 elections. It was not, however, debated as a substantive question of US foreign policy. Rather, it was most frequently used as a way to bait candidates, exclude constituencies, and raise money.

One of the ways the Middle East and Arabs were abused in the campaigns of 1986 was as a fundraising ploy. In a few instances, Jewish-Americans quite deliberately created an Arab "bogey man" to scare money out of their own constituents. For example, Rep. Larry Smith (D-FL), a Jewish member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who is noted for strident pro-Israel statements, warned constituents that "Arabs" had targeted him for defeat. Arab Americans, in fact, made no effort to defeat him, but Smith found this "Arab-baiting" an easy way to raise money.

Similarly, a national pro-Israel Political Action Committee, NatPAC, focused its major fundraising appeal on the increase in what it called "political anti-Semitism." NatPAC linked this with activities of the "Arab lobby," and cited by name each major national organization serving the Arab-American community. The appeal warned not only of the political power of the "Arab lobby" to undermine US-Israel relations, but also of the role of Arab organizations in spreading "hatred for Jews."

Perhaps the most frequent incidents of abusing the Middle East issue in politics involve exclusion of Arab Americans from electoral participation. Such Arab-baiting involves alleging connections between Arab-American activities or leaders and "terrorism," and can be traced to sources in the organized Jewish community.

An Arab-American candidate in a 1986 upstate New York State Assembly race sought the endorsement of the local Democratic party leadership. He learned that local leaders of B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League had visited the party and falsely alleged that the candidate was a "Libyan agent." The ADL delegation threatened to withdraw local Jewish community support from the party if the Arab-American was endorsed. Although no party leader believed the charge, no one wanted to face a public fight in an election year. Party leaders endorsed no Democratic candidate for the race. That is how the baiting tactic achieves its purpose.

Arab-baiting in its most blatant form has occurred when campaign contributions from Arab-Americans are rejected or returned. Notable cases in past elections include funds returned to Lebanese-American businessmen by the Mondale campaign, and proceeds of a reception hosted by a Palestinian-American in Philadelphia returned by mayoral candidate Wilson Goode. In the case of Mondale, the rebuff was authorized by a campaign official, while in the Goode affair, the support was refused after his opponent baited him for accepting "Arab" money.

In 1986, Robert Neall, a Maryland Republican congressional candidate who was defeated by Thomas McMillen, returned a $500 contribution from the National Association of Arab Americans (NAAA) upon learning that a columnist in the Baltimore Sun had at one time called the NAAA a "pro-PLO" organization. Similarly, a Jewish campaign aide to Democratic Congressman-elect Joseph Kennedy returned a $100 contribution from former Senator James Abourezk, a long-time friend of the Kennedys, based on Abourezk's views on the Middle East.

In both cases, the support was rejected because of vague allegations of "support for terrorism" emanating from major Jewish-American organizations such as the ADL, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and the American Jewish Committee (AJC). These organizations routinely describe virtually every national leader and organization in the Arab-American community either as enemies of Israel or as pro-PLO propagandists.

Just as the pro-Israel community seeks to make acceptance of Arab-Americans financial support taboo, so too has its baiting created "untouchable" status for organized Arab-American constituencies.

An even more striking example of the stifling of substantive debate on the Middle East was the 1986 California Senate race between Democratic incumbent Alan Cranston and Republican challenger Edwin Zschau. Cranston, once referred to by an AIPAC staffer as "our point man on the Hill," called his primary and general campaign opponents practitioners of a "Shi'ite brand" of politics. Two years earlier, in the 1984 Presidential campaign, Cranston publicly referred to one of the Rev. Jesse Jackson's Arab-American aides as a "crazy Ay-rab."

Zschau had entered his 1986 primary campaign supporting a balanced view of US Middle East policy. Upon winning the Republican nomination, however, he made what was called a "trip of atonement" to Israel and then renounced his former views, expressing support for Israeli occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights, and pledged to oppose any arms sales to Arab states.

Zschau's about-face followed crude threats from California's powerful pro-Israel PAC community. Upon returning from Israel, Zschau was summoned by real estate magnate Michael R. Goland, who spent $1.2 million of his own money to defeat Senator Charles Percy in the 1984 Illinois Senate race, and who was introduced by Senator Rudy Boschwitz (R-MN) to several Senators to intimidate them into voting against President Reagan's proposed sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. In one of these meetings, Zschau reportedly was asked to sign a position statement in support of Israel and was informed that $2 million was available for use against him if he did not cooperate.

Not surprisingly, when approached by organized segments of California's sizable Arab-American community, Zschau declined any visible form of Arab-American participation in his campaign. The race, in fact, soon deteriorated into a debate over which candidate was the greater friend of Israel and the greater foe of "terrorism."

