SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
arab americans
First They Came for the Arabs... Because They Knew No One Would Speak Out
From Reagan to Trump, when a U.S. president or Congress has sought to take measures curtailing a range of civil liberties, they have exploited the perception of the danger posed by Arabs to justify their actions.
Apr 26, 2025
For decades now, Arabs, in particular Palestinians, and supporters of Palestinian rights have been the weak link in the civil liberties chain.
During this period, when a U.S. president or Congress has sought to take measures curtailing a range of civil liberties, they would exploit the perception of the danger posed by Arabs to justify their actions. They feel comfortable in doing this because they understand that the negative stereotypes associated with Arabs make the measures more acceptable and opposition to their efforts less likely to occur. Examples abound.
On three separate occasions in the 1980s, when the Reagan administration sought to roll back civil liberties, they began their assault with an attack on Arabs’ rights. Having established the identity of Arab or Palestinian with terrorist, they assumed no public support would be forthcoming in defense of Arab civil liberties. On the other hand, if their targets had been persons of another ethnicity, opposition would have been more likely.
In 1981, the Reagan administration issued an executive order that dismantled all earlier reforms by the Carter administration to outlaw domestic surveillance by the CIA and FBI, using Arabs as the scapegoats to justify this measure. As a result, for five years, the FBI infiltrated and disrupted Palestinian student groups nationwide—finally disbanding the effort with nothing to show but agents’ hours wasted and millions of dollars spent.
What Trump’s administration policies share in common with his predecessors is the use of Arabs, in particular Palestinians, and their supporters, as convenient scapegoats to justify the erosion of rights and liberties.
Reagan’s Department of Justice was also able to rewrite U.S. extradition law, making it easier to fulfill the requests of foreign countries to extradite individuals without due process protections. They did so using the case of a Palestinian visa holder whose extradition had been requested by Israel. Based on this case, Congress rewrote the laws affecting all extradition requests.
It was also under former President Ronald Reagan that the Immigration and Naturalization Service released its “Alien Terrorist and Undesirables Contingency Plan,” detailing steps under provisions of the McCarren Walter Act to imprison, try in secret, and deport large numbers of aliens based solely on their ethnicity or their political beliefs or associations. Consistent with the approach taken, the “Plan” makes several references to Arab immigrants. In fact, the test case used to lay the groundwork for this “Plan” was the arrest of seven Palestinians and the Kenyan wife of one of them, charging them with nothing more than their political beliefs and association.
In 1995, then-President Bill Clinton issued an executive order “Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threatened to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process” and followed by the Omnibus Anti-Terrorism Act of 1995. Both efforts introduced draconian measures that would seriously erode civil and political rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens and residents under the Constitution and international law. The law, for example, gave far-reaching powers to law-enforcement agencies, removed the presumption of innocence for those under investigation, made it easier for the government to conduct surveillance against persons suspected of violating conspiracy laws, allowed for prohibition of “material support deemed by the president to benefit terrorist organizations,” established procedures allowing the government to detain and deport individuals based on secret evidence with no opportunity for the detainees to defend themselves, and allowed law-enforcement agencies to conduct surveillance on individuals or groups, based purely on their beliefs and associations. Using the executive order and new legislation the Clinton administration unleashed a nationwide profiling program at airports, which harassed and questioned hundreds of Arab and Arab American airline passengers, even before checking in for their flights, based solely on their dress, appearance, or Arabic names.
After 9/11, the Bush administration and Congress upped the ante. While intelligence failures and lax airline safety requirements were at fault in allowing terrorists to be trained in the U.S. and carry out their horrific attacks, then-President George W. Bush issued a series of orders that resulted in the roundup and deportation of thousands of innocent Arab students, workers, and visitors. They also ordered tens of thousands of Arab and Muslim visa holders to report to immigration offices where many more were held for deportation. The anti-terrorism legislation that passed through Congress allowed expanded surveillance by law enforcement, including warrantless wiretapping, searching library records, and an expanded use of profiling. Using the expanded powers given to them by the administration, law enforcement agents infiltrated mosques and Arab social clubs, entrapping a few gullible individuals in plots that were often organized by the law enforcement agencies themselves.
