On Tuesday, the executive director of the Arab American Institute, Maya Berry, appeared as a witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify on an issue that should garner concern across the political spectrum: hate crimes. In both her prepared statement and her testimony, Berry apprised lawmakers of the need for stronger enforcement of the law to tackle the country’s growing “hate crime crisis.”
She acknowledged both Jewish and Arab American victims of hate crimes, and shared statistics on those crimes’ effects on all kinds of demographic groups, including Black Americans, Asian Americans and members of the LBGTQ community.
It’s difficult to imagine how a reasonable person could take issue with Berry’s comments, other than to interrogate how effective the hate crime enforcement model is. But in a shocking display, Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., demonstrated that he is not a reasonable person.
Kennedy used the hearing as an opportunity to launch a series of racist attacks on Berry.
Instead, Kennedy used the hearing as an opportunity to launch a series of racist attacks on Berry, centered around accusations that she supports terrorism. His repugnant broadsides were a stunning illustration both of why the panel was being held in the first place and how politicians use ad hominem attacks to try to silence criticism of Israel.
Shortly after beginning to question Berry, Kennedy abruptly asked her: “You support Hamas, do you not?”
“Senator, oddly enough, I’m going to say thank you for that question, because it demonstrates the purpose of our hearing today in a very effective way,” Berry replied.
Kennedy interjected: “Let’s start first with a yes or no.”
“Hamas is a foreign terrorist organization that I do not support,” Berry responded, “but you asking the executive director of the Arab American Institute that question very much puts the focus on the issue of hate in our country.”
“You support Hezbollah, too, don’t you?” Kennedy then asked — implying that he didn’t believe her answer on Hamas.
Berry replied, “I find this line of questioning extraordinarily disappointing.”
“Is that a no?” Kennedy demanded.
“I don’t support violence, whether it’s Hezbollah or Hamas or any other entity that invokes it, so no, sir,” she said.
“You just can’t bring yourself to say no, can you? Kennedy said, even though Berry’s answer could not have been clearer. He continued his absurd line of questioning, asking her if she supports or opposes Iran “and their hatred of Jews?”
After Berry said she didn’t support Iran, Kennedy questioned why she criticized the U.S. decision to cut funding to the U.N. agency that aids Palestinian civilians as a moral failure (a correct position, but one that should be irrelevant to a hearing on hate crimes) and then used that to circle back to deeming her a terrorist sympathizer. “You can’t bring yourself to say you don’t support UNRWA, you don’t support Hamas, you don’t support Hezbollah and you don’t support Iran,” Kennedy shouted. “You should hide your head in a bag.”
His declaration elicited gasps and cries of disapproval from the crowd in the room.
What a shameful display. Berry was called in as an expert from a civil rights organization to talk about the domestic issue of hate crimes. But the Kennedy was only interested in smearing an Arab American witness as a supporter of foreign American adversaries. He did so not by referring to her past conduct or positions, but simply putting words in her mouth, and then refusing to accept any of her statements as true.
In an interview with NBC News after the hearing, Kennedy said that he was correct to question Berry’s positions because he claims that “her website says” she’s a Democratic activist, that she believes Israel is committing genocide, and that Congress should fund UNRWA. True or not, none of those things have any bearing on whether she supports Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran. He also claimed — again, falsely — that she “never would answer” whether the supported those entities.
The only reasonable explanation for Kennedy’s behavior is that he believes that her identity as Arab American is sufficient to define her as a supporter of terrorism.
Kennedy’s grotesque bigotry undermines the very concept of democratic discourse, in which citizens’ interests are defined by their actions and their words, not their ethnic background or their gender or sexual orientation. Whether sincere or not, Kennedy’s refusal to take Berry at her word is a refusal to accept her as a legitimate citizen. And as Berry pointed out, Kennedy’s behavior underscored exactly why hate crimes are a problem in America — too many Americans fall prey to the fallacy of generalizing about marginalized identities and vilifying them.
Lastly, Kennedy’s rhetoric was a reminder of how many supporters of Israel in Washington will conflate any kind of support for Palestinians’ dignity — in this case, funding for UNRWA — with antisemitism. These smear campaigns are intended to discourage criticism of Israel through ad hominem attacks.
Berry went before the Senate to discuss the important issue of hate crimes, only to receive a torrent of abuse. She should be commended for her sensitivity to how those crimes take a toll on people from all kinds of marginalized communities. And it is Kennedy, not Berry, who should hide his head for such a vile expression of hate.