| Saddam to justice. To mark Saddam Hussein’s handover to Iraqi authorities, I post one of my reviews. In 1991, Efraim Karsh and Inari Rautsi published a subtle biography of Saddam. Iraq’s dictator, they argued, “did not set the rules of the game in this cruel system.” The survival of Iraq required a strongman; he won the game because he was the “most savage and able player, bringing its brutal methods to awesome perfection.” But Saddam was cautious, and showed a “readiness to lose face whenever his survival so required.” Unfortunately for him, he failed to understand the signals sent from Washington. The authors warned that any successor “will continue to confront dissent and disaster at every turn, and will be constantly preoccupied with his personal survival.” Wed, Jun 30 2004 9:53 am |
| Rashid elides again. Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said Professor at Columbia, went to UCLA to promote his latest tract, Resurrecting Empire. He has many friends who are Iraq experts, he told his audience. Without exception they all loathed the former regime. But they were all also deeply worried about the prolonged postwar problems that would follow an American invasion. Alas, Washington ignored them. What Khalidi omits is that not a single one of these Iraq experts opposed the war. Not a single one translated deep worry into the kind of antiwar position taken by Khalidi, who’s not an Iraq expert at all. Even now, there isn’t one academic Iraq expert who’ll tell you the war should never have been fought (and I follow them all). But don’t expect Khalidi to admit it. Wed, Jun 30 2004 2:39 am |
| National Language Conference. The Defense Department has announced the initial findings of the National Language Conference held last week. The academics want new programs, so their lobbyists showed up in droves, even though the conference was co-sponsored by Defense. Rosemary G. Feal, executive director of the Modern Language Association: “The language future of the US just became a lot brighter as a result of the light shed at the National Language Conference.” Translation: I smell money. But the MLA president has written an op-ed against HR3077 reeking of anti-government paranoia. Some of the language mandarins are double-talking, and Congress should be wary of authorizing new programs that aren’t loaded with supervisory safeguards. Wed, Jun 30 2004 2:37 am |
| Another democracy speech. President Bush delivered this one today on the shores of the Bosphorus. Some in the West, he said, were guilty of “excusing tyranny in the region, hoping to purchase stability at the price of liberty.” No more. With the “achievement of democracy in the broader Middle East…millions who now live in oppression and want will finally have a chance to provide for their families and lead hopeful lives. Nations in the region will have greater stability because governments will have greater legitimacy.” I doubt these speechs bring democracy closer. I know they help to delegitimize the existing order, and divide the US from Arab regimes. And here’s the paradox: weren’t those the goals of the 9/11 terrorists? Tue, Jun 29 2004 9:46 am |
| Museum madness. As promised: Alex Joffe’s article from the current Middle East Quarterly. It’s a searing critique of the conduct of archaeologists and art historians during the Iraq war. Tue, Jun 29 2004 8:35 am |
| Canary in Cole mine. Juan Cole bids farewell to Paul Bremer, whom he describes as a “congenital screw-up.” Last August, when things weren’t going all that badly in Iraq, Cole had a different take. He pronounced Bremer a “product of American Middle Eastern studies” and a “State Department Persianist”—top credentials in Cole’s book. But this was completely fanciful. Bremer wasn’t a product of American Middle Eastern studies. (He majored in history at Yale and earned an MBA at Harvard.) And he was never a Persianist. (His official bio lists his languages as French, Dutch, and Norwegian.) I think that’s when I stopped reading Cole’s weblog for factual information. Tue, Jun 29 2004 4:38 am |
| Orientalism revisited. Ahmad al-Baghdadi, Kuwait University professor of political science, has written a remarkable piece in high praise of Western orientalist scholarship. (Reminder: Baghdadi, an outspoken critic of fundamentalism, was sentenced in 1999 to a month in prison on charges of insulting Islam. The emir pardoned him after two weeks.) Baghdadi writes that had it not been for Western orientalists, “we would never have known much of the heritage in which we take pride—and without making any effort to discover it. Nay, it has come to us readymade, on a silver platter, thanks to the efforts of those orientalists.” Baghdadi also laments orientalism’s “decline,” especially in America. He’s right, of course, and not only is the West poorer for it. So are the Arabs. Tue, Jun 29 2004 3:02 am |
| Strange indeed. Francis Fukuyama’s upcoming article in The National Interest appears in an op-ed précis. He’s (rightly) struck by the strange enthusiasm of neoconservatives for democratizing the Middle East, “because these same neoconservatives had spent much of the past generation warning about the dangers of ambitious social engineering.” The idea that culture matters is “usually taken to be a conservative insight.” But it does matter, and “I have never believed that democracies can be created anywhere and everywhere through simple political will.” Fukuyama’s conclusion: yes, promote democracy, but be more realistic and cautious about social engineering projects in places the US “doesn’t understand very well.” For a change, I agree with him. Tue, Jun 29 2004 3:01 am |
| What, no blood libel? The Yemen Times runs an op-ed citing the influence of the Jews in America. “An invincible virus,” the Zionist lobby, has a “tight grip” on America’s “decision-making arteries. The lobby is always working in the dark shadows with no known leadership…. The key players in the Bush administration are mainly Jews who have shed their Jewish names to adopt new Christian names like George and Johnson.” Meanwhile, a Yemeni official has accused the country’s Jews (they number a few hundred) of backing an extremist Shiite uprising that’s kept government troops at bay. How? They sabotaged the water network supplying the security forces…. Mon, Jun 28 2004 7:51 am |
| Refocus Title VI. Last week, the University of Maryland hosted the National Language Conference, co-sponsored by the Defense Department and the Center for the Advanced Study of Language. The briefing document is sobering. The statistics on enrollments and proficiency show that the US is woefully unprepared to meet basic needs, especially in the Middle East. One measure proposed in the briefing is a “reemphasized mandate for Title VI of the Higher Education Act to focus on languages critical to the current security needs of the nation.” I’ve already written about how the profs undercut the language mission of Title VI. Congress knows what it must do. Mon, Jun 28 2004 6:18 am |
| Harvard and empire. Read the Harvard Phi Beta Kappa oration of pro-empire historian Niall Ferguson, who’s joining the Harvard faculty in the fall. He quotes Ralph Waldo Emerson’s 1837 oration. “Ask not,” said Emerson, “what is doing in… Arabia,” but embrace “the ballad in the street.” (Emerson meant the American street, not the Arab one.) Ferguson’s retort: “Wrong. What is doing in Arabia is a thousand times more important than the latest ballad.” So he badgers this year’s grads: “What do you propose to do with your knowledge—and your power—in relation to Africa, to Asia, and to the rest of the world?” Good question, but Ferguson should pose it even more urgently at the faculty club. See right below. Mon, Jun 28 2004 3:36 am |
| Harvard, the model. A news report on the reconstruction of Iraqi universities reveals this: “Ahmed al-Rahim, a teacher of Arabic language and literature at Harvard University, said he tried to organize members from several different academic departments at Harvard to help the Iraqis rebuild their educational system. However, al-Rahim found resistance, especially from individuals in the Middle Eastern studies department, because of their hatred for the Bush administration.” Need I comment? Sat, Jun 26 2004 5:20 am |
| Fallback time. Here’s a smart piece in the Israeli press, co-authored by a former spokesman of the Defense Ministry, on why it makes sense for the US to give up the myth of an “Iraqi nation” and promote Iraq’s division into two or three separate states. Washington has “remained wedded to the conventional wisdom of maintaining a united Iraq, despite the fact that it is clearly the crux of the problem, not the solution…. The idea of an instantly created democratic Iraq is a desert mirage. However the gradual evolution of separate democratic states, each dominated by a single ethnic group is not.” I suggested something similar way back in September 2002, and others have done it since the war. It’s the fallback plan—and its time has come. Fri, Jun 25 2004 5:57 am |
