Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January/February 2003, pages 73-77

Student Activism

Middle East Studies Association Grapples with Change

The annual meeting of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) has always had its share of timely political studies and debates amid the usual scholarly papers on important, but highly specialized, academically oriented topics. