Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July 1987, pages 7-9

Special Report

How to Beat Anti-Arab Racism

By Robert Hazo

Prejudice about and discrimination against Arab-Americans or Arab immigrants in America differs significantly from every other kind of bigotry in the United States. Though the effects may feel the same to Arab-Americans, anti-Arab bigotry is in fact artificial, created and sustained for specific purpose. Its source is political, whereas the sources of bigotry against other ethnic groups are normally socio-economic, cultural, or demographic.

Recall that US Secretary of State George Shultz met recently in Washington with Oliver Tambo, head of the African National Congress and a man frequently accused of leading both a terrorist and a communist-dominated organization. A comparable meeting with Yasir Arafat, who is similarly labeled by many in this country, remains unthinkable. Oddly enough, only conservative columnist William Buckley, in commenting on the disarray and inconsistency in American foreign policy, was perspicacious, or daring, enough to point this out. In meeting with Tambo, the Reagan administration took on few political risks, since it is distinctly unfashionable among US media or political leaders to sympathize with the apartheid regime in South Africa. In permitting a US official to meet with Arafat, especially in Washington, the Reagan administration would have to pay a horrendous domestic political price because of the hyper pro-Israel and anti-Arab atmosphere nurtured and sustained in the United States by the powerful Zionist lobby and its uncritical supporters in the media, congress, and even the executive branch. In the Carter era, Andrew Young lost his job as US Ambassador to the United Nations because he met informally for a conversation with the PLO's UN representative. While other ethnic prejudices in the United States flow from domestic factors, almost all of that directed against Arabs and Arab-Americans is a direct function of the Arab-Israeli conflict, strongly reinforced by long-held US media stereotyping.

Political Nature of Anti-Arab Racism

If this analysis of the causes of the two different kinds of prejudices is sound, addressing them successfully requires two different approaches. Blacks and Hispanics are the two largest groups in the United States who suffer from discrimination. A very large proportion of both groups live in poverty. In addition to the obvious color line, Blacks suffer from a "late start" and a "low man on the totem pole" problem that, in large measure, is a direct result of their enslavement in America until the last century. Hispanics labor under a cultural disparity that has even generated conflicts about whether Hispanic children in American schools should be allowed to learn in Spanish. Some also view their large numbers, especially since many of them have entered the country illegally, as a threat. Hispanics suffer from their comparatively low economic and social position in American life and many of them, like Blacks, live in ghettos. The causes of prejudice against both groups are overwhelmingly domestic.

None of these considerations currently apply to Arab-Americans, except possibly for the most recent immigrants. This was not always the case. The kind of prejudice applied to Arabs during the great immigration early in this century was indistinguishable from that directed against many other immigrants at that time. Nor, in general, did it last longer than that against the other ethnic groups. First and second generation Arab-Americans assimilated rapidly, abandoning ethnic ghettos and securing economic, social, and political positions in American society comparable, considering their numbers, to such other ethnic groups as Germans, Eastern Europeans, and Italians. By World War II, American-born Arab-Americans were fully integrated into American life, and many had intermarried with members of other groups. The kind of prejudice they now experience is, therefore, neither long-standing nor indigenous to the United States. In fact, it can trace its beginning to sometime after the founding of the state of Israel in 1948. It also differs from the kind of domestic prejudice of long-standing against Blacks, for example, by becoming progressively worse over time, intensifying rapidly after the 1967 war, rather than gradually ameliorating as a result of consciousness-raising and landmark civil rights legislation.

Arab-Americans suffer more now from slander and calumny than ever before in US history because the conspiratorial assault on the Arab image in America has steadily intensified. The assault on the Arab image, in fact, is unique in that it has now succeeded to the point that Arab-Americans are the only US ethnic group that can be publicly assaulted with impunity. Former US Senator James Abourezk makes this dramatically clear when he asks audiences how they would react to an FBI sting operation dubbed "Jewscam" rather than "Abscam," or to a newspaper headline announcing "Jews Buy Bank in Atlanta" rather than "Arabs Buy Bank in Atlanta."