This is only a partial history, but it lays the predicate for the actions being taken by the Trump administration: threats to civil liberties like freedom of speech, assembly, and academic freedom; expanded authority given to law enforcement agencies to use unconstitutional measures to detain and deport individuals based on their ethnicity or political beliefs; and an expanded interpretation of the “material support” argument used by the Reagan and Clinton administrations to violate the protected rights of citizens and residents.
There are differences to be sure. While the measures taken during the Reagan, Clinton, and Bush administrations were based on exaggerated fears of terrorism in the U.S., it’s important to note that a review of the profiling, surveillance, and immigration programs established during these administrations did little to uncover or prosecute actual cases of terrorism. At the end of the day, despite billions of dollars spent and precious law enforcement resources expended, these programs did nothing more than contribute to an expansion of law enforcement powers and erosion of rights. In the case of the Trump orders, there’s not even the pretense of fighting terrorism—rather, an exercise in the brutal use of power to create fear and force institutions and individuals to cower and submit.
What Trump’s administration policies share in common with his predecessors is the use of Arabs, in particular Palestinians, and their supporters, as convenient scapegoats to justify the erosion of rights and liberties. What Trump knows is that in the midst of Israel’s war on Gaza, his support base will enthusiastically back his efforts. He also knows that liberals in Congress, who might otherwise oppose his policies, will be hesitant to offer full-throated support to the victims of his policies if it appears they are defending Palestinians or critics of Israel. For Trump, it’s the perfect storm. For those who care about defending rights and liberties, it’s just another example of Arabs, Palestinians, and those who defend them being the weak link in the civil liberties chain.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Don’t Scapegoat Arab Americans for Trump’s Win
Instead of blaming the people they let down, the Harris campaign needs to look in the mirror and find fault with itself.
Feb 11, 2025
There’s an insidious blame game occurring on social media. Whenever U.S. President Donald Trump takes one of his outrageous actions, Arab Americans are subjected to a flood of abusive messages. The “nicer” comments simply blame us for Mr. Trump’s victory, but others are punctuated by obscenities, vulgarities, and threats. There appears to be a concerted effort to absolve the Biden White House for their failed policies and the Harris presidential campaign for their bad political decisions and instead blame Arab Americans for Trump’s victory.
Being threatened or targeted for blame is nothing new for Arab Americans. For decades now, we’ve had to fend off abusive comments holding us responsible for everything from the 1973 Oil Embargo to terrorist attacks, whether here in the U.S. or in the Middle East.
I have experienced this personally. In the last two decades there have been four convictions for these kinds of threats directed against me, my family, or my staff. During one two-year stretch, between 2015 and 2017, we received 772 outrageous email threats accusing me of planning, training, and funding dozens of acts of violence.
Given the fact that Arab Americans and their concerns were given such short shrift by the Harris campaign, it is wrong to hold them responsible for the loss in November.
What’s happening today is different in two ways. Instead of being accused of terrorism, we are being held responsible for Trump’s victory. Some of those targeting us with abuse aren’t mentally deranged individuals who hover about on the right wing of U.S. politics, they are from the left. And while some of those blaming us for Harris’ defeat are unbalanced hate-filled characters, other accusations come from seasoned liberal political operatives or mainstream pundits who ought to know better.
To even suggest that Arab Americans are responsible for this election’s outcome is false, foolish, and irresponsible. In the first place, the Harris campaign didn’t need any help, they lost on their own. They may continue to maintain that their campaign was “flawless,” but if that’s the case, why did Democrats lose 45% of the Latino vote, or a significant share of Black males, or get wiped out among the white working-class?
These failures can’t be pinned on Arab Americans. They were the result of a failed campaign strategy designed and executed by consultants who are unprincipled, out of touch with the changing electorate, risk-averse, and unimaginative. Instead of understanding the changing contours and growing diversity of the Hispanic, Asian, and Black communities, they either took them for granted or approached them with decades-old “one-size-fits-all” messaging. Added to this was their failure to address the economic insecurity of the working class of all races, and the misguided attempt to replace voters they were losing by winning moderate Republican-leaning, white suburban women by campaigning with former Congressman Liz Cheney (whose policies are neither moderate nor appealing to suburban women).
