2 Friday, February 28, 1975
THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS
Purely Commentary
The Arab Boycott of Business Firms and Banks with Jewish
Affiliates is Equated with Anti-Semitism . . . Aim to Invade
the Media with Oiled Billions Exposed by Newsmen
The Boycott of Israel: An International Outrage
At last a responsible newspaper has exposed the Arab boycott of firms dealing with
Israel and has shed light on the outrage of its sponsorship. The Wall Street Journal,
whose editorial is reproduced on the right, has not hesitated to apply to the acts of the
Arab Semites the opprobrium of anti-Semitism.
Leading European firms have already yielded to the Arabs and have virtually joined
the boycott. For example: Britain's "Leyland Motors, which has long been on the (Arab)
blacklist, recently decided to stop assembling truck chassis in Israel so that it can re-enter
the Arab market."—Newsweek, Feb. 24.
The number of American firms that are giving comfort to the Arab boycott is not
known, and the urgency of being on guard to prevent its spread is an urgency pointedly
indicated in the Wall Street Journal.
Instead of assuring cooperation between all elements in mankind, the Arabs are add-
ing to the suspicions that had arisen when their representatives began to seek control of
banks in this country. While boycotting Jewish financiers in Europe, under the leadership
of the oil-rich state of Kuwait, the emissaries from the sheikdoms undertook to secure a
foothold into American banking. That's when the concern was expressed that if they can
get control of banks why not also the media—radio, television and the newspapers. Now
comes confirmation of this warning. Editor and Publisher (Feb. 15) published this revela-
tion:
A Middle Eastern businessman and
publisher is actively pursuing the ac-
quisition of U.S. newspaper properties,
"Editor & Publisher" learned.
The businessman, Bassam Freiha, is
reportedly a member of the family which
publishes the Al Anwar, a daily serving
Beirut, Lebanon. Information about the
proposed acquisitions came through a se-
ries of letters given to E&P.
The first inkling that foreign money
barons were actively pursuing such pur-
chases was revealed in a letter from a
Beirut publishing house to an American
newspaper broker.
The letter, dated January 14, was
sent by Wajib Abdallah, personal assist-
ant to the president and managing direc-
tor of Dar Assayad, S.A.I. The company
publishes seven newspapers or maga-
zines.
Addressed to George J. Cooper Asso-
ciates of Rockville Centre, N.Y., Abdal-
lah wrote:
"My purpose in writing to you is to
seek your cooperation in an effort to ac-
quire, through a complete take-over or
major interest acquisition, of a daily in
youi area . . ."
He continued, "The daily we are in-
terested in would be a medium-sized
newspaper, with a circulation ranging
between 30,000 and 50,000. It would be
serving an upper middle class commu-
nity and preferably with an appeal to the
business community.
"If such an opportunity exists, I
shall be grateful to receive a fully de-
tailed rundown on the proposed daily
with your indication regarding price and
formalities. As soon as I have the re-
quested information, I shall study it with
Mr. Freiha with a view to enter serious
negotiations."
Rumors circulating about the pub-
lishing firm have indicated that the Ara-
bic language publications have leaned
heavily toward policies which come out
of Cairo, capital of the Arab Republic. It
is also rumored that the newspaper
which circulates only partially in Leba-
non (the rest in other Arab nations) is
subsidized by the Arab governments.
Replying to Abdallah's letter,
Cooper wrote on February 4: "I have
your letter of January 14 regarding the
desire of your people to acquire a daily
newspaper in the United States. There
are not too many present possibilities of
the size that you might be interested in,
and on the other hand, we have many
long time clients in this country to whom
we are under obligation, and they, of
course, come first with respect to any
availability.
"Secondly," Cooper wrote, "I doubt
very much if there are any publishers in
this country who would be interested in
selling out to other than others in the
United States. . . ."
Speculation over Arab interest in
U.S. properties has run high in the busi-
ness community since the nation suffered
the first pangs, of the energy crisis. This
report, however, is believed to be the
first of Middle Eastern interest in the
U.S. publishing industry.
It is not the first report of foreign in-
terest in a U.S. newspaper, though
(E&P, November 16, 1974). Recently,
Speidel Newspapers Inc., a group based
in Reno, Nev., took steps to stop Thom-
son Newspapers Ltd. of Toronto, Can-
ada, from taking over the group. Thom-
son acquired 6.7 percent of Speidel
stock.
The question of foreign newspaper
ownership also became a point of contro-
versy in Canada last month. At a semi-
nar on Canadian nationalism, Alan
Heisey, general manager of the Toronto
Daily Commercial News, spoke in favor
of an open industry which allow "any
and all foreign newspaper publishers
who might choose to publish here . . ."
,
Presently, he said, all Canadian
papers were 100 percent owned and con-
trolled by all-Canadian investors. Heisey
also criticized legislation which has
blocked foreign ownership because lead-
ers fear". . . we might be seduced by for-
eign views if we permitted them to pub-
lish here." He expressed similar views
concerning the country's banking insti-
tutions.
Replying to the condemnation, Wal-
ter Gordon, former federal finance min-
ister, said he had brought in restrictive
legislation on newspaper ownership in
the 1960's because of fears that Mon-
treal's La Presse and the Toronto Globe
and Mail would be sold to foreign inter-
ests.
Loeb, Gordon added, was noted for
his conservative views—views which the
minister said is "very different from the
views of most Canadians."
Meanwhile, Arab governments,
especially oil-rich Kuwait, have been
pursuing bank financing agreements
with several European institutions.
