Islam in the Eyes of the West: Images and Realities in an Age of Terror

8
U.S. politics, media and Muslims in the post-9/11 era

Janice J. Terry

In the years following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Muslims and Arabs in the United States have become increasingly vulnerable to stereotyping by the media, pro-Zionist lobbyists and interest groups as well as by politicians. Anti-terrorism legislation has contributed to this stereotyping and vulnerability, but the inter-relationships between hostile lobbyist forces and special interests groups, particularly the Zionist lobby that often operates under the cloak of anti-terrorist campaigns and the Patriot Act, have also been major contributors to the current animosity toward Muslims and Arabs in the United States. Stereotypes were deeply embedded in popular culture long before the September 11, 2001 attacks but given the current antagonism between the United States and many predominately Muslim states, these negative images have been even more difficult to refute.

Polls indicate that a significant number of Americans hold negative images of Islam and Muslims. In a 2003 Pew Research Center survey, 44 per cent thought Islam encouraged violence; this was an increase from 23 per cent in the 2002 poll.¹ Given their general hostility to non-Christians, it is perhaps not surprising that Evangelicals were more likely to hold negative attitudes toward Muslims than secular, mainstream Protestant or Catholic Americans. On the positive side, young Americans were less likely to have negative opinions and seemed much more tolerant toward religious differences and diversity. ² In a similar poll conducted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in 2004, over one quarter of the respondents had negative stereotypical attitudes toward Muslims, believing, for example, that Muslims valued life less than others.³

There is a large literature on the distortion of media coverage regarding the Arab and Muslim worlds.⁴ Hence only a few examples here will suffice to underscore the pervasive distortions and stereotypes commonly found in the popular media throughout the United States. In Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East, Richard Falk and Howard Friel detailed the many distortions of the Times ’ coverage of Israeli policies and actions toward the Palestinians and the slant in its coverage toward more positive stories about Israel while downplaying or ignoring Israeli actions that contravene international law.⁵ Using over two dozen electronic outlets and news publications, Marda Dunsky expanded on the media bias in Pens and Swords: How the American Mainstream Media Report the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.⁶ Even National Public Radio (NPR), commonly believed to be a liberal voice in the U.S. media, was found to be lacking balance. For example, very few spokespersons of people of color, particularly those from the Middle East, appeared on broadcasts. Experts supporting the continuation of U.S. military presence in Iraq outnumbered the sole peace activist 5 to 1. ⁷ NPR also described the September 2007 attacks by Blackwater employees on Iraqi civilians as a ‘shoot out’ and an attack by U.S. army personnel on Iraqi civilians as a ‘fire fight,’ not as massacres.

Stereotypes in the popular media are even more blatant. Bookstores in shopping malls to airports showcase novels and biographical accounts, real or imagined, that portray Muslims, especially women, in negative terms.⁸ However, experts and translators of more balanced and objective accounts have great difficulty in finding publishers. Films such as the The Kingdom, a thriller in which U.S. personnel in Saudi Arabia are attacked by Arab terrorists, also perpetuate negative stereotypes on the big screen. The film is rife with negative images, with few positive images to balance the pictures that demonized Arabs and Muslims in general.⁹

Both the media and government perpetuate distortions and stereotypes about Muslims and Middle Eastern peoples. The media communicates these negative images to the general public that, in turn, unconsciously assimilate these images and then frequently uses them as the basis for negative attitudes toward specific peoples, leaders, and religions. As long as the media continues to popularize false images of Muslims and Islam while using distorted language to describe and explain current events in the Middle East and the rest of the Muslim world the negative attitudes evidenced by large segments of the U.S. public toward Arabs and Muslims is unlikely to change.

Politicians have further contributed to the perpetuation of these stereotypes and hostile attitudes. Some acted out of ignorance and bigotry while others were motivated by political agendas. For example, in a 2007 public interview, Congressman Peter King (R-NY), an advisor to Republican former presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani, stated that there were too many mosques in the U.S. In earlier statements, King supported racial profiling of Arabs and Muslims.¹⁰ Other Members of Congress have publicly criticized the Justice Department for sending representatives to the 2007 CAIR convention, labeling the organization a group of “radical jihadists”.¹¹ In response to King’s racist comments, Keith Ellison (D-MN), the sole Muslim in Congress, responded that such comments undermined U.S. security and that “Just as we don’t want to be judged by the actions of a small minority, I ask the Muslim world not to judge Congress by the remarks of one congressman.” ¹² Ellison also called the criticisms of CAIR “ill informed”.¹³

