THE KAHLIL GIBRAN AWARDS
Washington Watch
May 3, 1999
Dr. James J. Zogby ©
President
Arab American Institute
My son Joseph is the lone Arab American working in the Near East Affairs (NEA) Bureau at the U.S. Department of State. For nearly one year now he has served as Special Assistant to Martin Indyk, the Assistant Secretary of State.
Last week, Joseph was harshly attacked by the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), an extremist pro-Likud organization, not because of something he said or did or his work, but because of two articles he had written before he began his position at the State Department.
The ZOA campaign against Joseph was hysterical in tone and predictable in its execution. It is instructive, therefore, to examine this effort, since the pattern it follows is identical to several other campaigns waged by this and other extremist right-wing groups.
The initial ZOA release is entitled “Joseph Zogby, Aide to Martin Indyk, Wrote Articles Harshly Attacking Israel & U.S.—ZOA Urges Dismissal of Biased Aide”.
Denouncing Joseph as my son (I am described as “the militant pro-Arab lobbyist”), the release quotes two articles written by Joseph as evidence that he is “biased” and should be immediately replaced.”
The quotes when seen in context, in fact, display nothing more than Joseph’s observations and experiences after living for two years in the West Bank, while running the Palestine Peace Project (PPP) a project he founded after graduating from law school. The PPP brought over 40 young American lawyers and law students to the West Bank to do internships in a variety of Palestinian institutions. The PPP won the praise of Palestinians, Israelis, prestigious U.S. law schools and major U.S. Foundations that supported its work.
During his time in the West Bank Joseph became acquainted with the reality of Palestinian life and the profound gap in perceptions that exist between Palestinians and Israelis and Palestinians and Americans. In an effort to bridge those gaps, Joseph wrote his articles.
Even when presented out of context, as they appear in the ZOA release, Joseph’s observations do not appear to b e out of the ordinary.
“Palestinians are still living under occupation, packed into squalid refugee camps and suffering from gross violations of their civil, political, economic and social rights.”
“Today, the Occupied Territories resemble nothing more than South African-style bantustans…terms like ‘apartheid state’…[are undeniably accurate.”
“[H]ope that we, as Americans, can begin to play a more constructive role in bringing and end to the oppression of the Palestinian people.”
Other quotes presented are taken so grossly out of context that their original meaning is lost or disturbed.
But what the ZOA release ignores is that Joseph’s purpose in writing these pieces had been to help his American friends understand what he had seen and what Palestinians were feeling and saying. His overriding concern was to create understanding and bring some balance to the U.S. discussion of Middle East realities.
It is this that the ZOA apparently found so disturbing and offensive. Hence their attack and demand for his dismissal.
The ZOA does not merely send out releases—they organize campaigns. Their front ??? targets were often mainstream Jewish organizations. Now while most
mainstream groups routinely dismisses ZOA as extremist, the same groups regularly show deference???? to ZOA ramblings????. Because no major Jewish groups want to be accused of being “soft”, they all too frequently allow the ZOA to have their way.
As a result, when interviewed by Jewish reporters as to their reactions to the ZOA’s charges against Joseph, most Jewish leaders, even without reading the full articles gave their endorsement. Not only did they agree, but using a familiar tactic, they upped the rhetorical ante. One characterized Joseph’s hiring as “an outrage”, another termed it as “obscene”.
The next group to be su???? to do the ZOA’s budding were a handful of editorial writers at major U.S. newspapers For the most part the pieces they wrote were taken verbatim from ZOA releases “including factual errors), but hey too increased the rhetorical charges.
This is the New York Daily News Joseph became “An Israel Hater” and “a virulent foe of Israel”. Joseph was even held to be responsible for what the writer called “Clinton’s tilt toward the Palestinians”.
In a major editorial in the next day’s New York Post, Joseph was now characterized as not only “anti-Israel”, but “as anti-American” as well. And the publication in which one of Joseph’s articles appeared was described as “extremely anti-Semitic and filled with messages of hate and bigotry”.
