Arab Bashing: Not a Native Spoil

By Robert G. Hazo

Discrimination as a function of prejudice is hardly new on the American scene. Not too long ago much of it was unabashedly overt. Still today strong negative feelings against Blacks, Hispanics, Jews and Orientals persist, particularly but not exclusively among economically or educationally deprived Americans.

Since World War II, however, through major actions of government, the pioneering work of civil rights organizations and, perhaps most important, consistent and effective support by the media, real progress has been made in fighting bigotry. At the very minimum, public expressions of a variety of forms of racism have been made socially unacceptable.

In view of the enlightened effort that has gone into creating this overtly non-discriminatory, egalitarian social environment, it should be a source of concern that tarnishing the image of those of Arab ancestry continues, and of outrage that a relatively new and successful effort is underway to exclude Arab Americans from an important part of the American political process. At present, there exists an atmosphere within which one can slander the Arab image with impunity in the media, discriminate against Arab Americans in the political process, and do so without fear of serious reprimand or penalty. Currently, no other ethnic group in America faces such a threat.

The Birth of a Stereotype

The Arab is the all-purpose villain or buffoon in any number of films, television dramas, works of fiction and even comic strips. Further, most news media clearly do not strive for neutrality or objectivity, much less fairness, in their presentation of events concerning Arabs in the Middle East.

This negative media stereotyping of the Arab, which has been particularly intense since 1973, has begun to affect how the American people think about those of Arab extraction. And how people think can be expected to determine how they act.

It is a tribute to the fairmindedness of the American people that the widespread vilification of the Arab image has, as yet, had no major, decisive effect upon how Arab Americans are treated as individuals. Arab Americans hold high positions in all three branches of government. Others fill elective as well as appointive office on the national, regional and local levels. Many have distinguished themselves in a variety of professional fields.

Recently, however, the widespread campaign, concentrated in the media, against the Arab image has begun to pay off in political discrimination. The problem arises when Arab Americans, collectively or individually, speak out on American foreign policy regarding the Middle East and take action designed to give it more balance. Then the reaction has been swift, intense and, unfortunately, all too often effective.

Earlier this year, Robert Neall, a state legislator running for a congressional seat in Maryland, accepted a $500 contribution from an Arab-American group. Shortly thereafter, Michael Olesker, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun, wrote a piece pointing out, among other things, that the group had been critical of Israel. Mindful of the fate of political figures who were not indiscriminately pro-Israeli, Neall returned the contribution. He did not do so out of political conviction but rather, as he openly and rather shamelessly said, because he would rather play it safe.

What happened fit a regrettably familiar pattern. Neall, on his own, had no apparent prejudice against Arab Americans. Accepting their support initially didn't seem to present a problem as would a contribution from the Ku Klux Klan or, for that matter, a contribution from the Jewish Defense League, which is regarded by the F.B.I. as a terrorist organization. Instead, Neall was coerced into taking an anti-Arab position he would not naturally have assumed by an implied threat that, if he did not, he would be labeled anti-Israeli. As such, he would have been targeted by the awesome pro-Israel lobby, which defines itself as the visible manifestation of the American Jewish community. As a result, another group of Americans was excluded from an important part of the American political process. Most significant of all, no one in the media was particularly bothered by the fact that a political candidate had been forced to reject the support of one group of Americans out of fear of retaliation by another.

After the murder of Alex Odeh, Southern California Co-ordinator of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), last year (recently officially attributed to "Jewish extremists" by the F.B.I.), a petition condemning domestic terrorism was circulated among public figures. It was published in the New York Times under the designation of the "Ad Hoc Committee Against Terrorism in the United States." Among more than 100 signatories was the mayor of a large city in the north-central United States. A short time later, however, that mayor asked that his name be removed from the petition before it was published again. He was, he explained, against terrorism and he recognized that many fine people had signed the statement, but he noted that some "tend to have strong anti-Israeli and discriminatory sentiments and I do not wish my name to be associated with them."

This hint that the other signatories were anti-Semitic was rendered ridiculous by the fact that the petition was supported by Jewish organizations, prominent Jewish individuals, and a number of rabbis. Yet, because it was also supported by prominent Arab Americans, and was instigated by ADC's Chairman, former Senator James Abourezk, the mayor, in response to Zionist pressure, reversed his own enthusiastic endorsement of a perfectly noncontroversial anti-terrorist petition. The media found nothing remarkable in the fact that, again, a public official was apparently coerced into retracting an action he had freely taken solely because it associated him with Arab Americans whom Jewish pressure groups sought to discredit.

These incidents are only examples of imposed, discriminatory gestures directed against Arab Americans, and certainly not the first directed against Senator Abourezk. While in the Senate, he was invited to speak at a Denver Democratic banquet. After the invitation was extended, pressure on Colorado Democrats resulted in an internal debate as to whether or not Abourezk was sufficiently supportive of Israel. When Abourezk spoke at the banquet, he alluded to the effort to oust him and wondered aloud when loyalty to Israel had become a criterion for being a good Democrat, or even a good American for that matter. He pointed out that when he took the oath of office it bound him to look after the interests of the people of South Dakota and of the United States, but not of the interests of any foreign power. The audience of one thousand gave him a standing ovation.