Racial profiling, especially by airlines, also continued to be a major problem.¹⁴ The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), in particular, kept track of instances of racial profiling on airlines and elsewhere and responded to them on a case-by-case basis. In other instances, police used racial profiling to pull over drivers who appeared to be Muslim or of Middle Eastern descent. Wiretapping of Arab American and Islamic organizations were other infringements on freedom of expression that were too numerous to enumerate here but that were well documented and fairly well publicized.¹⁵

Predictably the overwhelming negative attitudes have resulted in an increase in civil rights infringements and hate crimes against Arabs and Muslims or those perceived to be Muslims. Crimes reported to CAIR from 2004 to 2005 increased almost 30 per cent with most complaints coming from states with large Arab/ Muslim populations such as California, Illinois and New York.¹⁶ Interestingly Michigan, with a large and highly visible Muslim population, was notably absent from this list. The reasons for the relative low number of civil rights infringements and hate crimes against Arabs and Muslims in Michigan will be discussed later in this chapter.

The case of the Hussein family in Gaithersburg Maryland is illustrative of the problems faced by Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent. The family’s car was vandalized six times from 1999 to 2007 with “Go Home” and “Pig” scratched in the side. Their home was also attacked. Disturbingly, the Montgomery County police showed a marked reluctance to pursue this case and refused to visit the home. Ultimately the Gaithersburg City police followed up on the case as did CAIR and, encouragingly, members of the community offered support.¹⁷

The reactions, or lack thereof, by law enforcement agencies raised “red flags” regarding the objectivity of the police, many of whom hold the same negative stereotypes as the general public. The Los Angeles Police Department’s plan to develop a “mapping plan” that targeted individuals for surveillance based on religion was particularly worrisome. Although this form of religious profiling violates constitutional rights, the LA Commander Michael Downing opined that if the plan succeeded it could be adopted by other large U.S. cities.¹⁸

The attacks and campaigns to brand Muslims and Arabs as un-American or in negative terms did not go unnoticed or appear in a vacuum. Since September 11, 2001, Arab American and Muslim organizations have responded vigorously.¹⁹ CAIR conferences have been well attended and speakers urged American citizens and government agencies to eradicate stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims. To some extent government agencies have taken notice. At least eight federal departments attended the 2007 CAIR convention. Attempting to attract new markets from the sizeable Muslim community, numerous private businesses also had booths at the convention.

At a large CAIR-sponsored event in California in 2007, Representative Ellison urged Muslim Americans to “make demands” like other lobby groups and recommended that they “Litigate, legislate, educate our case in a righteous manner.” ²⁰ At its annual banquet in the Washington, D.C. area, CAIR’s National Board Chairperson bemoaned the hijacking of “the image of our faith … by extremists and fear-mongers” and urged the audience to be proactive in their struggles to counteract stereotyping.²¹

A 2004 Study by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan found that although a number of Arab Americans in the area had experienced some harassment based on ethnic or religious identity after September 11, 2001, at least one-third had received support from the larger community.²² At least in part, these positive responses may be attributed to the long-term educational outreach programs for teachers, community activists, and law enforcement and media professionals that the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS) has conducted for over 20 years.

Special interest groups, pro-Zionist lobbyists, neo-conservatives, and Evangelicals, with sometimes overlapping agendas, have actively worked to perpetuate negative images and stereotypes of Muslims and Arabs. More insidiously, they have attempted to prevent the truth about Muslims, Arabs, and Islam as a religion and culture from reaching the U.S. public. They have made considerable efforts to impede open and objective debates, especially in universities and other academic forums.