| Abdullah and Sy. Yesterday the Turkish newspaper Cumhuriyet revealed the source for Seymour Hersh’s story on Israel running ops out of Iraqi Kurdistan: Abdullah Gul, Turkey’s (Islamist) foreign minister. The Israeli press reports that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last year decided not to open a Kurdish channel, in deference to the Turks. So Gul was just firing a warning shot across Israel’s bow, and used Hersh as his cannon. The Islamists in Ankara want to set back Israeli-Turkish ties, and Israel wants desperately to keep them stable. So (alas) the Israel-in-Kurdistan story is probably a fable. Too bad. I liked the idea. Fri, Jun 25 2004 5:06 am |
| Sheikh Charles. Yesterday the Sultan of Brunei was in London, to bestow the Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah International Prize on the Prince of Wales. The prize jury wanted to honor his promotion of understanding between the Islamic and Western worlds. Press reports note that he’s the first Westerner to get the prize since its inauguration in 1992, but they don’t name the past recipients. Turns out most of them have been the old guard of the Muslim Brotherhood. The leader of the Syrian Brotherhood, the late Sheikh Abu Ghudda, got the prize. So did suicide-bombing apologist Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Prince Charles has entered the Islamist pantheon. Fri, Jun 25 2004 2:57 am |
| Elie Kedourie. For his fans, I’ve posted the entry on him that I wrote for the Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing. Thu, Jun 24 2004 7:45 pm |
| Islamic spelling. One Iftikhar Ahmad, from something called the London School of Islamics, has an article hailing Islam as the be-all and end-all of civilization. Muslims gave the West its scientific knowledge and contributed to its Renaissance. Western and Islamic values are “almost identical,” and in the near future half of the “native population” in America may “revert” to Islam (?). But my favorite sentence (for its spelling) is this one: “Bernard Shah once said that the future religion of the West would be Islam and only Islam.” Thu, Jun 24 2004 5:55 am |
| EWS. I’ve started reading Rashid Khalidi’s Resurrecting Empire, his indictment of US policy in the Middle East. The dedication reads: “To EWS.” Abbreviated dedications are usually private affairs between the author and the dedicatee. (T.E. Lawrence dedicated Seven Pillars of Wisdom “To S.A.,” whose identity remains a mystery to this day.) But Khalidi, at the very end of his acknowledgements, on the last line of the last page of the book, reveals that it’s dedicated to the memory of Edward (W.) Said. So why didn’t he say so right up front? Possibility: he (or his publisher) figured that an up-front dedication to Said would put readers off, especially since Khalidi is already identified as the Edward Said Professor. The result: a stealth dedication. Wed, Jun 23 2004 5:21 am |
| If only. Seymour Hersh’s latest, on Israeli training of Kurds in northern Iraq, has this interesting assessment by a top German security official: “Iran does not want an Israeli land-based aircraft carrier on its border.” Well, let’s not forget that Iran has put thousands of long-range (70-kilometer) rockets in the hands of Hizbullah on Israel’s northern border. And Iran is busy financing terror groups in the West Bank, Gaza, and Israel proper. (The Karine-A arms ship was just the beginning.) Iran has been running ops against Israel relentlessly, and the world has gotten used to it. So I hope there’s some truth to the Hersh article—but as usual, you never know. Wed, Jun 23 2004 5:05 am |
| Antonius Lectures. I am at a conference. In lieu of an original posting, here is a past review I’ve just now added to my web archive. It treats a published collection of the Antonius Lectures, which are held each June at St. Antony’s College, Oxford. In the latter part of the review, I say something about George Antonius, Oxford, and the late Albert Hourani, who instituted the lecture series. Tue, Jun 22 2004 12:40 pm |
| Lessons of history. Martin Peretz: “Alas, we Americans do not naturally look to history for cautionary lessons about the future. Had we done that, our post-Saddam expectations would have been different. But we didn’t, and so we couldn’t anticipate that the various peoples of Iraq…would not take our good intentions for granted.” In fact, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy did publish a pre-war book on cautionary lessons. “If the US chooses to impose its own mission civilisatrice on Iraq,” wrote my colleague Ofra Bengio, “it will likely arouse even greater antagonism than the British did…. Even if they arrive wearing the mantles of liberators, US forces may well be seen as nothing but conquerors…. Washington should be modest in its goals and realistic in its expectations.” Mon, Jun 21 2004 6:19 am |
| In the Cole mine. Juan Cole, in an interview, claims that the neocons (he names the usual suspects) “have imbibed this kind of Israeli racism towards Arabs, that Arabs only respect force, that you can get them to inform on each other because of all the internal clan feuds… Israeli racism towards the Arabs is not a good guide to dealing with a society like Iraq.” Using brute force… playing off clan feuds… informants… gee, isn’t that how Saddam dealt with Iraqi society? (And with much success, alas.) Well, maybe he too learned it from the Israelis. Sun, Jun 20 2004 4:55 am |
| Israel’s predictable victory. Charles Krauthammer declares that Israel has defeated the intifada, and this is why: “Israelis were never demoralized. They kept living their lives, the young people in particular returning to cafes and discos and buses just hours after a horrific bombing. Israelis turned out to be a lot tougher and braver than the Palestinians had imagined.” Or than Krauthammer imagined. He wrote an article in June 2000 called “The Collapse of Zionism” (Weekly Standard) announcing that Israelis “are tired of the price of Jewish power,…. of the hard life of sustaining the Zionist vision.” That got my blood up. My published riposte: “Israelis will continue to fight for their lives, their homes, their families and countrymen, their new prosperity, and their freedoms.” There was never a doubt. Sat, Jun 19 2004 7:36 pm |
| Pompous Oxford Don Watch. The Nation also sets up Avi Shlaim (right below) with a leading question about the Campus Watch website run by Daniel Pipes. Shlaim obliges: it is “sinister and deplorable.” “What defines a university,” he intones, “is complete freedom of expression, and the people behind Campus Watch are responsible for a direct assault on this basic and fundamental academic right.” I answer: complete press freedom is a basic and fundamental right. Is criticism of the New York Times (say, for its WMD coverage) a sinister, deplorable, and direct assault on press freedom? Campus Watch has operated entirely within the range of fair criticism. Reading Commissar Shlaim, it occurs to me that maybe the UK needs one too. Sat, Jun 19 2004 4:11 am |
| Who’s the dupe? Avi Shlaim, a Middle East historian who plies his trade (after a fashion) at Oxford, is interviewed in The Nation. The neocons, he claims, “wanted to eliminate the Iranian threat to Israel.” So Iran used Ahmad Chalabi to pass them bogus info on Iraqi WMD, and “manipulated the neocons into attacking Iraq” instead of Iran! Not only do the Iranians get a Shiite Iraq, but the Americans are too quagmired to take down Iran and its nuclear program. “If true,” hums Shlaim, “this is one of the greatest intelligence coups of modern times.” And if not true? Then it’s one of the nuttiest notions of modern times—and Avi Shlaim bought into it. Sat, Jun 19 2004 4:10 am |
| Watch wallets. The Council on Foreign Relations report on terrorist financing concludes: “At the dawn of the Cold War, the U.S. government and U.S. nongovernmental organizations committed substantial public and philanthropic resources to endow Soviet studies programs across the United States. The purpose of these efforts was to increase the level of understanding in this country of the profound strategic threat posed to the United States by Soviet Communism. A similar undertaking is now needed to understand adequately the threat posed to the United States by radical Islamic militancy, along with its causes.” To Washington and the foundations, I say: watch your wallets. The Mideast studies crowd will pocket your money. But their priorities lie elsewhere. Fri, Jun 18 2004 12:26 pm |
| No good deed. Fouad Ajami, Tom Friedman, Kenneth Pollack, and Leon Wieseltier are filled with remorse over Iraq at The New Republic. Well, that’s what you get for allowing yourself to be optimistic about Arab politics: crushing disappointment. The war was a splendid success as a punitive expedition. It’s a pity it was turned into a crusade of political correctness, meant to prove the universal appeal of democracy and America’s equal love for all peoples. How this virus crossed species—from liberals to neocons—needs more study. But the meaning of the aftermath is already clear: fear and awe of America—our best defense—have dissipated, and contempt has returned. Fri, Jun 18 2004 9:15 am |