Even though the causes differ, the effects of discrimination against Arab-Americans and that against other groups are quite similar. For this reason it is desirable for Arab-Americans to join in coalition efforts to combat specific kinds of discrimination, like exclusion from the American political process. It is, indeed, even necessary for Arab-Americans to do so because, with some exceptions, only Arab-Americans are vulnerable to disenfranchisement. Neither Blacks nor Hispanics, over the long run, can be excluded from the political process because their large numbers make them a potentially formidable political force. Arab-Americans, by contrast, constitute only one percent of the American population.

In fighting prejudice and discrimination directly, however, Arab-Americans should be aware that they are dealing only with effects, not causes. The cause is the Arab-Israeli conflict and the resultant effort by Israel, its American supporters, and its powerful lobby in America to defame the only people with whom Israel has been at war, the Arabs.

Israel Leads, American Pro-Israel Groups Follow

Israel sets the defamation policy and the heavily-funded, highly-organized Israeli lobby in America amplifies it with all of its manipulative artistry. A good example of the defamation regularly exported by Israel itself is the kind of language used in the war communiques issued during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Palestinians were never referred to as "enemy troops," but always as "terrorists." Areas targeted for occupation and control were areas to be "cleansed" or "purified," exactly the same metaphors drawn from sanitation and widely used by the Nazis in their campaign against European Jews. Initially, American wire services and correspondents picked up this language and used it. The same kind of metaphors are used in this country. A Zionist protagonist with whom I had a TV debate during the 1982 war claimed the Palestinians were "contaminated." Pejorative words peppered regular news reports. Later, when the Israelis were retreating, the seizure of an Israeli soldier in Lebanon by Shiite guerrillas was described as a "kidnapping" rather than as a capture.

The Zionist lobby in America follows the Israeli defamation of Arabs. In 1984, just prior to the Israeli election, Kenneth Bialkin, then Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations said: "If the Alignment wins and changes Israel's policies, we will support them; if the Likud wins and pursues a strong line in the West Bank, we will get behind them." Although prominent US Jews have, from time to time, spoken out individually against Israeli policies, no major Jewish organization in America has ever done anything but support every Israeli policy vis-a-vis the Arabs.

Cultural, Electoral Work Important

Since the Israeli lobby is both efficient and effective, what are the options open to Arab-Americans to fight the persistent ethnic defamation emanating from its supporters? Arab-Americans can and should fight discrimination wherever necessary, as in the recent case of the arrest of a number of Palestinians in California, even though doing so is only a rear-guard action and can never, by itself, eliminate anti-Arab discrimination. They can also attempt, here and there, to promote an understanding of Arab history and culture, since so little of it is known in this country. Again, however, in so doing they should be aware that they are not striking at the source of the discrimination and prejudice against the Arab image.

Priority, therefore, should go to political action designed to bring about a balanced American foreign policy towards Israel and the Arabs. Indeed, a truly balanced US policy in the area would automatically reduce the level of conflict dramatically, if not mandate a peace settlement, since such a policy would remove the military and economic means by which Israel pursues its most aggressive and abrasive policy, e.g., colonizing the West Bank and Gaza.

Given the relatively scarce resources available to Arab-Americans, what kind of political action will produce real, not false, gains? Lobbying Congress and the Executive Branch would seem to be ruled out as the primary political effort. Such efforts are based on the premise that congressional votes can be changed by moral or other forms of persuasion. The votes of congressional heroes such as J. William Fulbright, Mark Hatfield, Paul Findley, Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey, and Charles Percy were in fact affected by rational argument and appeals to the conscience. Congress, unfortunately, does not have many such men and women of courage and principal, and the subsequent problems at the polls of all but one of those named help explain why. Most political lobbying is power-brokering. Accordingly,most representatives and their staffs have about a 10 percent interest in the information a lobbyist can offer them, a 10 percent interest in how much work they can get the lobbyist to do for them, and an 80 percent interest in the money and votes the lobbyist represents. Since Arab-Americans will always have less money and fewer votes than their opponents, they should focus their lobbying efforts on matters which are hotly contested and where they, in coalition with others, have some real chance of affecting the outcome. Generally speaking, legislators have full freedom to vote their judgment only on matters upon which they experience little pressure, or about which their constituents are indifferent. The Zionist lobby's first order of business, therefore, is to make sure that as many representatives as possible either feel direct pressure on all issues affecting Israel, or that the representative's constituency exerts pressure on him or her to vote the Israeli line.