Experts agree that knowledge and education are the best defenses against stereotyping of all peoples, including Muslims and Arabs. Ignorance is the best friend of bigots. The concerted attacks on speakers and authors who provided informed and objective information about Arabs, Muslims, Palestine, Iraq, and other Arab states since September 2001 have added to the climate of fear and lessened the prospects for open discussion of critical issues. The so-called “war on terror” as exemplified in the 2001 USA Patriot Act created a favorable climate of opinion for pro-Zionist lobbyists and political special interest groups to attack writers, speakers, scholars, and academic programs that criticized Israel, U.S. support for Israel, the war in Iraq, or those who depicted Muslims and Arabs in a positive light. A 2006 Middle East Academic Survey of 2,300 academics with specialties in Middle East studies found that almost half (49 per cent) believed that the academic community was hostile to critical studies of Israel. Some 65 per cent believed that charges of anti-Semitism were the most powerful tools used by pro-Israeli forces to intimidate opponents. An astounding 91 per cent believed that pro-Israeli lobbyists and organizations caused hostility toward the United States in the Middle East.²³

Campaigns to limit or stop freedom of thought within the academy have intensified in recent years. No one who spoke out against Israeli policies regarding the Palestinians or U.S. policies in the Middle East, especially the war in Iraq, was immune, including a former U.S. president and Nobel Prize winner, noted scholars, religious leaders, and Middle East area studies programs at major universities.

The 2006 publication of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter precipitated angry outcries from many Jewish Americans and pro-Israeli forces. The furor was largely based, not on the book’s content, as on the use of the word ‘Apartheid’ to characterize the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and control over the Gaza Strip and by its author’s status as a former president of the United States. Following the book’s publication, Kenneth W. Stein, a professor at Emory University who had served as an advisor to Carter in the early years of the Carter Center, resigned from his position as a fellow of the Center. Although Stein offered no specific details, he accused Carter of factual errors and even plagiarism.²⁴ Predictably, Alan Dershowitz, well known for his hostility to all critics of Israel, railed against the book.

In part owing to this public opposition, the book became a best seller. Carter appeared on major talk shows and had a successful book tour even as leading Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, the new Speaker of the House, hastened to disavow the book. They too failed to offer any specific refutations of the book’s contents or conclusions. These instantaneous knee-jerk reactions indicated that many of the critics had not read the book nor could they find fault with its content, rather they objected to the title and the fact that Carter called for an end to the Israeli occupation and the creation of a meaningful independent Palestinian state. In response, Carter pointed out that, “My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors.” ²⁵ He went on to emphasize that his purpose in writing the book had been:

[To] present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America,to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors. Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this same goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.²⁶

However, Carter’s pleas for balance and objectivity went unheeded by those determined to silence open debate or discussion of the issues facing Israel and Palestine. Subsequently, Joel Kovel’s Overcoming Zionism: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine, published by Pluto Press in the UK with distribution by the University of Michigan Press, was similarly attacked. Founded by Daniel Pipes, the pro-Israeli StandWithUs organization launched a campaign against the University of Michigan Press, demanding that it halt distribution of the book. The U of M Press quickly announced that it was suspending distribution not only of Kovel’s book but all other Pluto Press books. Within weeks the university reconsidered its hasty decision and resumed distribution of all Pluto publications including the Kovel book. In reaction to the controversy, Roger van Zwanenberg, Pluto Press chairman, commented:

Many presses in the United States are frightened of the pressures the Lobby can place on them … We get authors from the United States precisely because they can’t obtain adequate representation elsewhere … We probably have the best collections of any university press in the area.²⁷

Interviewed on Pacifica Radio, Kovel, who is Jewish, noted that he had written the book about a single state in Palestine, an idea that had “very small support”, ²⁸ precisely in order to open up debate on the subject. The fact that most of the critics did not address the book’s contents, but instead called for the press to stop distribution indicated that they found any discussion about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and the occupation threatening, if not wholly unacceptable.

New regulations under the Patriot Act also made it more difficult for visiting scholars from the Middle East, let alone for students, to obtain visas to enter the United States. Audiences in the U.S. were thereby deprived of hearing from those who have first-hand personal knowledge of the region. In 2004, the State Department suddenly revoked the visa for the Swiss citizen and respected Muslim scholar, Tariq Ramadan. Ramadan was scheduled to teach at the University of Notre Dame and had previously toured the U.S. Following pressure from pro-Israeli groups regarding his alleged anti-Semitic remarks, Bishop Desmond Tutu, the highly esteemed Nobel Peace Prize recipient from South Africa, was banned from speaking at the St. Thomas Justice and Peace Studies program in St. Paul in 2007. The very public uproar over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia University in late September 2007 was yet another example of attempts to stifle free speech on issues pertaining to the Middle East; however, in this instance, Ahmadinejad appeared as scheduled.²⁹

The cancellation of historian and author Tony Judt’s talk on “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy” to Network 20/20 (a group of business leaders, academics, and non-governmental organizations) in New York City in 2006 demonstrated that not only speakers from overseas were prevented from stating their views. Network 20/20 meets at the Polish Consulate in NYC but following threats from the ADL that were Judt to speak the ADL would publicly discredit the Polish Consul, the talk was cancelled and later rescheduled.³⁰

In a compilation of incidents since 2001, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) found a “pattern of coordinated actions, organized through networks that tie to, if not directly emanate from, the pro-Sharon, pro-occupation lobby” against critics of Israeli policies.³¹ Invited guest speakers on the Arab Israeli Conflict and the war in Iraq in universities as diverse as Harvard, the University of Colorado, the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, and Rockford College in Illinois were publicly criticized or harassed by students, faculty, and lawmakers. In some instances, the universities stood up to the public criticism and the events went on as scheduled; in others, faculty, student or outside pressure caused administrations to cancel the events or to withdraw invitations.³²

More disturbing in terms of the long-term integrity of Middle East area studies programs and classes, as well as for the freedom of the academy, has been the coordinated action against specific teaching or administrative appointments and the granting of tenure. Perhaps the most well-publicized case involved Yale University and Juan Cole of the University of Michigan. Although he has a widely-read blog “Informed Comment”, Cole’s scholarly publications focus, not on the contemporary era, but on the Middle East during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. His most recent book is on the Napoleonic Expedition to Egypt in 1798. On the basis of this scholarship, 13 faculty members in the history department, with three abstaining, and the majority in the sociology department voted in the spring of 2006 to appoint Cole to teach the modern Middle East at the Yale Center for International and Area Studies, a joint position of the history and sociology departments. The announcement of Cole’s nomination elicited a public outcry from Michael Rubin at the conservative pro-Zionist American Enterprise Institute, Joel Mowbray, a columnist at the conservative Washington Times, and from other public forums. Some faculty at Yale also campaigned within the university against Cole. Mowbray widened the attack by sending a personal letter to a number of the major financial donors to Yale. Although it is not known how many, if any, of these contributors pressured the university, the Yale tenure committee – in a rare reversal of departmental recommendations – rejected Cole’s nomination.

Similar attacks were launched against Joseph Massad’s promotion at the University of Columbia and Wadie Said’s appointment to the law school at Wayne State University in Detroit. Writing about outside influences on faculty hires, columnist Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia, audaciously argued that organizations like Campus Watch (which he, not coincidently, founded) and others had every right to interfere and to “track university developments, including personnel decisions”.³³

Campus Watch and the David Project are two of the most active groups monitoring classes, professors, and programs dealing with the Middle East on college campuses across the United States. Campus Watch was formed by Daniel Pipes, who has advocated the total Israeli military victory over the Palestinians as the means of securing peace.³⁴ Pipes, known for his support of Israel, the war in Iraq, and for attacks on Iran, was nominated by President Bush to the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace in 2003. The Institute is a government-sponsored think tank and Congress must approve nominations to its board. When Pipes’ nomination was delayed, Bush did not resubmit his name. Were it not an indication of the support enjoyed by hard-line supporters in the U.S. for the political right in Israel and for military adventurism in the Middle East, the nomination of the hawkish Pipes to a position in an institute allegedly fostering and studying peace would be laughable.

Initially, Campus Watch maintained a highly controversial website that listed, by name, scholars who had publicly written or spoken in favorable terms about the Palestinians or who had criticized Israel. Many on the original list were then barraged with hate mail and, in some instances, death threats. In response to criticism the list was dropped from the website. However, the site continues to track Middle East studies programs and academic institutions with Middle East programs. Students are also encouraged to inform on professors presenting negative critiques of U.S. policies in the Middle East.

Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week (IFAW) was yet another attempt to vilify Muslims and Arabs. Initiated by David Horowitz of Campus Watch and Students for Academic Freedom, IFAW was a so-called educational campaign about Islam to be held on campuses around the country in the fall of 2007. Virulently anti-Islamic and Arab speakers were listed on websites advertising the week of events; sites also listed universities where events were to be held. IFAW was a nationwide attempt to link Islam and Fascism and Arabs with Nazism and to popularize, under the guise of education, these notions on university campuses. Both ADC and The Washington Report reacted to IFAW by sending letters of concern and protest to universities about the potentially racist and prejudiced nature of the campaign.³⁶ A number of universities responded that they had no such events listed on their schedules and objected to their inclusion on the website lists. In an unexpected backlash for Horowitz and his supporters, student organizations and others started their own counter-campaigns to provide and distribute objective information about Islam and the Arab world. At least partially owing to the proactive measures by ADC and others, IFAW events were cancelled or sparsely attended and clearly failed to have the impact Horowitz had anticipated.