| Good money after bad? The New York Times points to the deficit of Arabic-speakers in government, and notes how Title VI produced thousands of Russian speakers during the Cold War. So (adds the article), why not fund a Title VI-type program for Middle East languages? Congressional Democrats, led by Rush Holt (NJ) have proposed one: the National Security Language Act. I’ll say more on this shortly. For now, I note this: Title VI didn’t just support Russian. It’s been funding the study of Arabic for just as long. If there’s a shortfall now, it’s because Title VI failed in the Middle East area. So what’s to keep another program, entrusted to the very same people, from failing again? Thu, Jun 17 2004 7:18 am |
| Third World critique. Another review/critique of my Ivory Towers on Sand, this one by Pinar Bilgin in Third World Quarterly. The title of the piece: “Is the ‘Orientalist’ Past the Future of Middle East Studies?” No comment yet—I’ll digest it and add it to the corpus of critiques to be countered in one blow in future. Wed, Jun 16 2004 1:00 pm |
| Historians of Egypt. Exactly 25 years ago, I was a doctoral student working in Cairo, at the American Research Center in Egypt. While there, I scored my greatest coup in prying open an archive—the royal archives for the period 1922-52—and I published a report about it. Unfortunately, grad students who tried to gain access right after me didn’t succeed. In a fit of nostalgia (25 years ago, I was 25), I post that report, and ask historians of Egypt: have any of you had access to this archive over the past quarter-century? (Also see this recent account of the state of Egypt’s archives. Still a mess, and still largely closed to researchers.) Wed, Jun 16 2004 7:59 am |
| Orientalism heads-down. I’ve got high expectations of Irwin (right below). But I haven’t forgotten Zachary Lockman’s forthcoming entry: Contending Visions of the Middle East: The History and Politics of Orientalism. (“Beginning with ancient Greek and Roman conceptions of the world, the book goes on to discuss European ideas about Islam from its emergence in the seventh century…to the age of European imperialism….and controversies that have shaped Middle East studies in the United States over the past half century.”) From Cambridge University Press in the fall. Here’s a piece by Lockman adapted from the book, and largely devoted to debunking me. I’m flattered. Tue, Jun 15 2004 9:52 am |
| Taste of Irwin. In anticipation of Irwin’s history of orientalism (right below), here is a highly original lecture by him, published a few years ago, on how orientalists ended up emulating their Arabic sources. You cannot produce such insights without a commanding control of Western cultural and Arabic literary history. Tue, Jun 15 2004 9:49 am |
| Orientalism heads-up. Robert Irwin, the brilliant polymath who’s done splendid histories of the Alhambra and the Arabian Nights, has finished a two-volume history of Orientalism. Volume 1: Orientalists and Their Enemies. (“Irwin seeks to present Orientalism and Orientalists as living, breathing human beings, bringing the discipline into the new century with personal and anecdotal knowledge as well as sound historical research.”) Volume 2: The Art of Orientalism. (“Irwin will discuss the impact on Western art and literature of Oriental material.”) Publisher: Allen Lane, an imprint of Penguin, first half of next year. Reminder: Irwin once called Said’s Orientalism a “fantasy history.” Tue, Jun 15 2004 2:58 am |
| Erdogan’s Islam. Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan got worked up on Saturday in Chicago, where he shared a platform with Bernard Lewis and Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Calif.). When Lewis mentioned “Islamic terrorism,” Erdogan bristled: “‘Islam,’ in front of the word ‘terror,’ ascribes Islam to terror….You cannot say Islamic terrorism.” And when Harman mentioned “moderate Islam,” Erdogan complained again. “If you say ‘moderate Islam,’ then an alternative is created, and that is ‘immoderate Islam.’ I cannot accept such a concept as a Muslim.” So Islam cannot be reconciled with terrorism or extremism. Glad to hear him say so—even if it’s utter nonsense. Mon, Jun 14 2004 3:31 pm |
| Read Spanish? I’ve just posted another valuable review of my edited volume, The Jewish Discovery of Islam, this one by Mercedes García-Arenal, from the Spanish academic journal Al-Qantara. Mon, Jun 14 2004 9:35 am |
| The Massad question. Here’s a nice synopsis of the stump lecture delivered by Columbia’s Joseph Massad, on “The Persistence of the Palestinian Question.” Massad poses as an expert on modern Jewish history, the mystery of which he has miraculously penetrated (and without even knowing Hebrew!): Zionists are antisemites, and they have turned the Palestinians into Jews! Conclusion: Israel should be de-Europeanized, and Israeli Jews should be assimilated into the region. (Unlike me, Massad would get to remain Europeanized. He’s written self-importantly about how he and Edward Said would “argue about Chopin and John Field.”) Here’s my idea: Massad should be de-Columbia-nized when he comes up for tenure. Mon, Jun 14 2004 4:49 am |
| Read German? A couple of years ago, Peter Heine, professor of Islamic studies at the Humboldt-Universität in Berlin, published an important essay on my edited volume, The Jewish Discovery of Islam. He’s been kind enough to allow me to post it here. Sun, Jun 13 2004 9:06 am |
| Florida boom. Here’s an article from the South Florida Sun-Sentinel on the growth of Middle East studies programs in Florida universities. (Latest: the Middle East is now a major at Florida State University.) The article also notes the relevant controversies (HR3077, Campus Watch). Florida’s universities have a few assets in the field, but no one institution is even close to achieving critical mass. Bottom line: there’s no reason right now for anyone outside Florida to consider these programs. But it will be interesting to see who pulls ahead—and with what sort of vision. Sun, Jun 13 2004 5:01 am |
| Terrorology. Kevin Toolis is the “terrorism correspondent” of the New Statesman. How do you get that title? Spend ten years writing a book on the IRA, then make a quick visit to the Middle East, and—presto. Toolis now denounces academics specializing in terrorism: they’re adjuncts of state counter-terrorism. Why this should vitiate their findings is unclear. But what’s the alternative? Mideast academics have refused to do any systematic work on terrorism. They only do “context.” (I call this “grievance studies.”) People from every discipline have rushed to fill the vacuum, and some of them are not bad. (Even Toolis admits that “Israeli research into groups such as Hamas can be extremely insightful.”) Terrorism studies—here to stay, by default. Fri, Jun 11 2004 6:27 am |
| Whose decision? Mark Geller, director of the Institute of Jewish Studies, University College London, writes of Iraq’s old regime: “Any scholar of any nationality was permitted to work in the Iraqi museums, provided that he could show a baptismal certificate. Only Jews were prohibited from working there.” So will it change? Geller: “During this past summer, Dr. Donny George of the Iraq Museum appeared in London at an international conference, and one of my colleagues from the USA went up to him and asked him directly when Jews will be able to work in the Iraq Museum in Baghdad. He simply shrugged his shoulders and replied, ‘it’s not my decision’.” Note: The State Department and the Coalition Provisional Authority are putting $1.4 million into upgrading the museum and its security. Thu, Jun 10 2004 6:09 am |
| Culture matters? Journalist Ann Marlowe has a shallow piece at Salon.com on Raphael Patai’s The Arab Mind. I’ve called the book archaic, but it’s too easy a target, and Marlowe says nothing about it that hasn’t been said sometime over the last 30 years. What she should have done was check out Seymour Hersh’s claim that Patai’s book is the “bible” of neocons. (His source: “an academic told me.”) Patai’s book is about difference—why the Arabs are not like “us.” The neoconservative vision is about sameness—why the Arabs, beginning with Iraqis, are just like “us,” or at least like the Germans and Japanese, who went from dictatorship to democracy in under a generation. It’s not Patai’s ideas that are being tested in Iraq. It’s the idea that culture doesn’t matter. We shall see. Wed, Jun 9 2004 3:04 pm |
| Two minds in one. Ian Buruma’s essay in The New Yorker is subtitled “The Two Minds of Bernard Lewis.” The author compares the skeptical caution of Lewis’s earlier writings with his optimistic advocacy over Iraq and democratization. “Why did Bernard Lewis ignore his own counsel that the West should proceed with caution in the Middle East, that democracy cannot be a quick fix, and that our proposed solutions, however good, are ‘discredited by the very fact of our having suggested them’?” The answer is more complex than Buruma allows, but here’s a clue: “The crucial thing to know about Lewis is that he is a traditional European liberal” (R. Stephen Humphreys). That’s the most accurate single truth ever written about Bernard Lewis. Knowing it answers a great many questions. Wed, Jun 9 2004 5:56 am |