Because of the current disparity in the power equation between Arab-Americans and others who oppose America's persistent pro-Israel tilt, and the Zionist lobby and its many fellow travelers, the same considerations apply to the electoral process. The bottom line in every case is whether the effort has any real chance of succeeding.

Public Relations the Key

Therefore, a third form of political action, public relations—in the best and broadest sense—holds out the best hope for reducing the gap between Arab-American effort and effect.

Obviously, giving priority to an effort to reach the American public is not without its problems, given the widespread pro-Israeli bias in the media. Yet, despite all that it has accomplished in the American media, the Zionist lobby overall has been less successful in influencing the news media than it has been in manipulating the American government. There are magazines and journals (e.g., the Nation) that the lobby cannot bring to heel, and newspapers, like the Boston Globe and the Christian Science Monitor, that insist on balance. So, also, on occasion, with the electronic media. Widespread television coverage of Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 tarnished somewhat the image of the Jewish state, and despite heavy pro-Israel pressure, some PBS stations have aired documentaries critical of Israel.

These exceptions in the generally pro-Israeli atmosphere are partly explained by the media's tendency to present controversial issues in an adversarial format. As a result, whether or not the Fairness Doctrine is repealed, most print and electronic media will remain sensitive to the charge of bias. Presenting themselves as fair and objective, they are obliged by their own credo to give at least token representation to contrary points of view. Granted that token representation is only a foothold, such a foothold is sometimes all that a gifted public relations operator needs.

This approach holds real promise for, at the very least, expanding the American constituency that seeks a balanced US Middle East policy. The indifferent, the ignorant, and the uncommitted can be converted provided the appeal is effectively made to self-interest. That means that the Arab-Israeli conflict must be addressed from an American viewpoint rather than an Arab-American one.

Pro-Israel Groups: Evenhanded is Unfair

Americans tend to be fair-minded, and most given the opportunity, will listen to both sides of the same story. The vulnerability of pro-Israel organizations in their efforts to manipulate the media is that balance is precisely what they cannot permit. The goal of total, uncritical support for Israel was stated most explicitly by Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, a monthly magazine published by the American Jewish Committee. He said straight out, "The role of Jews who write in both the Jewish and general press is to defend Israel, and not join the attacks on Israel." Broadening the imperative and directing it to all media, he said, on another occasion, "...in an asymmetrical conflict in which Israel is the wronged party, to be even-handed...is to be against Israel." The Zionist dictum that whoever is not 100 percent pro-Zionist is anti-Zionist cannot help but offend many in the media. That resentment was candidly voiced by Stephen Rosenfeld, deputy editorial page editor of the Washington Post, when he told Robert I. Friedman, "It is precisely the fact that it is the job of the national press to be fair and objective that gets these super-overheated Jews foaming....They want 100 percent. They don't want fairness; they want unfairness on their side and when they don't get it, they accuse the press of being unfair. Most journalists get so much uninformed, unfair whining from the organized Jews that Jewish organizations—and ultimately Israel...may lose their credibility."

Those who reject this dictum most successfully are syndicated columnists, such as Robert Novak, who use their access to public opinion as a form of defense against Zionist pressure. The growing number of media dissidents to the Israeli line, and the adversarial character of media formats, offer special opportunities to Arab-Americans and a rapidly increasing number of other concerned Americans who seek a more rational approach to the Middle East conflict, and demand more security for American interests there. The rewards that such opportunities offer may be greater than anyone can now imagine. One of those rewards could be the removal or radical diminution of anti-Arabism here at home. If so, it will be ironic that Arab-Americans, who have a unique role in this effort, will succeed in overcoming discrimination against themselves by subordinating their ethnic identity to the largest and most powerful political identity they can claim and court—American nationalism and its concomitant emphasis on American self-interest. Identifying with that force, rejecting dual-loyalty in any form by any group, and patiently and accurately helping to define real American interests in the Middle East and the world at large is, in fact, the only sure way to overcome the problems presently imposed upon Arab-Americans at home.

Robert G. Hazo is Chairman of the Middle East Policy Association. He has lectured extensively on the Middle East both in the US and abroad.