Under the guise of increasing national security and promoting “diversity”, ³⁷ the same lobbyists and groups that attempted to stifle free speech and the independence of academic programs, sought to secure legislation to oversee and monitor Middle East programs. In 2003, Representative Peter Hoekstra, a conservative Republican from Michigan, sponsored bill H.R. 3077, as part of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The bill mandated the creation of an advisory board (International Higher Education Advisory Board) to oversee and make recommendations regarding funding for university area studies and outreach programs that received Title VI funding. The board was to be composed of seven members, two of which were to come from national security agencies. Two of the board members were to be appointed by the Speaker of the House, two by the president pro tem of the Senate and three by the Secretary of Education. The board had the responsibility for drawing up criteria for fellowships and national resource centers, to oversee outreach programs, and to make recommendations about funding for programs receiving Title VI monies – a major source of finance for university area studies and language programs.

Supporters for the bill included the ADL, the American Jewish Congress, Empower America, the neo-conservative group founded by William Kristol, and interestingly the relatively new U.S. India Political Action Committee that has cooperated with pro-Israeli lobbyists. Martin Kramer, professor of Arab Studies at Moshe Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University, Stanley Kurtz, and Daniel Pipes also supported Bill 3077. Kurtz also testified in favor of the bill in Congress. In an unrecorded voice vote, thereby making it impossible to identify which members, or how many voted, the Bill easily passed the House in September 2003 and was sent on to the Committee of Health, Education, Labor and Pensions in the Senate for deliberations in 2004.

By this time, a wide array of civil rights and academic organizations had become alarmed at the Bill’s potential to hobble the independence of area studies programs and, in some instances, to imperil the safety of U.S. academic researchers and their informants working in the Middle East and elsewhere. Anthropologists, and other academics, voiced their concerns that the Bill might well contribute to the perception or belief that “U.S. researchers and students are an arm of the intelligence community. This is problematic on an ethical level, and could put both U.S. researchers, and their informants, in danger.” ³⁸ The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the AAUP, the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) and others issued Action Alerts, sent letters to appropriate Senators, and rallied their memberships to oppose Bill 3077.³⁹ The Bill died in the Senate and Title VI funding was renewed for five years. Given the determination of neo-conservative and Zionist forces to curtail the free exchange of ideas and study of the Middle East in the United State, it would not be surprising were it to be resubmitted, in one form or another, in the future.

Neo-conservative and pro-Zionist David Horowitz, who was involved in a number of the campaigns detailed above, also initiated the academic bill of rights for students (ABOR). The Students for Academic Freedom and Campus Watch joined the campaign in support of ABOR. The website for Students for Academic Freedom lists unverified complains against university professors, specific courses, and universities by conservative students. Again masquerading as means of promoting diversity, ABOR, in fact, was a blatant attempt to shift the academy to the right. It also sought to influence course offerings, contents of class syllabi and lectures, as well as professorial appointments, promotions, and tenure. History Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study and a member of the Special Committee on academic freedom and national security in a time of crisis formed by AAUP after the September 11th attacks, Joan W. Scott detailed the dangers posed by ABOR in a lengthy essay. She noted that ABOR had:

created an atmosphere of concern on university campuses. I’d even call it fear, and this has led to a great deal of self-policing by many faculty and administrators … it substitutes political criteria (the numbers of conservatives or liberals measured by Republic or Democratic party affiliation) for social criteria (how many women, African-Americans, etc. are employed) and so changes the terms of what counts as a measure of discrimination.⁴⁰

In “A Philosopher Looks at the ‘Academic Bill of Rights’ ”, published in the AAUP journal Academe, Professor Kurt Smith effectively demolished the sophistry upon which Horowitz’s claims to promote diversity was based.⁴¹ Emphasizing the inherent dangers posed by ABOR, Smith noted that “ABOR will provide a legal basis for students to sue their professors if they teach evolution and ignore creationism.” ⁴² Given this slippery slope, it is not difficult to image lawsuits being filed by disgruntled students against faculty who teach proven historical facts that contradict the conventional Israeli mythology in courses on the Arab Israeli Conflict.