However, based on what is described as
"purely political reasons," the Arab na-
tions have blacklisted doing business
with any bank or group which trades
with Israel, has Jewish roots or employs
people of Jewish background.
Is the danger spreading? Added to threats of an oil embargo, is this country also to
face a replica of medievalism and submission to boycotts on a par with the panicked
European banking and industrial communities?
Once again the warning to concerned Americans: BEWARE!
By Philip
Slomovitz
WALL STREET JOURNAL, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1975
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Bad for Business
Arab economic pressure on the
West took a particularly ugly turn
this week with the revelation Of a
blacklist against banking interests
with Jewish connections. In terms of
both morality and self-interest, it is
incumbent on Western businesses to
resist such pressure, and on the U.S.
government to press for an early
end to the whole Arab blacklist.
A Kuwaiti investment firm with-
drew from two lending syndicates
headed by Merrill Lynch this week;
it objected to the inclusion in the
syndicates of Lazard Freres, which
is on the Arab boycott list. This fol-
lows reports that Lazard Freres in
Paris, the Rothschild Merchant
Banking Group and S. G. Warburg
and Co. of London have been ex-
cluded from European syndicates.
The blacklisting of these firms ap-
pears less to be an attempt to under-
mine Israel than an attempt to in-
ject anti-Semitism into Western
business practice.
The Arabs have had trouble dis-
tinguishing these two purposes
throughout their 30-year-old eco-
domic boycott of businesses with
ties to Israel. Until recently the boy-
coti was in any event massively in-
effective. But the economic warfare
is bound to become far more effec-
tive with the 'massive accumulation
of oil revenues. Businessmen who
desire to get their hands on some of
this money will be tempted to carry
anti-Israel, and even anti-Jewish
discrimination far beyond the hopes
of the Arab's league's "Israel Boy-
was asked to sign a contract origi-
nating in Abu Dhabi stipulating that
none of the goods came from an Is-
rael-connected company. The sub-
contractor, who happened to have
close ties to Israel, vehemently pro-
tested, and Abu Dhabi went ahead
with the deal, minus the boycott con-
dition.
As one European financier said
of the loan syndicate situation, re-
sistance to the boycott demands
could have been ridiculously easy.
Thus, it is remarkable that some
reputable banks have so readily
complied. That compliance is al-
most certain to arouse public hostil-
ity toward any dealing with "the
Arabs," no matter how innocuous.
This sort of reaction already has
blocked two Arab entrepreneurs
from buying into banks in San Jose,
Calif., and Pontiac, Mich., even
though no hint of anti-Isr.aeli or
anti-Jewish bias was involved.
Investors like Saudi Arabia's Adnan
Khashoggi or Ghaith Pharaon or
Lebanon's Ahmad Sarakbi—and
their American colleagues—should
have a lively interest in calling a
halt to this dangerous trend.
In fact, the boycott is still not not-
ably successful in the U.S. The Com-
merce Department's Office of Ex-
port Control demands a report on
each business transaction that com-
plies with boycotts against friendly
The U.S. government should
make it clear to Arabs and, more
important, to American business-
men, that attempts to do business by
discriminatory clauses will backfire
badly. Some such clauses already
are illegal and their use should be
prosecuted. It may well be useful to
obtain further legislation voiding
contracts with boycott clauses if
only to forestall the inevitable
broadside bills that would seriously
hamper straightforward trade, At a
minimum, the Office of Export Con-
trol should make public the reports
of boycott compliance, which are
currently confidential.
countries. In the most recent period,
the second quarter of 1974, these
transactions numbered 167.
Compliance is relatively infre-
quent because it is often unneces-
sary. The rhetoric of the militant
boycott bureaucracy in Damascus
carries little weight when each Arab
country decides what goods and ser-
vices it really needs. In one case we
know of, an American subcontractor
now will be dishonorable behavior
by a few American businessmen and
a disgusted public reaction with who
knows what legislative conse-
quences. For businesses to follow the
Arab bidding and introduce ethnic
discrimination into their dealings
would be morally repugnant. In any-
thing but the shortest view, it would
also be very bad for business.
cotting Agency."
The alternative to a strong stand
Henry Kissinger, the Skeptics, and the Enemy at Israel's Gates
Two American Jewish students who lived in Israel for a short time went to Lebanon
to visit with and to consult PLO leaders. A terrorist spokesman they conferred with,
responding to the question whether the PLO would recognize Israel, said, "For us the
clock stopped in 1947. Israel has no fixed borders apart from the 1948 armistice lines . . ."
This is the Arab stance and it has been repeated as a basis for treatment of Jews inter-
ested in the Jewish state. As a matter of fact, Arab spokesmen on occasions admonished
Israel and the Jewish people that they are ready to grant Israel statehood limited to Tel
Aviv,
This is a menace not to be forgotten when dealing with the Arabs. One wonders how
far Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger can go with the Arab leaders and if he can
possibly get an assurance of secure borders for Israel within limits of certain withdraw-
als. The sad factor in the developing situation is the growing lack of confidence in Kissin-
ger's Middle East program and the speculations that he can not last another six months as
head of the State Department.
Israel has been accused of intransigence. If there is such an attitude, it is traceable to
the refusal of the Arab enemies to offer even the minutest encouragement of a possible
peace to Israel. The threat to Kissinger's span of service in the State Department, the
repeated war threats, the Arab desire to imprison Israel in a Tel Aviv ghetto — these are
menacing aspects of an already tragic situation that needs careful watching and added
vigilance.