| Where’s the apology? As long as I’m on the subject of John Burns and the New York Times (right below): On April 12, 2003, he wrote that 50,000 artifacts had been looted from the Iraq Museum. Museum officials told him “nothing remained.” On April 13, the figure grew to “at least 170,000 artifacts carried away by looters.” (Actual losses? Some 15,000 artifacts, or 3% of total museum holdings.) Burns, later: “When we got to the museum we were disposed to believe the worst. We were tremendously distraught, and passion got the better of us.” (The “we” splits responsibility with other journalists.) Later reporting revised the estimates downwards. But I keep turning to page A-10 of the Times, in search of the official mea culpa. Not yet. Tue, Jun 8 2004 3:02 pm |
| Burned by Burns. Oh, and the New York Times also got it wrong about Iraq’s National Library (see right below). This, from Times correspondent John Burns on April 17, 2003: “By tonight, virtually nothing was left of the library and its tens of thousands of old manuscripts and books, and of archives like Iraqi newspapers tracing the country’s turbulent history from the era of Ottoman rule through to Mr. Hussein.” In fact, the books and manuscripts survived, and so did the bound volumes of the newspapers. Tue, Jun 8 2004 3:01 pm |
| Books didn’t burn. On the liberation of Baghdad, a fire broke out in Iraq’s National Library, and accusations flew. But according to the latest report by a Library of Congress mission headed by Mary-Jane Deeb, the library’s losses weren’t bad. The fire was limited in scope. Rare books and manuscripts, and archival records of the pre-Baath monarchy, had been moved for safekeeping elsewhere, or were unharmed in the stacks. Someone did deliberately set fire to archival records of Saddam’s regime, kept also in the library, and also scattered some books and papers, to give the impression of looting. And who misled us on the damage? Robert Fisk. “The old royal archives of Iraq were turned to ashes in 3,000 degrees of heat,” he wrote at the time. Wrong again. Tue, Jun 8 2004 12:51 pm |
| Index librorum prohibitorum. Seymour Hersh has called Raphael Patai’s book The Arab Mind the inspiration for torture at Abu Ghraib. I’ve got doubts, and I’m not alone. Now Columbia prof Manning Marable, star of African-American studies, weighs in. He demands an executive ban on the use of the book in government, and “a Congressional investigation into the nature of the curricula being used to ‘educate’ those interacting with Arab and Islamic cultures.” Would such a probe stop at West Point and the Army War College? What about government-funded Title VI centers for the Middle East, such as Columbia’s? Their grads will also interact with those cultures. You see, the real danger to the integrity of curriculum isn’t HR3077. It’s thought-control profs, who are book banners at heart. Tue, Jun 8 2004 8:30 am |
| Mass deception. Post-colonial feminist art historian Zainab Bahrani of Columbia University has been appointed deputy senior advisor to the Iraqi Ministry of Culture, to work with the Coalition Provisional Authority. “Her objective,” says a State Department announcement, “will be to continue the reconstruction at the National Museum and National Library.” Bahrani, who was born in Iraq, was one of the prime exaggerators of the museum’s losses to looting. “Blame must be placed with the Bush Administration for a catastrophic destruction of culture unparalleled in modern history,” she charged last year. “The destruction that the US military has allowed to occur in Iraq has no parallel.” I’ll give Bahrani a parallel: exaggerations about looting losses and WMD. It’s the same mechanism at work. Mon, Jun 7 2004 9:01 am |
| America’s role. In my book Ivory Towers on Sand, I wrote that an American approach to the Middle East must rest on “the idea that the United States plays an essentially beneficent role in the world.” My critics ridiculed this as patently absurd. Kramer “does not bother to tell readers why they should accept this vision of the US role in the world as true,” writes NYU’s Zachary Lockman, “nor does he even acknowledge that it may be something other than self-evidently true. The assertion nonetheless undermines his avowed epistemological stance and graphically demonstrates that it is untenable.” I mark 60 years to D-Day by reiterating my epistemologically untenable assertion. In living memory, the US saved the world from two totalitarianisms. That’s self-evidently true. Sun, Jun 6 2004 3:49 am |
| Broader Middle East. The revised US reform plan for the Middle East, which President Bush will present at the upcoming G-8 summit, has been scaled down, toned down, and retrofitted with a promise to work harder on Israeli-Palestinian peace. The plan’s name: “Partnership for Progress and a Common Future with the Region of the Broader Middle East and North Africa.” Whew. (Originally, it was the “Greater Middle East Initiative.” But Europeans objected to “greater” as reminiscent of “Greater Germany” or “Greater Serbia,” while Arabs thought “initiative” sounded like a diktat.) It’s supposed to open a new chapter in the history of the Middle East. It already has the trappings of a footnote. Fri, Jun 4 2004 8:36 am |
| My successor. I’m delighted to report that I’ll be succeeded as editor of the Middle East Quarterly by Michael Rubin. He’s an excellent choice, and I look forward to working with him (I’ll be joining Patrick Clawson as a senior editor). Rubin is currently a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He’s a Yale Ph.D. in Middle Eastern history, and recently served as a political advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad and as staff advisor on Iran and Iraq in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Rubin on his appointment: “As editor, I intend to carry on the Quarterly‘s tradition of questioning conventional wisdom and challenging general readers, policymakers, and academics to rethink their premises.” Thu, Jun 3 2004 10:58 am |
| Dragomans. Apropos the shortfall in translators and interpreters of Arabic (last two entries below), listen to Bernard Lewis (NPR interview) explain the role of dragomans, the Ottoman court interpreters who made communication possible between the Ottomans and the European powers. Dragomans eventually gained a reputation for unreliability, leading the governments of Europe to train their own interpreters. As Lewis wryly notes, this practice has yet to cross the Atlantic. Thu, Jun 3 2004 4:52 am |
| Beginning Arabic. “America will need a generation of Arab[ic] linguists.” President Bush said so yesterday (see immediately below). And where does America get them now? Well, the Defense Department pays $657 million to the Titan Corporation, to provide “skilled contract linguists” to US military forces. According to this report (main link), the results have been mixed. Demand is exceeding supply, and incompetent interpreters are missing signals in Iraq. Under Title VI, the US government has subsidized Arabic study in universities for 45 years, and it hasn’t reaped a benefit. Now’s the time to expand and renegotiate the Title VI contract, beginning with HR3077. Thu, Jun 3 2004 4:40 am |
| Experts needed. President Bush in his Air Force Academy speech today: “Overcoming terrorism, and bringing greater freedom to the nations of the Middle East, is the work of decades. To prevail,… America will need a generation of Arab linguists, and experts on Middle Eastern history and culture. America will need improved intelligence capabilities to track threats and expose the plans of unseen enemies.” Unfortunately, the government-subsidized academic apparatus that produces such experts and linguists doesn’t want the mission, and even discourages students from accepting it. If Bush is serious, I urge him to throw his weight behind HR3077. Wed, Jun 2 2004 6:02 pm |
| Don’t know history. Rashid Khalidi, keen to emphasize his vocation as historian, complains: “Americans don’t pay attention to history. Why? Because Americans came here to begin with to escape the past. Americans have had the good fortune to live on the largest island on Earth.” He sounds like Bernard Lewis (in The Crisis of Islam) : “In current American usage, the phrase ‘that’s history’ is commonly used to dismiss something as unimportant…. the general level of historical knowledge in American society is abysmally low.” There’s no argument here. The debate begins over which history shapes the present. When do we begin? Which history are we doomed to repeat if we fail to learn it? The moment historians answer, they become advocates. Wed, Jun 2 2004 10:32 am |
| Lie of the century. There’s a conference in Amman on recovering stolen Iraqi treasures, and the head of the Jordanian Customs Department, one Mahmoud Qteishat, begins by calling the looting of Iraqi artifacts “the greatest crime of the century.” Qteishat is just echoing Donny George, the Baathist holdover, also attending the conference, who (incredibly) still speaks for Iraqi archaeology. Just click here and see how often George, a relentless propagandist, throws out the “crime of the century” line. It’s moral cretinism and an insult to our intelligence. These hacks should be sent off to excavate some mass graves, to get some real crime under their fingernails. (More on this miasma: Alex Joffe, “Museum Madness in Baghdad,” current Middle East Quarterly, coming soon to the web.) Tue, Jun 1 2004 6:25 pm |