In spite of vigorous lobbying by the AAUP and concerned university administrations and professors, ABOR gained some support on the local level, especially in state legislatures that in the past have demonstrated a marked eagerness to further direct control over universities. In 2005, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives essentially signed on to ABOR by forming a committee to investigate how faculty members were hired and promoted in state universities. The committee was also to study whether or not students had the freedom to express their own viewpoints. How the committee was to research these issues was not made clear.

ABOR and similar campaigns indicate a pattern of concerted, long-term efforts by pro-Zionists and neo-conservatives to limit debate, free speech and thought, and to crush opposing viewpoints regarding Israel, the war in Iraq and prevailing hostile attitudes toward Islam and Arabs. These campaigns create the same type of political fear many believe exists in Congress where individuals fear criticizing Israel. In the words of former Senator James Abourezk, the aim is “to suppress any congressional dissent from the policy of complete support for Israel … Even one voice is attacked.” ⁴³ It has been said that “Truth is strong.” Some say that it “will prevail,” but it can only prevail through the concerted organized efforts by those who want objectivity and balance in matters pertaining to the Middle East and the Muslim world.

Notes

1 Scott Keeter and Andrew Kohut, “American Public Opinion about Muslims in the U.S. and Abroad”, in Philippa Strum and Danielle Tarantolo (eds) Muslims in the United States, Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2003, p. 189.

2 Ibid.

3 CAIR Poll: “Poll: 1-in-4 Americans Holds Anti-Muslim Views”, 4 October 2004. Available at: www.cair-net.org/downloads/pollresults.ppt, accessed 5 October 2004.

4 See among others: Michael Suleiman, The Arabs in the Mind of America, Brattleboro, VT: Amana Books, 1988; Jack G. Shaheen, The TV Arab, Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1984 and Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People, Northampton, MA: Interlink Publishing Group, Inc., 2001; Janice J. Terry, Mistaken Identity: Arab Stereotypes in Popular Writing, Washington, DC: American-Arab Affairs Council, 1985; Kathleen Christison, Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999; Michael C. Hudson and Ronald A. Wolfe (eds) The American Media and the Arabs, Washington, DC: Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, Georgetown University, 1980.

5 Richard Falk and Howard Friel, Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East, London: Verso, 2007. See also ADC response to the January 24, 2008 Washington Post editorial that claimed “no one is starving in Gaza”, in spite of the Israeli closure of the entire strip and UN calls for immediate humanitarian aid. ADC Action Alert; 25 January 2008. Available at: www.adc.org.

6 Marda Dunsky, Pens and Swords: How the American Mainstream Media Report the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.

7 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR): “Study Finds Lack of Balance, Diversity, Public at PBS NewsHour Public TV’s Flagship News Program Offers Standard Corporate Fare”. Available at: www.fair.org, 4 October 2006; accessed 10 October 2006.

8 Lorraine Adams: “Beyond the Burka”, The New York Times Book Review Section, 6 January 2008, is one of the most recent writers to bemoan the problem of finding publishers for balanced accounts of Muslims and the Middle East.

9 Jack G. Shaheen, “Stereotypes Reign in ‘The Kingdom’ ”, The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 2007, p. 71.

10 See www.youtube.com/watch for the full King interview with The Politico. See also: ADC Press Release: “ADC Condemns Recent Racist and Islamophobic Remarks from Rep. Peter King (R-NY)”, 20 September 2007. Available at: www.adc.org.

11 Neil MacFarquhar, “Abandon Stereotypes, Muslims in America Say”, The New York Times, 4 September 2007. The criticism was delivered in the form of an open letter by Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich) and Sue Myrick (R-NC).

12 Arab American Institute Countdown, September 25, 2007. Available at: www.AAIUSA.ORG, accessed 29 September 2007.

13 The New York Times, op. cit., 4 September 2007.

14 Juan Cole, “Islamophobia as a Social Problem: 2006 Presidential Address”, Middle East Studies Association Bulletin, June 2007, p. 5; Janice J. Terry “Arab-American Political Activism and Civil Liberties in the Post 9/11 Era”, in Philippa Strum (ed.) American Arabs and Political Participation, Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2006, pp. 120–121; Anton Hajjar, “Appendix: Selected Legal Issues Affecting Arab-Americans”, in American Arabs: History, Identity, Assimilation, Participation, Special Report 2.1, Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2001, pp. 37–43.