When tallying the “strategists’” failures, we must add former Vice President Kamala Harris’ failure to meet with Arab American leaders, demonstrate any distance from former President Joe Biden’s disastrous blank-check support for Israel, and the campaign’s refusal to allow a Palestinian woman, who had lost family in Gaza, to speak at the Democratic convention. All of these failures took a toll on Arab American support for the Democratic ticket.
Having witnessed the traumatizing genocide that unfolded in Gaza and the enabling role played by the Biden administration, Arab Americans were in a bind. Although for the past two decades they’d voted for Democrats by a two-to-one margin, many found it difficult to support campaigns that ignored them and their pain. They asked for gestures of support and got none. And so, in the end, instead of the 60-30 margin won by Biden in 2020, Trump and Harris split the Arab American vote, with a small percentage supporting a third-party candidate, and a larger than average number not voting at all.
Given the fact that Arab Americans and their concerns were given such short shrift by the Harris campaign, it is wrong to hold them responsible for the loss in November. There’s a bit of racism at work here. If the concerns of any other group (ethnic, religious, or racial) had been so ignored, would they be scorned for abandoning the party that offended them? And when Trump started mass deportations, I haven’t seen Latino voters blamed or targeted with hate because 45% of them didn’t vote for Harris. And of course, they should not be because instead of blaming the people they let down, the campaign needs to look in the mirror and find fault with itself. I would simply have hoped the same courtesy could be extended to my community.
Early on, I warned the Biden-Harris campaigns that they were at risk of losing Arab Americans. My concerns were shrugged off with, “When it comes down to a binary choice—us versus Trump—they’ll support us.” I told them that was insensitive to my community’s pain and politically stupid. They were wrong and I was right.
Despite all of this, I was disturbed when some in my community endorsed Donald Trump, or when others began beating the drums for an unserious third-party candidate. I went to Michigan and joined several Arab American leaders for a Harris endorsement event. While I too was angry at Biden and deeply disappointed by the Harris campaign, I felt strongly that the dangers to our community, our allies, and our country’s democracy were too great to let Trump back into the White House. I understood my community’s pain and anger, but felt that it was important for us to rise above our hurt and consider how much worse it would be if Trump won—worse not only for us, but also for many other vulnerable communities here at home and abroad. As we can see from the new outrages being enacted daily, these fears were justified.
But despite this debate internal to my community, when all is said and done, I insist: Don’t blame Arab Americans. Blame the Biden administration and the Harris campaign. Don’t make us scapegoats, because even if Harris had carried the Arab American vote in Michigan and won that state, she still would have lost the other six battleground states and the election. And even if every Arab American voter had turned the other cheek and cast a ballot for Harris, she still would have lost the popular vote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supporters of Palestinian Rights Were Victorious at the Democratic Convention
Despite the hurt and pain of seeing the plight of those suffering in Gaza sidelined at the DNC, the entire saga represented a win—one we must recognize and embrace, and on which we must now build.
Aug 26, 2024
The 2024 Democratic National Convention was an exhausting roller coaster ride for Arab Americans and supporters of Palestinian rights. It was a messy affair, with highs and lows, some small victories and some setbacks. But on balance, the naysayers are wrong, because Palestine and supporters of Palestinian rights were big winners during the four days in Chicago.
We didn’t get language on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict changed in the party platform, nor did we get a Palestinian American speaker in prime time from the convention’s main stage. But the issue of Palestine was front and center from Monday through Thursday, and in the days that followed. They were little wins, to be sure, but they were victories, nonetheless.
On Monday, the convention agreed to host a panel on Palestinian suffering at an official site. It was co-chaired by Minnesota Attorney General (former Congressman) Keith Ellison and myself. It featured the compelling testimonies of: Dr. Tanya Haj-Hassan who told harrowing stories of children and medical workers who were victims of the genocidal war on Gaza; Layla Elabed, a Palestinian American leader of the national Uncommitted Movement that garnered 750,000 voters, protesting the administration’s complicity in the war; former Congressman Andy Levin, who lost his reelection due to AIPAC spending millions to defeat him; and Hala Hijazi, a Palestinian American Democratic Party fundraiser who had lost scores of family members in Gaza.
