Juan Cole Jogs My MEMRI

Juan Cole is howling about a threat of legal action from the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which objects to claims he made about its press monitoring operation—claims which, according to MEMRI’s president Yigal Carmon, are factually untrue. Cole claimed that MEMRI is funded “to the tune of $60 million a year” (an absurd figure), that MEMRI is biased (in the eye of the beholder), and that it is somehow linked to the Likud party (it isn’t). MEMRI now demands a retraction on all three points, and threatens Cole with possible legal action if he fails to do so.

When I read Cole’s posting, it reminded me of an earlier threat to sue—made by Juan Cole to Daniel Pipes and myself, after the Campus Watch website came online on September 18, 2002. I received a message from Cole on September 23, 2002, and it read as follows:

Subject: Cease and desist

Dear Mssrs. Pipes and Kramer:

It has come to my attention that your organization, Middle East Forum, is maintaining a Web site with “dossiers” on me. Further, that you have publicly called upon others to monitor my speech and actions on a constant basis and to provide to your internet Web site reports on me, which you intend to post.

As a result of your actions, I have been the victim of repetitive spam attacks, which a reasonable person could have foreseen.

I maintain that these actions may constitute a form of stalking, including cyberstalking, as defined under relevant Pennsylvania and Michigan state statutes. I believe they also may constitute conspiracy to encourage others to stalk, and may be actionable under those grounds as well.

If you do not immediately remove my name from your monitoring Web site, cease maintaining a “dossier” on me, and cease and desist from calling upon others to spy on me and repudiate your earlier calls to do so, I reserve the right to pursue all legal remedies, criminal and civil.

Sincerely,

Juan Cole
Professor
Department of History

I ignored this threat because I wasn’t a party to Campus Watch (another case of Cole jumping to conclusions). I know that Pipes ignored it as well, and he adduced other reasons when he made adjustments to the website on September 30.

What strikes me, in retrospect, is how quick Cole was to threaten legal action, when in fact Campus Watch did far less damage to him than he has done to MEMRI. Campus Watch simply listed Cole and put together a collection of links to his work. (The list looked like this; Cole’s “dossier” looked like this.) At that point, Campus Watch had made no specific assertions about his scholarship; nor had it said a word about his funding, his biases, or his party political affiliations. And Campus Watch, which did not post Cole’s e-mail, encouraged no one to bombard Cole with spam, something Cole may have prompted his thousands of readers to do to MEMRI, by publishing its e-mail address and urging them to write to it.

MEMRI’s president, Yigal Carmon, shouldn’t have threatened legal action—in part because it makes too much of Cole, who’s famously prone to fact-free tantrums, and whose weblog is an embarrassment of errors. But in the same measure, Juan Cole shouldn’t have threatened action two years ago against Daniel Pipes and myself. I don’t like the culture of litigation, where people deal with criticism by legal intimidation instead of arguments. Cole now piously writes that “threatening bloggers with lawsuits… violates the essential spirit of open discourse on the Web,” and he’s urged his readers to demand that MEMRI “respect the spirit of the free sharing of ideas that makes the internet possible.” But the sad truth is that Cole himself was the first to hurl the threat of a frivolous lawsuit against a website—and with far less justification.

Gullible MESAn Walked the “Arab Street”

This evening, the participants in the annual Middle East Studies Association (MESA) conference in San Francisco will assemble in plenary session, to hear an address by MESA’s president, Laurie Brand. The title: “Scholarship in the Shadow of Empire.” (Presumably that’s the American empire, not the Abbasid.)

When Brand delivers her address, she’ll be preaching to the choir—the very people who elected her two years ago. MESA’s members show a marked propensity for electing political activists to lead them. Indeed, MESA elections have become a kind of referendum, by which members express their political views indirectly. Brand’s election is a case in point. She has all the credentials of an activist academic: a Columbia Ph.D. (Edward Said on the dissertation committee), published work dealing largely with the Palestinians, and a five-year stint at the Institute of Palestine Studies before her hire by the University of Southern California. Her election in late 2002 was MESA’s way of endorsing the Palestinian cause in the midst of the intifada.

That said, Brand didn’t have a reputation as an over-the-top propagandist—until the lead-up to the Iraq war. In the spring of 2003, Brand was in Beirut on sabbatical leave. As Operation Iraqi Freedom got underway, she penned an anti-war letter (scroll to last item) addressed to Secretary of State Colin Powell, on behalf of “Americans living in Lebanon.” The letter cited various far-out predictions (e.g., over a million Iraqis might die because of damage to Iraq’s water supply), added that “‘regime change’ imposed from outside is itself completely undemocratic,” and ended in these words: “We refuse to stand by watching passively as the US pursues aggressive and racist policies toward the people around us. We reject your claim to be taking these actions on our behalf. Not in our name.” Seventy Americans signed it.

Brand and a dozen of her colleagues then scheduled a meeting with Vincent Battle, U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, to deliver their letter. But on the appointed day, the road to the embassy was closed because of raucous anti-American demonstrations by Lebanese students. Brand and five other Americans would not be deterred. “Intent upon doing something, we took to the median strip of the Corniche,” Beirut’s seaside boulevard. “We stood near Beirut’s International College with our protest signs identifying us as Americans and calling for an end to the war.” According to Brand, passersby greeted them with thanks and blessings. It must have been quite a spectacle: the president-elect of MESA, literally walking the “Arab street” at the head of a honk-if-you-hate-U.S.-policy protest.