Ethnic Discrimination 80s Style

Initially seen as isolated incidents, acts of political discrimination against Arab Americans have begun to multiply. (Indeed, if one includes all of those who have been publicly critical of Israeli policy, such a trend has already become a conspicuous feature of American political life as one of its victims, former Congressman Paul Findley, makes clear in his book on the workings of the pro-Israel lobby, They Dare to Speak Out.) With regard to Arab Americans only, however, a number of astonishing incidents of outright ethnic discrimination have occurred in recent years.

In his successful campaign to become mayor of Philadelphia, Wilson Goode attended a fundraiser hosted by an Arab American which brought in close to $3000. When his opponent charged him with accepting "Arab money," Goode returned the contributions. One of the contributors who happened to be Jewish protested. The Jewish contributor was told that his check would be accepted, but not the checks of Arab Americans.

In the 1984 Presidential primary, five prominent Arab Americans from the Chicago area met for a short time with Walter Mondale on the understanding that each would contribute $1000. Shortly after the meeting, the $5000 was returned with the announcement that it was a Mondale campaign policy not to accept contributions from Arab Americans. To remove any doubt about where he stood, Mondale himself told a Jewish group, "I would rather lose with your help than win without it."

In the same campaign Gary Hart withdrew his banking business from the First American Bank in Washington after he was told it was Arab-owned. Though Hart hedged on endorsing Jewish colonization of the Palestinian West bank before his candidacy, he sought to outdo Mondale in bidding for Jewish support in the New York primary by endorsing both unlimited colonization of the West Bank and U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. This abject substitution of domestic political expediency for support for international law, whose basic premise bars the acquisition of territory by force of arms, embarrassed even the New York Jewish community.

A more recent act of political discrimination occurred last January after Senator Abourezk received an announcement of young Joseph Kennedy's campaign for Tip O'Neill's congressional seat in Massachusetts. On the back was a personal note from Kennedy's wife inviting the Abourezk family to Boston for the kickoff event. Abourezk responded with a campaign contribution and received a letter of thanks from Kennedy for his support.

In April, Abourezk received a phone call from Kennedy campaign staffer Steve Rothstein informing him that his check was being returned. Here again the initial acceptance of support was being reversed upon the advice, or threat, of someone other than the candidate himself. In this case, Rothstein lamely explained that Kennedy was refusing all contributions from PACs. When Abourezk pointed out that he had sent a personal rather than a PAC contribution, Rothstein said something about Kennedy not wanting to get into the Middle East argument "that way." Abourezk noted that his contribution was unconditional and wondered aloud what Kennedy would do in a real crisis if he folded on such a minor issue because of pro-Israel pressure.

That the incident, which was reported by the Boston Globe, the Washington Post and other major papers, provoked substantial indignation suggests that the average American does not like this kind of ethnic discrimination no matter who is the target. Kennedy apologized and claimed that Rothstein had acted without his authorization, In the Boston Globe, Abourezk wrote that he believed Kennedy, but that the incident pointed to "a campaign around the country to isolate Arab Americans—to prevent them from taking part in the debate on the Middle East, or in politics in general."

Political discrimination is not the only form that hostility to Arab Americans has taken. After such incidents as the hijacking of TWA flight 847, the Achille Lauro affair, and the shootouts at the Rome and Vienna airports, offices of Arab-American organizations have received hate mail and telephone threats. Such hostility has spilled over into violence: an attempted bombing of the ADC office in Boston, the bombing of the ADC office in Santa Ana, California, that killed Alex Odeh, the torching of the building that housed ADC headquarters in Washington, vandalism against mosques and Arab-American owned businesses, physical assaults on Arab Americans. Recently the ADC began to keep a violence log that has already grown to considerable length.

How Long Will Americans Stand For It?

There is always a gap between principles and particulars in the political life of any country. In recent decades America has made substantial progress in closing that gap. The American public dialogue is, ideally, limited to persuasion, discussion and debate, with pressure, coercion and blackmail firmly excluded. There is no doubt that the great majority of Americans believe in and practice that ideal.

However, the resounding silence of American journalists in the face of a campaign to block Arab Americans from full participation in the political process, and the stubborn refusal of the principal entertainment media—television and films—to banish unflattering Arab stereotypes as they banished other ethnic caricatures decades ago, raise ugly questions. Middle-aged Americans of Arab descent can recall little overt or even subtle discrimination against them, although they were growing up at a time when other groups, including American Jews, were not so lucky. Clearly, therefore, "Arab-bashing" is not a native American sport. It seems to have become one only after Arab Americans began expressing reservations about unlimited U.S. support of Israel. Although media-linked anti-Arab racism has not yet become widespread, it presents a tangible threat. Arab Americans need help from the as yet all too-silent majority of Americans who, when they recognize it, deplore racism of any sort. Since, with media support, such political racism can readily be applied against any ethnic group, at stake are not the rights of only one ethnic minority, but those of us all.

Robert G. Hazo is Chairman of the Middle East Policy Association and Senior Public Policy consultant of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.