In this example, and a number of other cases already cited, the Arab-American community is victimized by political exclusion, and the Jewish community is also victimized by unabashed use of what can only be described as anti-Semitism.

The efforts by the pro-Israel community to bait and taint candidates for being "soft on terrorism" or for their "Arab connection" are ultimately efforts to marginalize and isolate supporters of Palestinian rights and a balanced Middle East policy.

Nowhere is this intimidation more apparent than in the campaigns against Black candidates who support a balanced Middle East policy. Remember that during the 1984 Presidential campaign, after Jesse Jackson privately referred to New York as "Hymie-town," talk of Black anti-Semitism was linked with Jackson's trips to the Middle East and growing Black support for a balanced US Middle East policy. In addition, there were the efforts to discredit Jackson for his association with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

In 1986, other Black candidates were baited with Middle East-related issues. In California, Grantland Johnson, a Sacramento city councilman running for the county Board of Supervisors, had appeared at a 1984 memorial service for the victims of the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. Two years later, there was an uproar that nearly cost him the election. Local Jewish leaders placed an ad in the Sacramento Bee describing the memorial service as "a diatribe against Israel."

Johnson's campaign manager suggested that Johnson publicly "reaffirm your support for Israel, condemn terrorist actions of the PLO, and guarantee that you will not meet with any group aligned with the PLO." He warned that if Johnson did not sign such a statement, he might lose. Johnson refused to make the suggested statement, and his campaign manager resigned. However, Johnson won the election.

Other Black candidates have described visits by Jewish delegations resembling a "board of inquisition" to test the candidate's loyalty to Israel and to threaten that pro-Israel PAC money would be used against candidates who failed. Newly-elected members of the Congressional Black Caucus report having been visited by AIPAC and asked to sign statements affirming support for Israel and promising "not to meet with any group aligned or affiliated with the PLO."

Shortly after her 1986 primary election victory, Faye Williams, Democratic candidate for Congress in Louisiana's Eighth District, was contacted by Louisianans for American Security (LASPAC), a pro-Israel PAC headed by Sheldon Beychok, a member of the national board of AIPAC. Even though Williams already had issued, before the primary, a position paper on the Middle East describing support for Israel as the US's "only democratic ally" in the region and opposing negotiations with the PLO until it "recognizes Israel's existence and forswears terrorism," LASPAC judged her position to be unacceptable and, in a letter dated October 14, 1986, Beychok called on her to sign a statement which he indicated had been signed by all members of the state's Congressional delegation. [Later, Beychok admitted that the statement had not been signed by other members of Congress.]

The statement supported a US alliance with and aid to Israel; opposed negotiations with the PLO, calling it a "terrorist organization who murders women and children;" supported moving the US embassy to Jerusalem; opposed arms sales to Arab countries; and rejected a Palestinian state on the "so-called 'West Bank.'" On the same day the LASPAC letter was written, the Williams campaign received a mailgram from Beychok which read:

"Sam Burgan is listed on Faye Williams' campaign stationary as her campaign manager. Please forward his background details since it has been alleged that he is a 'Palestinian Arab.'"

Candidate Williams replied by return cable that Mr. Burgan is an American born in Jordan, that her national coordinator is Jewish, and that her position on Israel is strong.

The president of the Louisiana AFL-CIO, a Williams supporter, offered to host a meeting between Williams and LASPAC, which took place on October 22. After a bitter exchange, the host offered to demonstrate that the AFL-CIO's position on Israel was similar to that of Williams. Beychok, however, sent mailgrams less than a week before the election to the media, state legislators, and the Louisiana Congressional delegation, saying:

"Please publicly withdraw your support and endorsement of Faye Williams....She is a PLO sympathizer. The President of the United States has called the PLO a terrorist organization who are murderers of women and children."

Faye Williams is convinced that her narrow loss (51-49%) on election day was due to Arab-baiting based on the ethnicity of her campaign manager and the other smear campaigns waged against her. Her supporters, including the Congressional Black Caucus, expressed concern at such public attacks made in the name of the Jewish community.

It is clear that Arab baiting was increasingly used to isolate Black candidates in 1986. Some elements of the Jewish establishment apparently fear that any national exposure to the substance of Middle East issues will quickly weaken the existing Israel-centered US policy towards the region. Thus the efforts to silence calls for balance on the issue and to limit the debate to false charges of anti-Semitism and support for terrorism. At stake, however, is the ability of the United States to conduct a balanced foreign policy in the Middle East and, even more important, the rights of American citizens to participate freely in the electoral system and to debate, without fear, issues vital to the future of our nation.

James J. Zogby is the Executive Director of the Washington-based Arab American Institute; Helen Hatab Samhan is AAI's deputy director. This is derived from a recent report which can be obtained from AAI at 918 Sixteenth Street, NW, Suite 501, Washington, DC 20006.