There’s irony here too, since Brand may be the most taxpayer-subsidized academic in Middle Eastern studies. She’s held four Fulbright fellowships, for research in Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, and Tunisia, and she’s received at least three major U.S. government regrants, mostly for work in Jordan. She’s been on government-funded lecture junkets to Kuwait, Jordan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Oman. And her own bio lists her as a past consultant to the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of State, and the U.S. Information Agency. Support for U.S. policy isn’t a prerequisite for any of these subsidies and perks, and Brand didn’t sign away her rights when she took them. But it does make one wonder what she said on those lecture tours, what sort of benefit Washington derived from her consultancies, and what sort of process plied this one academic with so many Fulbrights. That looks like a case of incestuous peer review run amuck; Congress should insist that Fulbright diversify its investments.

To return to Brand’s pounding the Beirut pavement in a sandwich board: she admitted she was surprised when an elderly gentleman drove by and told her, in English, “You are so gullible.” “I have given this sentence some thought,” wrote Brand, “wondering exactly what ideas or beliefs prompted it….Perhaps this gentleman thought our gullibility lay in an expectation that our protests would end the war.” Now old gentlemen in Lebanon who speak English are quite likely to use the language with precision (unlike most American professors), and he didn’t say naive. He said gullible. Yes, it would have been naive to think that protests would end the war. But to be gullible is to be subject to easy manipulation by others, and I’ll bet the old man meant this: you’re a dupe, for standing in the median strip of the “Arab street” to demonstrate in defense of the Arab world’s most despicable regime.

And this brings me back to the title of this evening’s MESA presidential address, “Scholarship in the Shadow of Empire.” In fact, the Middle East has languished in the shadow of despotic regimes, intolerant nationalists, and religious extremists for as long as MESA has been in the business. Regrettably, none of this ever troubled MESAns to the point of bringing them out into the street. When they weren’t looking away, they were explaining away, claiming that the benighted state of their region was really the fault of the West. In a profound sense, then, the entire guild of Middle Eastern studies has been gullible—an easily-manipulated fifth column for the most retrograde forces in the Middle East. That’s also why the guild has been stuck in an epistemological median strip. The MESA presidential address that will bear these tidings won’t be delivered tonight.

So MESA is full of the gullible, but Washington shouldn’t be, at least when it comes to Laurie Brand. At a Beirut conference three months after Baghdad was liberated, Brand announced that the Bush administration had lied more than any other administration, and that it showed a “systematic disregard for democratic institutions and values.” From Beirut, she e-mailed her campus newspaper: “Americans have been seduced by the Bush administration’s lies about its reasons behind this war.” She’s recently written of U.S. policy that “I cannot remember when I have been more continuously outraged.” Well, it’s a free country, but I’d like an assurance from the Department of State that she won’t be sent off on any taxpayer-funded speaking junkets over the next four years. Not in our name—and not on our nickel.

Azzam Tamimi on a Timer

Almost two years ago, I identified Azzam Tamimi, a Palestinian who heads the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in London, as a Hamas extremist. I brought chapter-and-verse quotes from Tamimi’s radical statements. I also expressed astonishment that Georgetown University’s John Esposito sat on Tamimi’s board and cooperated with Tamimi on book projects. Later I was even more astonished to learn that Tamimi had attended a Ramadan reception at the U.S. ambassador’s residence in London.

On Tuesday Tamimi gave a television interview to Tim Sebastian (BBC HARDTalk), and this dialogue took place:

Sebastian: You advocate the suicide bombing. You said on an internet chat forum early in 2003: “For us Moslems martyrdom is not the end of things but the beginning of the most wonderful of things.” If it’s so wonderful to go and blow yourself up in a public place in Israel why don’t you do it?

Tamimi: Martyrdom is not necessarily suicide bombings as you call them. Martyrdom is…

Sebastian: No, please answer my question. It was a serious question.

Tamimi: I’m trying to answer it…

Sebastian: Why don’t you do it?

Tamimi: I’m trying to answer it because this is a concept. Unless it is explained, how can you answer it? Because martyrdom means giving, sacrificing yourself for a noble cause. Now these bombings, the human bombs…

Sebastian: Are you prepared to do this or not?

Tamimi: I am prepared, of course.

Sebastian: You would [go] and blow yourself up?

Tamimi: No. I’m trying to explain to you…

Sebastian: Ah—so it’s okay. So that’s just for the poor and the disillusioned to go and blow themselves up? You would not be prepared to do it…

Tamimi: Most of the…

Sebastian: …you advocate other people to do it?

Tamimi: Unless you give me a chance to explain…

Sebastian: Please… Please…

Tamimi: Not a single person of those who bomb themselves, bomb themselves because they are desperate or poor. It doesn’t happen because of this. They do it because they want to sacrifice themselves for a cause after all avenues have been closed before them. If the Palestinians today are given F16s and Apache helicopters …

Sebastian: No—please come back to my question. Please come back to my question. Why if it is so glorious and honourable to do this, why don’t you do it?

Tamimi: I would do it…

Sebastian: When?

Tamimi: If I have the opportunity I would do it…

Sebastian: When are you going to do it?

Tamimi: When? If I can go to Palestine and sacrifice myself I would do it. Why not?

I appeal to Professor Esposito, once more, to distance himself from this walking time bomb, by resigning from the board of Tamimi’s institute. And now that Tamimi has declared his intent, I urge the State Department to reassure us that he will never again be permitted to set foot in the United States, as he did in 2002 (i.e., post-9/11). I don’t want to be on a London-New York flight with Azzam Tamimi, and neither do you.

Update, August 16, 2006: Here is Azzam Tamimi in fine form, at a rally somewhere in Britain to mark the most recent “Jerusalem (Al-Quds) Day,” introduced by Ayatollah Khomeini to the Muslim calendar. By the way, Professor Esposito is still on Tamimi’s board.