| “Trust us.” The New York Sun reports that Columbia University is looking to raise money for a chair in Israel studies. Provost Alan Brinkley says “we have not yet done any formal fundraising for such a chair, have not set a financial target for it,and have not considered where it might sit if it were to be created.” But he says that Columbia “would welcome” a chair. My sources say it’s gone a bit beyond that already. No comment at this time, except to recall this cautionary tale I told about Berkeley back in February. Tue, Jun 1 2004 5:37 pm |
| Across the Bay. Here’s a new weblog on the Middle East, still a bit rough around the edges but with some interesting commentary on where academics and pundits are positioning themselves over Iraq. It’s the work of one Tony Badran, said to be a Lebanese doctoral student at New York University. He takes a special interest in the foibles of Juan Cole. Tue, Jun 1 2004 2:56 pm |
| Islam in America. The Middle East Quarterly posts two more articles from the spring issue, my next-to-last as editor. One, by Jonathan Dowd-Gailey, takes a hard look at the Muslim Students’ Association. The other, by Daniel Pipes, takes a hard look at UCLA professor Khaled Abou El Fadl. Both authors make the same argument: let’s raise the bar high in our definition of “moderation,” post-9/11. Tue, Jun 1 2004 12:42 pm |
Author: Martin Kramer
Sandbox: May 2004
| Road to hell. An American myth is the existence of one Archimedean point, from which the US might transform the Middle East. In the 1990s, it was the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. When that failed, it became regime change in Iraq. Now Gen. (ret.) Anthony Zinni swings back: “I couldn’t believe what I was hearing… that the road to Jerusalem led through Baghdad, when just the opposite is true, the road to Baghdad led through Jerusalem. You solve the Middle East peace process, you’d be surprised what kinds of other things will work out.” If only. Carter brought peace to Egypt and Israel, and got Khomeini. Clinton shepherded Israelis and Palestinians, and Al-Qaeda emerged. There’s no Archimedean point, just Newton’s third law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Mon, May 31 2004 6:00 am |
| Looting retrospective. Victor Davis Hanson writes: “Shooting looters to restore order and save the Iraqi infrastructure would have saved lives and enraged the world for [only] a day.” He’s right, but when it mattered he took a nonchalant view. “Much of the looting was no more indiscriminate than what we saw in Los Angeles after the Rodney King Verdict,” he wrote in the midst of it. I urged pulling the trigger when it might have turned the tide, the day the looting began in Basra: “Basrans would have been grateful had the British fired warning shots over the heads of looters—and then made an example of a few of them by shooting a tad low. It’s a bad start, and reflects too dogmatic an adherence to the ‘Iraqi freedom’ mantra.” The US and Iraq are still paying the price for that ill-timed restraint. Sun, May 30 2004 6:56 pm |
| Democracy as AstroTurf. George F. Will writes about the looming retreat from the “Jeffersonian poetry” that’s been dominating US foreign policy. En route, he quotes Kansas Republican Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee: “We need to restrain what are growing US messianic instincts—a sort of global social engineering where the United States feels it is both entitled and obligated to promote democracy—by force if necessary… Liberty cannot be laid down like so much AstroTurf.” Hear, hear. I’ve been on the outs with many of my friends since late 2002, for this pointed speech I gave on the perils of democracy promotion. And I dissented again last fall, when Bush delivered his democracy-or-bust address. Now the skeptics’ time has come. Sun, May 30 2004 5:01 am |
| Hommage à Rodinson. Of the obits for French scholar Maxime Rodinson, I recommend two: Michael Young’s in the Beirut Daily Star, and Jean Daniel’s in the Nouvel Observateur. Young correctly notes that Rodinson, in his long evolution, didn’t end up as a neocon, but Daniel points out, just as correctly, that Rodinson came to affirm the primacy of religious sentiment over nationalism, and the salience of civilizational conflict. An interviewer once asked him the proverbial “Why do they hate us?” question. Rodinson immediately cited the legacy of ancient religious rivalry, and when asked in a follow-up whether it might be due to colonialism, he answered: “It began well before that.” Fri, May 28 2004 4:42 pm |
| Spring MEQ. It’s late, but it’s out: the spring issue of the Middle East Quarterly. The table of contents is up on the web, as well as one of the articles, by Patrick Clawson, on the transition in Iraq. Fri, May 28 2004 4:40 am |
| Admittedly paranoid. A couple of weeks ago, the Chronicle of Higher Education ran an op-ed by the president of the Modern Language Association (MLA), Robert Scholes, against HR3077. He suggests the law might lead to the government’s “bugging a classroom or a faculty office,” or “hacking into a faculty member’s computer.” After all, he tells us, “we live in a world in which paranoia begins to seem almost like a healthy response to certain possibilities.” Wrong: that’s the world he lives in. If you’re paranoid about government, you really shouldn’t be taking federal subsidies. Improve your mental health by getting off the dole, and let people with a sense of proportion forge a more productive partnership under Title VI. (For the record: Edward Said served as elected president of the MLA in 1999.) Thu, May 27 2004 4:16 pm |
| Sighting in Philly. Traveling friends sent me this photo of my book Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies, displayed with commentary in a bookshop window in Philadelphia. Take a peek. (Thanks, Amy and David.) Thu, May 27 2004 1:14 pm |
| Turkey-Israel. The Israeli press today reports on the flap in Israeli-Turkish relations; Turkey may even recall its envoy for consultations. One of the tougher calls in editing the Middle East Quarterly was our decision last fall to publish a piece pointing to weaknesses in the Turkish-Israeli entente. Many friends who helped to build this relationship think that divergences shouldn’t be aired. But we did publish the article, and it’s the only available guide to the forces that are sending the pendulum back. (At the main link.) Thu, May 27 2004 5:47 am |
| The unknown Lewis. The Scotsman runs a profile of Bernard Lewis. “Now 87, Lewis may just be the most important and influential historian in the US and, consequently, in the world.” (Actually, Lewis just turned 88.) British treatments of Lewis, a Londoner for his first sixty years, are a rarity. We are told that “he remains comparatively unknown in his native land outside the realm of Middle Eastern specialists and devotees of academic feuds,” and that “to British ears, his voice is a reminder of a distant imperial age.” But the same tones, to Americans, “signify an old-style English charm and elegance.” The Anglo-American aspect deserves deeper analysis, but this isn’t bad for a start. Thu, May 27 2004 4:07 am |
| Shaming Arabs. Seymour Hersh on Abu Ghraib: “The notion that Arabs are particularly vulnerable to sexual humiliation became a talking point among pro-war Washington conservatives.” Here’s a possible source: “A principal technique of child-rearing in the middle-class Arab family is shaming…. The child’s physical functions, particularly his sexual functions, become the instruments of control. The child becomes ashamed of his body and its functions…. In the more traditional families, emphasis on ritualistic purity only strengthens the awareness of physical impurity and heightens the feeling of embarrassment associated with the body…. The child’s experience of sex is chaotic, painful, and humiliating.” Raphael Patai? (See right below.) No, it’s Palestinian thinker Hisham Sharabi, here. Wed, May 26 2004 3:14 pm |
| The Arab Mind. Is the late Raphael Patai’s archaic tome The Arab Mind really the inspiration for an alleged master plan to sexually humiliate detainees at Abu Ghraib prison? So claims Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker. I’m skeptical: The Arab Mind has been an easy and favorite target ever since Edward Said marked it in Orientalism. Alas, many who refuse any generalization about “the Arab mind” don’t hesitate to generalize about “the Arab street.” Example: “The ‘Arab street’, proclaimed dormant by Beltway pundits ignorant of the Arab world, is angrier than ever about what is being done to the Palestinians” (Rashid Khalidi). “Arab mind” and “Arab street” rest on the identical premise, even if the first is deemed racist and the second trips off tongues in academe and the media. Wed, May 26 2004 8:13 am |
| Rodinson vs. Said. The late Maxime Rodinson (see right below), although a defender of the Palestinian cause, strongly disapproved of Edward Said’s attack on Orientalist scholarship. He called Said’s Orientalism “a polemic written in a style that was a bit Stalinist,” and described Said as “inadequately versed in the practical work of the Orientalists.” Said’s reply: “The remarks of Maxime Rodinson concerning my work are completely scandalous. But that hardly surprises me from an ex-Stalinist, incapable as he is of understanding the nature of criticism and more generally the critical method.” Said had praised Rodinson elsewhere, and the rejection must have stung. Tue, May 25 2004 12:19 pm |
| Rodinson no more. Maxime Rodinson, the French scholar of Islam, passed away on Sunday at the age of 89. I briefly profiled him in my introduction to The Jewish Discovery of Islam (scroll down about two-thirds; there is also a photograph of him). I never met Rodinson, and I disliked his politics. But I did invite him to the 1996 Tel Aviv conference marking the 80th birthday of Bernard Lewis, for whom he had an immense respect. He sent me a very kind note explaining that he was too ill to travel, expressing his admiration for Lewis, and adding that he was sorry as he hadn’t seen Tel Aviv since the 1940s. He will be cremated in Paris tomorrow. Tue, May 25 2004 12:15 pm |
| Bollinger admits. Columbia’s president Lee Bollinger, in a newspaper interview, has admitted what I’ve claimed all along. First: “Everybody in the academy knows Middle Eastern studies have had trouble over the years developing great scholars and teachers.” Second: Rashid Khalidi, Columbia’s latest hire in the field, “has a particular point of view, pro-Palestinian nationalism.” Third, regarding Middle Eastern studies at Columbia, “within the mix of people who are teaching about this area, we are not as comprehensive as we should be.” So he’s said it: Middle Eastern studies are generally weak, his university’s star in the field has a bias, and the overall teaching at Columbia is unbalanced. What’s the solution? More to come. Mon, May 24 2004 7:33 am |
| Beinin’s new buddies. Stanford’s Joel Beinin never passes up a demonstration against Israel’s alleged misdeeds. At the main link, you’ll find a photo of him speaking at a rally held about ten days ago, as published in the Stanford Daily. I haven’t seen a report of what Beinin said, but I do notice that he’s speaking next to a large Palestinian flag. Well, not exactly: this is an Islamized version of the Palestinian flag, with the inscription: “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet.” It’s not exactly the Hamas flag, but it’s a variation used by Hamas sympathizers. Beinin seems to have found some new bedfellows. (Hope that isn’t a Quran in his hands…) Sun, May 23 2004 1:21 pm |
| Sandbox is back. My travels are over, and I’m back at the keyboard. This was a personal trip, so I’ve nothing to report, except these two things. First, I did get to see four of the Moroccan masterpieces by Matisse at the Hermitage in St. Petersburg—thankfully, they weren’t on loan. Second, if you’re in Copenhagen, stop by the Royal Library and see its “Treasures,” which include fascinating manuscripts and early books from and about the Middle East. Second-best: explore the exhibit’s comprehensive website. Through the end of this year. Sun, May 23 2004 1:19 pm |
| Gone fishing. Visitors to Sandbox may have noted that postings got a bit thin over the past month. That’s what happens when you edit a quarterly journal: at some point, it takes over. And now that another issue of the Middle East Quarterly has been put to bed, I’m outta here on a trip to Scandinavia and Russia. I’ll be looking for Matisse’s Moroccan masterpieces, swept by revolution into the Hermitage. Expect new postings from May 23. Until then, explore the site and rely on the news feeds. Wed, May 05 2004 7:29 pm |
| Truth about HR3077. Jonathan Calt Harris skewers academics for misrepresenting HR3077, over at National Review Online. Academic disinformation about the bill has been challenged time and again at Sandstorm and Sandbox, but the truth always bears repeating. Wed, May 05 2004 5:53 pm |
| Edward Said wannabe. Asaf Romirowsky, writing in the New York Sun, takes aim at Joseph Massad, the Edward Said Imitator at Columbia. Massad’s project (and best shot at tenure) is to pose as the true heir of the departed icon. The following may be the most self-serving opening of an obituary ever written (by Massad on Said): “‘Joseph, are you still sleeping, it’s 8am already?’ These are the first words I would hear upon picking up the phone three, four times a week. Edward’s powerful teasing voice on the other side goading me to emulate his work regimen: ‘I have been up since 5:30.'” Got that? Said’s first act, most working days, was to phone Joseph Massad. Will this stuff get him tenure at Columbia? We’ll see. Wed, May 05 2004 5:49 pm |
| Khalidi drives nails. Columbia’s Rashid Khalidi is quoted on the impact of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal: “I’m afraid that this is, in a sense, the last nail in the coffin in the raft of arguments for the Iraq war.” Sandbox quoted Khalidi back on March 26: “I really think that the killing of [Sheikh Yasin] may well be the last nail in the coffin of the two-state solution.” (That was to Newsweek.) These don’t sound like the guarded judgments of a distinguished historian who’s taking the long view. They sound like the rushed judgments of a partisan hack who’s feeding journalists with sound-bites. Don’t be surprised if some of the coffin lids nailed shut by Khalidi pop open. The ideas inside ain’t dead yet. Wed, May 05 2004 6:01 am |
| Kramer, follower. Eyal Press in The Nation profiles Daniel Pipes. It’s a smear, and I hope Pipes doesn’t let it pass. Along the way, Press says that my book Ivory Towers on Sand blamed Edward Said’s Orientalism for “leading an entire generation of scholars to look for Western causes of the Middle East’s problems rather than confront unsettling internal developments.” True. But then Press writes that I was “actually following Pipes himself,” who in a 1983 book had defended the traditional Orientalist approach. Not true. If I followed anyone, it was my own teacher, Bernard Lewis. In the Middle East, people don’t tolerate sloppiness in genealogy. Neither do I. Tue, May 04 2004 6:44 am |
Sandbox: April 2004
| Vintage Lewis. Bernard Lewis is interviewed in Atlantic Online, on the occasion of publication of yet another book, this one under the title From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East. Vintage stuff. One of his complaints: “When I listen to the broadcasts from the media people who are in Iraq at the present time, they almost always mispronounce the names of Iraqi towns…It makes people like me wonder how much we can rely on what we are being told when they don’t even know how to pronounce the name of the place.” Fri, Apr 30 2004 6:08 am |
| Zisser on Syria. The star of Syrian studies in Israel is my colleague Eyal Zisser. Here’s a detailed review (in English) of his latest (Hebrew) book on the subject. (This new one, written from a post-Hafez Asad perspective, will eventually appear in English.) The reviewer writes that Israeli scholars of Syria face an “oppressive obstacle—the giant shadow cast by Patrick Seale, a British journalist who had close ties with the late Hafez Assad. Seale’s writing on Syria is based on sources that Israeli scholars will never get to see, even if they are someday permitted to eat hummus on the banks of Abana and Pharpar.” Ah, but what Seale sacrificed, by way of credibility, to gain that access. Fri, Apr 30 2004 6:05 am |
| Whereabouts of HR3077. Some readers have written to ask whether HR3077 is stuck in the Senate committee (Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions). The short answer is yes. The long answer is that the entire Higher Education Act reauthorization (of which HR3077 is part) is stuck in committee. College affordability, student loans, and federal aid for low-income students are ongoing big-ticket battles. The present authorization can be extended for one year, and the sense is that the Senate side would just as soon put off controversial decisions until after the November elections. Nevertheless, all the lobbies are waging their campaigns as though this is the year. So will I, especially when I return to Washington in September. (At the main link: Heritage Foundation on the big issues.) Thu, Apr 29 2004 6:38 pm |
| Who’s driving? Last month, the US National Intelligence Council (NIC) convened a workshop at Wilton Park (UK) on the Middle East in the year 2020. The NIC is the U.S. intelligence community’s center for midterm and long-term strategic thinking. It’s doing this futuristic project in consultation with academics; I published excerpts from an earlier paper it issued on the subject in the Middle East Quarterly. At the main link, you’ll find the report from the conference. (No, I wasn’t there—couldn’t make it.) One key conclusion: “On balance, the workshop felt that, whatever the outcome, the Israel-Palestine conflict would not be the dominant driver in the region over the next 15-20 years that it is currently.” Thu, Apr 29 2004 5:55 pm |