There had been over 30 of these official side panels hosted by the campaign. Most had been sparsely attended by delegates and party members; for example, the one on the war in Ukraine had less than one hundred participants. This session on Palestine had well over 300 attendees, with most deeply moved by what they heard. There were many tears shed as well as a number of standing ovations in support of the speakers and issues raised.
Now isn’t the time to withdraw in defeatist anger. Instead, it’s imperative to recognize the victories won and continue to engage with allies in the political process, because change will come...
It was understood that securing the official sponsorship for the panel wasn’t the victory we sought. Our goal remains a change in U.S. policy. But recognition of Palestinian suffering and Israel and the U.S.’s responsibility for producing this genocidal war was important and could not be dismissed.
News that an Israeli American family would take the convention’s main stage to tell about their son who was a Hamas-held hostage upped the ante and led us to insist that a Palestinian American also be invited to tell the story of their family in Gaza. Days of negotiations followed. When the decision was made to not extend an invitation, Abbas Alawieh, another of the leaders of the National Uncommitted Movement, led a protest walkout from the arena and a sit-in in front of the convention.
I called this campaign decision a “bone-headed, unforced error.” It was deeply hurtful to Palestinian Americans who felt their humanity wasn’t being recognized. It threatened to erase the positives gained by the campaign’s recognition of our panel, leaving supporters of Palestinian rights with a sour taste in their mouths. But it also meant—and this is important to recognize—that the issue of Palestine and the effort to silence our voices would once again be elevated to the center of discussion. Over the next 24 hours, we held multiple press conferences and spoke one-on-one with dozens of journalists ensuring that the issue of Palestinian rights would continue to be discussed—and it was. Endorsements for having a Palestinian American speaker came from members of Congress, national organizations (including Jewish groups), Black and Hispanic leaders, two prominent Jewish newspapers, and even the Israeli American family that had spoken at the convention.
Reviewing the convention itself, it was moving to see hundreds of delegates, including hundreds of Harris supporters, wearing kaffiyehs or “Democrats for Palestine” buttons, including Vice President Harris’s niece. It was also important to note that when Palestine was mentioned by speakers, it was greeted by rousing applause. And while in her speech Vice President Harris included the usual commitments to Israel’s security, her words about Palestinian suffering were passionate and punctuated by her commitment to their “freedom, security, dignity, and self-determination.” That’s more than any other presidential nominee has ever said. And so, despite the hurt, the entire saga represented a win—one we must recognize and embrace, and on which we must now build.
Today’s movement for justice for Palestinians isn’t riding on the back of a leader. It is a people-powered movement, from the bottom up.
Thirty-six years ago, I was the last Arab American to speak about Palestinian rights at a national party convention when, in 1988, I presented the Jackson campaign’s minority plank on Palestinian rights from the podium in Atlanta. I knew it was a historic moment and in the days that followed I experienced the backlash from pro-Israel forces within the party. They pressured me to resign my post as a member of the Democratic National Committee. It was then that Rev. Jackson taught me two important lessons I’ve not forgotten.
The first was that “When you win a victory, embrace it but never turn your back, because the knives will be out to get you.” The other was, “Never quit, because that’s exactly what your enemies want you to do. What they fear most is that you’ll stick around to fight.”
These lessons apply today, with a difference. In 1988, we were able to raise the issue because it was a powerful Jackson-led movement. Today’s movement for justice for Palestinians isn’t riding on the back of a leader. It is a people-powered movement, from the bottom up. This effort has mobilized to pass ceasefire resolutions in over 350 cities and won the support of major unions, Black, Latino, and Asian organizations. It is responsible for demonstrations mobilizing millions of Americans, encampments on over 100 college campuses, and garnering over 750,000 votes in Democratic primaries across the US. Polls show that the majority of Democrats want a ceasefire, conditioning arms to Israel, and securing rights for Palestinians.
Now isn’t the time to withdraw in defeatist anger. Instead, it’s imperative to recognize the victories won and continue to engage with allies in the political process, because change will come—but only if this work continues.Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular