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.