| MEQ hand-off. I’ll be leaving the editorship of the Middle East Quarterly in June. I look back at three years of editing and look ahead to the journal’s future in a new Sandstorm entry. If you’ve got editorial talent, now’s the time to contact Daniel Pipes. Wed, Apr 28 2004 5:50 am |
| Confused Clio. Perspectives, the newsletter of the American Historical Association, runs a piece on HR3077 by one Bruce Craig. It’s alarmist nonsense. If HR3077 did what he claims it might do, even I wouldn’t support it. “In theory,” he writes, “the board could be a major force over university staffing and in hiring of guest lecturers, making curriculum decisions, approving books for classes, and recommending approaches to be taken when teaching a specific subject.” Since universities don’t get Title VI support to hire faculty, and since HR3077 specifically disallows board intervention in curriculum, you’re left wondering what in the world Craig is babbling about. Well, it’s in theory. And when historians substitute theory for evidence, anything’s possible. Tue, Apr 27 2004 6:46 pm |
| Khalidi on Said. On radio last year, Columbia’s Rashid Khalidi discounted Edward Said: “He has nothing like the influence that the wild-eyed advocates of this bill [HR3077] claim. Quite the contrary. People can take him or people can leave him. He’s actually, I think, had much more influence in fields like literary studies, anthropology, and other areas than he’s had in the Middle East field.” But here’s Khalidi in his new MESA obit for Said: “This book [Orientalism] has deeply affected the field of Middle East studies—who in the field can forget the debate between [Said] and Bernard Lewis at the MESA conference in Boston in 1986.” (That event is remembered in MESA lore as the tipping point in Said’s favor.) As usual, Khalidi tunes the message to the audience. (Radio comment at minute 28:45.) Tue, Apr 27 2004 2:16 pm |
| Hamas gets leader? Press reports today indicate that Dr. Mahmud al-Zahhar has (reluctantly) assumed the mantle of the late Sheikh Ahmad Yasin and the late Dr. Abd al-Aziz Rantisi, to become the leader of Hamas in Gaza. (Hamas continues to claim that its choice of a leader is a secret, and will not confirm the reports, which originated with Israeli sources.) Last May, Tim Sebastian interviewed Zahhar for his BBC program Hardtalk, and demolished him (without a missile). You can view the program at the link, if you’ve got the software. Mon, Apr 26 2004 3:26 pm |
| Pseudo-historical trash. Follow-up to the entry just below: The collaborator of Audrey Shabbas in her Arab World Studies Notebook, in the section about Muslim exploration, is one Shaykh Abdullah Hakim Quick, a South African convert to Islam. Here’s his own bizarre take on “Muslims in the Caribbean Before Columbus.” The possibility that pseudo-historical trash may have entered the mainstream of K-12 education with the complicity of some Title VI centers should be investigated by the Department of Education. Should Title VI centers be allowed to sub-contract dilettantes to do their “outreach”? Isn’t the whole point of university-based “outreach” to get the profs to do it? Sun, Apr 25 2004 6:10 am |
| Subsidized myths. Audrey Shabbas specializes in “outreach” workshops for school teachers. She’s claimed that early Muslim explorers married into the Algonquin tribe long before Columbus. This fantasy appears in her Arab World Studies Notebook, which the Middle East Policy Council has distributed to 10,000 teachers. The Algonquin Nation have rightly been in a rage about it, and now the section is being removed. My question: have Title VI programs been using this rubbish for their own “outreach”? Earlier this month, Georgetown’s Title VI center farmed out a big teacher “festival” to Shabbas, and it’s not the first time. Are Title VI centers employing amateurs to peddle dubious materials to school teachers, under academic auspices and with taxpayer subsidies? More work for a future Title VI board. Sun, Apr 25 2004 5:01 am |
| Bernard Lewis in TIME. In case you missed it, here is the brief sketch of Bernard Lewis in Time Magazine, which this week elevated him to its list of the 100 most influential persons. “For Lewis and the neoconservatives,” it reads, “the failure of Islam to reconcile itself to modernity is now too dangerous to leave alone. Moreover, they believe, the application of external force can be a catalyst for reform and peace. No scholar has had more influence than Lewis on the decision to wage war in Iraq. To what end, we don’t yet know.” That’s an awfully short summation of a complex subject. Wed, Apr 21 2004 9:03 am |
| Down with Title VI! Over the last month, this website has run a poll on Title VI funding, in partnership with Campus-Watch.org. In a new Sandstorm entry, I analyze the (admittedly unscientific) results. Bottom line: there’s a large constituency for killing off Title VI, and if HR3077 doesn’t pass, someone may be smart enough to tap into it. Wed, Apr 21 2004 7:01 am |
| Columbia cover-up? I’ve mentioned that Columbia has created a panel to look into allegations of bias in teaching, especially of the Middle East. The New York Sun now provides more details, and it’s clear the panel has been tasked so as to miss the point. The problem at Columbia isn’t what professors teach. (In any case, they are sovereign in the classroom.) It’s how they’re appointed. I once called it “friend-brings-a-friend,” and added this: “Middle Eastern studies at Columbia, across all the departments, have functioned like a private club for more than a decade. Until the administration breaks it up, nothing will change.” Yet the chair of the panel says: “It’s not within our jurisdiction to assess whether a department is biased or has any particular kind of slant.” I smell a cover-up in the making. Tue, Apr 20 2004 7:30 am |
| Khalidi, dissident? The New York Times (local New York supplement) runs a flattering portrait of Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said Professor at Columbia. HR3077 and the proposed advisory board are mentioned. “Dr. Khalidi expects that the board’s composition will not be favorable to dissidents.” Dissidents? I’m amazed at how commanders of academic power still pose as the oppressed of the earth. Khalidi is a chaired professor at Columbia, and director of a National Resource Center for the Middle East. He personifies the establishment in Middle Eastern studies; I’m a dissident. Khalidi adds that Edward Said “provided the role model for us…. We are here because of his example.” How true: Said remade Middle Eastern studies in his image. Tue, Apr 20 2004 6:47 am |
| News feeds! I’m experimenting with news feeds on the Sandbox/News page of this website. The Internet is awash in news, but I don’t know of any site that provides a wide array of feeds devoted exclusively to the Middle East. News feeds can be unpredictable when it comes to content and refresh rates. So I’ll keep watching them and striving for perfection. Do send suggestions. Mon, Apr 19 2004 7:51 pm |
| Leo=lion=Asad. Franklin Foer at The New Republic has a well-executed essay on Muhammad Asad (or Leopold Weiss), the most famous modern Jewish convert to Islam. Asad is a subject I tackled at greater length; Foer’s piece is a perfect miniature. Mon, Apr 19 2004 7:19 pm |
| The emirate of Columbia. Zev Chafets, writing in the New York Daily News, takes Columbia University to task for accepting a gift from the United Arab Emirates. The money ($200,000) went to help fund the Edward Said Professorship (incumbent: Rashid Khalidi). Chafets: “By accepting the beneficence of the UAE—a nation that discriminates against women, gays, Indians, Jews and other minorities, prohibits free speech and intellectual inquiry and rules by armed tribal feudalism—the university provides a rare example of academic fearlessness as well as a fitting memorial to the life and thought of Edward Said himself.” Mon, Apr 19 2004 5:53 pm |
| Can’t read English? A Florida paper runs an anti-HR3077 op-ed by Malini Johar Schueller, professor of (post-colonial) English at the U. of Florida. She writes that the advisory board proposed by HR3077 would “advise faculty on course syllabi and the hiring of faculty. If an institution refuses to be advised, it will lose its share of Title VI funding.” What? The board, says HR3077, “shall provide advice, counsel and recommendations to the Congress and to the Secretary [of Education].” The board won’t advise academics (who are beyond advice anyway). And syllabi? The bill says the board can’t “mandate, direct, or control an institution of higher education’s specific instructional content.” Professor Schueller either didn’t read the bill, or she’s lying. Sun, Apr 18 2004 5:39 pm |
| Bernard Lewis, influential. Time Magazine names Bernard Lewis to its list of the world’s 100 most influential people. Such lists are meant to be taken with a grain of salt. Even so, Time‘s choice underlines the astonishing omission of Lewis from the honor roll of ten major contributors to Middle Eastern studies, as compiled by the mandarins of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA). I’ve pointed out this blot on MESA’s record before, but I plan to revisit it whenever Lewis crops up on other lists of the great and noteworthy. Sat, Apr 17 2004 8:55 pm |