Working himself into a hysterical pique the New York Post writer demands Joseph’s dismissal and decries his hiring in the first place noting “this guy shouldn’t be working as dog catcher”.
What was intriguing about all of this is the extent to which the campaign was accelerated in just three days—without ever having become a news story. The reason is quite simple. The ZOA campaign is a coordinated effort—able to win the accommodation??? of some Jewish leader while intimidating others into silence and at he same time suborning major newspapers, in advance, to give credence to their effort.
The full??? piece, of course, will come in the coming days as right-wing members of Congress join the fray. Already the prod??? a??? of this campaign, Congressman Michael Forbes (D-NY) has announced that he was “chagrined and outraged” at Joseph’s presence in the State Department “I can’t believe that someone as insensitive as this individual is would be put in this important position.”
Forbes announced that he will do the ZOA’s bidding and launch a letter campaign of those members of Congress urging Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to “ask that he be removed from that position”.
This then is the outline??? for the campaign. One that we have seen used, with some success, on previous occasion. It is very similar to “McCarthyism”—the anti-Communist witch hunt of the 1950s in which ????? government employees were hunted down and fired because of articles they had written or ideas they had expressed. They were hounded out of their jobs because no one had the courage to stand up and demand an end to its excesses.
Like McCarthyism, ?????? Joseph is being targeted because of his views. Abe Foxman, Executive Director of the Anti-Defamation League of B’inai B’rith????? said
“We believe with you, that there is no room at a U.S. government agency, the State Department, for individual who publicly advocate antagonistic views of Israel and our policy regarding an ally.”
But one might ask, how can the United States compete??? in the context of the broader Middle East and not ???? even a single???? State Department employee who has views critical of Israeli policy? And since when must U.S. government employees pay homage to Israel as a litmus test for holding their position.
Like McCarthyism, the campaign reacts to verbal excess. The rhetoric??? ???? reached border on hysteria—by design. The intent is clear, to silence debate. To be?????’s independent???, that opposition cowers in the face of extreme rhetoric. The result is that the object of the attack becomes un??????. Those in power ???? that it in ??? not ??? provoking further attacks in the campaign to ???? controversy wins.
Like McCarthyism, those who indulge in such campaigns live in a ????? world. Only their views are normal and acceptable—other are “beyond the pale”. By definition they only acceptable views are those to the right of “Peace Now” and the left of Meir Kahane. Jewish views are acceptable. Arab views are not. What mainstream Arab America does not see “Palestinians as oppressed” or see “Palestinians today living in bantustans”. If their views are driven out of the policy discussion, them there is only a monologue in the policy debate.
Like McCarthyism this campaign operates or morally absolute, self-righteousness.
The result is that there is only one Arab American in NEA. That Arabists (Americans who understand the Arab world) have been eased out or in some cases,
removed from NEA. With a disproportionate number of American Jews and only one Arab American something is surely ?????.
While to their credit the State Department has defended Joseph, more must be done. Assistant Secretary Martin Indyk speaking at ADL characterized Joseph as “ NOT SURE WHICH ONE HERE”
In the end, this ZOA campaign, while ostensibly about my son Joseph, is about much more. It is about a crude, heavy-handed effort to silence debate, to deny an entire ethnic group an opportunity to participate in making policy,??? it is about whether America will include the contributions of all of its people in the development of policies that serve all its people.
The only effective response to the ZOA and its campaign of ???? is to hire more Arab American to establish once and for all that there is not “Arabs need not apply” sign hanging on NEA or the National Security Council.
Arab Americans have a legitimate, I believe, significant contribution???? to make as to the development of U.S. foreign policy. The ZOA campaign should be met ???? and rejected. For Arab American ethnic groups to ??? to American foreign policy.
State??? should ?? ??? now to the imbalance and bring Arab Americans into the policy-making on broader Middle East issues—our experience is too great, our contributions too important and our role in this critical ???? are, too vital to be discounted ????? COULDN’T READ MUCH HERE
For comments, contact <jzogby@arab-aai.org>.