15 Terry, 2006, op. cit.

16 Cole, op. cit., p. 5.

17 “Muslim Family Endures Hate Crime – Again”, The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, November 2007, p. 53.

18 ADC Press Release, “ADC Deeply Troubled by LAPD Plan to ‘Map’ LA-Area Muslims”, 10 November 2007. Available at: www.adc.org.

19 Terry, 2006, op. cit., pp. 117–129.

20 “Rep. Ellison Addresses 2,000 at CAIR Event”, The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January/February 2008, p. 45.

21 Speech by Dr. Parvez Ahmed, “CAIR Hosts Fund-raiser in DC”, The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January/February 2008, p. 59.

22 Ronald R. Stockton, “Arab-American Political Participation: Findings from the Detroit Arab American Study”, in Philippa Strum (ed.) American Arabs and Political Participation, Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2006, pp. 53–78.

23 The Middle East Academic Survey Research Exposition. Available at: www.Irmep.org/measure5.htim and www.Irmep.org/PDF/measure5.pdf, accessed 11 April 2006.

24 Karen DeYoung, “Carter Book on Israel ‘Apartheid’ Sparks Bitter Debate”, The Washington Post, 7 December 2006.

25 Jimmy Carter, “Speaking Frankly about Israel and Palestine”. Available at: www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-carter8dec08, accessed 11 December 2006.

26 Ibid.

27 Ron David, “Israel Lobby Unrelenting in Efforts to Stifle Speech It Doesn’t Want Americans to Hear”, The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 2007, p. 23.

28 Ibid.

29 Jonathan D. Glater, “Between Free Speech and a Hard Place”, The New York Times, September 30, 2007, p. 3; Julian Border and Ewen MacAskill, “Crowd Jeers Ahmadinejad at US College”, The Guardian Weekly, 30 September 2007, p. 4.

30 See www.antiwar.com/blog/2006/10/04/tony-judt-speech-shut-down-by-adl, accessed 12 October 2006.

31 Joan W. Scott, “Middle East Studies Under Siege”, The Link, 39(1) (January–March 2006). Available at: www.ameu.org/page.asp, accessed 2 February 2006.

32 “Academic Freedom and National Security in a Time of Crisis: A Report of the AAUP’s Special Committee”, Academe, 89(6) (November–December 2003).

33 Daniel Pipes, “Outsiders Should Influence Faculty Hires”. Available at: www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/aricle?AID=/20061206/OPINION01/61206030, accessed 12 December 2006.

34 Scott, op. cit.

35 Ibid.

36 “Islamo-Fascism Week Backfires”, The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 2007, p. 82; “Regarding The Action Alert ‘Alternative to Islamo-Fascism Week’ ”, The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 2007, p. 6.

37 Martin Kramer and Stanley Kurtz on HR 3077, 9 December 2003. Available at: www.washingtoninstitute.org/distribution/POL813.doc, accessed 31 January 2008.

38 Action Alert: HR 3077 Talking Points, Task Force on Middle East Anthropology, December 2003. Available at: www.ga.berkeley.edu/academics/hr3077.html.

39 Action Alert: HR 3077 Talking Points, Task Force on Middle East Anthropology, December 2003. Available at: www.ga.berkeley.edu/academics/hr3077.html; www.aaup.org/govrel/hea/2033/9-23alart.htm (AAUP Alert on HR 3077); www.internationalstudies.uchicago.edu/titleVI.shtml.

40 Scott, op. cit.

41 Kurt Smith, “A Philosopher Looks at the ‘Academic Bill of Rights’ ”, Academe, September–October 2006, pp. 29–32.

42 Ibid., p. 31.

43 Letter from U.S. Senator James Abourezk to Jeff Blankfort, 4 December 2006, on Israeli Lobby. Available at: www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/chains/signs20061204_TheLobbythatdoesn27texist.php, Accessed 7 December 2006.

8U.S. politics, media and Muslims in the post-9/11 era

Notes

8
U.S. politics, media and Muslims in the post-9/11 era