| Columbia panel investigates. The NY Jewish Week reports that a Columbia University panel is investigating allegations of faculty bias and intimidation in Middle Eastern studies. The panel is chaired by law professor Vincent Blasi, who offers this quote: “We want to make sure that classroom time is not devoted to politics or preaching by professors.” Columbia provost Alan Brinkley confirms: “We are, of course, concerned about charges of bias and intimidation in the classroom, and the president has appointed a committee to consider, among other things, how we might respond to such problems within the framework of our strong commitment to free speech.” The panel has met seven or eight times over the past year, and has heard testimony. Worth watching. Fri, Apr 16 2004 10:44 am |
| Did I sign that? Another signatory of the boycott letter, Cornell government professor Susan Buck-Morss, tells a Cornell Review columnist that she doesn’t recall signing and doesn’t support the boycott. But then she admits she has signed “at least 40 petitions sent around by email in the last few years,” thus suggesting she might have signed anyway. For good measure, she adds that she is “surely more in support of anyone who took the liberty to use my name than I am of the policy of Israel of the settlements and the oppression of the Palestinians.” This intellectual dereliction is appalling, and is well worth remembering the next time you read one of these “open letters” put out by academics. Many of the signatories are habitual poseurs. Fri, Apr 16 2004 10:34 am |
| Lockman scolded. Monday’s Washington Square News, NYU’s campus newspaper, ran a story and editorial on Prof. Zachary Lockman’s signing of the boycott-Israel “open letter.” (The controversy began with my March 31 Sandstorm entry.) Lockman, in yet another lapse of professorial judgment, dismisses the controversy as “a bunch of crap.” He also admits he has no idea who drafted the letter he signed, or to whom it was intended. It’s pretty damning stuff, and the accompanying editorial scolds him: “It is clear that [Lockman] did not put enough effort into weighing the possible meanings of the letter before attaching his—and NYU’s—name to it. In the future, it would be very wise for NYU professors to seriously consider the ramifications of any academic petition they sign.” Fri, Apr 16 2004 9:29 am |
| Southeast Asian haven? I’ve spent the better part of the week in Singapore, at a conference on terrorism co-convened by the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS) of the Nanyang Technological University, and Tel Aviv University’s Hartog School of Government and Policy. The IDSS, created six years ago and directed by Amb. (ret.) Barry Desker, is already making its mark in terrorism studies. Its best-known expert is the field is Rohan Gunaratna, whose book Inside Al Qaeda (Columbia) sold 70,000 copies. The IDSS has just published a wide-ranging collection, After Bali: The Threat of Terrorism in Southeast Asia. Read the introduction, “Is Southeast Asia a ‘Terrorist Haven’?” Fri, Apr 16 2004 8:47 am |
| Up and away. I’ll be off to Southeast Asia from Saturday, April 10 through Friday, April 16. While I’m away, please explore other parts of this site, or leave a comment on a Sandstorm entry. Sat, Apr 10 2004 7:55 am |
| Is Iraq like Lebanon? I’m quoted by James Bennet in this interesting New York Times piece on whether the situation faced by the U.S. in Iraq is analogous to the dilemma that Israel faced in Lebanon. The comparison is especially relevant to the role of the Shiites. Sat, Apr 10 2004 7:53 am |
| More NYU. Zachary Lockman, director of the Kevorkian Center at NYU, writes to the New York Sun with assurances that he doesn’t support the academic boycott of Israel. (He’s responding to my March 31 Sandstorm entry, which the Sun republished on April 1.) Lockman had signed an open letter to Israeli academics from self-described “defenders of Palestinian academic freedom and supporters of the academic boycott against Israel.” The open letter ended thus: “We are prepared to join you and other parties in public debate of the academic boycott of your institutions at any time and in any neutral venue.” Now Lockman claims that the open letter “never calls for or endorses a boycott.” Pure academic sophistry. Go to the link, and scroll down to “Further update: Lockman obfuscates.” Fri, Apr 09 2004 8:52pm |
| NYU boycott assurances. A reader has posted the full texts of letters from NYU’s provost David McLaughlin and Kevorkian Center director Zachary Lockman, repudiating the academic boycott of Israel. (Prompted by this Sandstorm entry.) Wed, Apr 07 2004 8:22 am |
| Unzip academe’s lips. The Electronic Intifada saw fit to reprint a piece by Beshara Doumani on HR3077 (critiqued below) with this illustration. I like it, because it can be read as the slight, tentative unzipping of academic lips, until now sealed shut by ferocious pressures of conformity. Countless academics have told me they want to speak out, but fear retribution from Saidians, Beininites, Khalidians, and other bands of ideological zealots. HR3077 could help to unzip these lips. That’s why the establishment fears it. Wed, Apr 07 2004 6:45 am |
| Cashing in on 9/11. An article in the LA Weekly looks at the Department of Homeland Security on campuses. Toward the end, the piece swerves into HR3077. “The changes to Title VI were not, it should be pointed out, initiated by DHS,” admits the writer, but he suggests that DHS might be represented on the seven-person advisory board. So what? Same could be said of Defense or Treasury; I’ve seen no special attention paid to DHS. Title VI, we read, “has been turned into a political punching bag by hard-right ideologues cashing in on 9/11 paranoia.” In fact, academe literally cashed in on 9/11, when Congress rashly voted Title VI a 26-percent increase—to meet “urgent need.” That’s not mentioned here. Indeed, I’ve yet to see any critic of HR3077 note the windfall, even in passing. The profs take public largesse for granted. Wed, Apr 07 2004 5:25 am |
| No debate allowed. Beshara Doumani, professor of Middle Eastern history at Berkeley, writes in an op-ed that HR3077 would “rob our society of the open exchange of ideas on college campuses.” His byline calls him organizer of a national conference on “Academic Freedom After September 11th,” recently held at Berkeley. That event, cosponsored by the Middle East center, was more like a rally againt HR3077, featuring Stanford’s Joel Beinin, MESA’s Amy Newhall, and even Snehal Shingavi, who once warned conservatives to stay out of his classroom. Contrast with a comparable event at the University of Chicago, featuring speakers from opposing sides. Doumani is for “open exchange”—as long as that doesn’t include debate. Mon, Apr 05 2004 9:46 am |
| Boycott repudiated. You’ve read the Sandstorm entry on “Boycotting Israel at NYU?” Zachary Lockman, the director of NYU’s Middle East center and signatory of the boycotters’ letter, now says he didn’t mean it. NYU’s provost has also given assurances that NYU “stands firm against any such boycott.” For full details, scroll down to the update at the entry. A small victory for Sandstorm, and a much larger one for academic freedom at NYU. Fri, Apr 02 2004 8:49 pm |
| Harder to ignore. The current Sandstorm entry, “Boycotting Israel at NYU?” appears prominently in today’s New York Sun, on page nine. Thu, Apr 01 2004 11:51 am |
| “There is no let-up.” Sara Roy, a perpetual “senior research scholar” at Harvard’s Middle East center, writes for the London Review of Books about the “virulent attacks” on Middle Eastern studies in benighted America. (I get a paragraph.) This looks to have been cobbled together from somebody’s talking points against HR3077. Roy, who uses Harvard’s name relentlessly, has a quasi-academic sinecure. Her current project is the whitewashing of Hamas, but she’s best known for invidious comparisons she drew in April 2002 between the Israeli occupation and the Holocaust. (She thinks being the child of Holocaust survivors gives her a license.) “There is no let-up,” Roy moans about the criticisms of Middle Eastern studies. She’s right about that. Permanent contention: get used to it. Thu, Apr 01 2004 10:30 am |
| Africanist Title VI. Some people ask: why do we need HR3077, if the problem is specific to Middle Eastern studies? Answer: the problem runs throughout area studies. Stanley Kurtz writes in National Review Online about directors of Title VI African studies centers who launched a sordid boycott against the National Security Education Program. Kurtz exposed the boycott two years ago, prompting leading Africanists to try to cover it up. Technique? Intimidation. Kurtz has found a courageous whistleblower to tell the tale: Eyamba Bokamba, professor of linguistics and African languages, and coordinator of the Title VI program in African languages at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The story is now resonating on Capitol Hill. Thu, Apr 01 2004 10:11 am |
You must be logged in to post a comment.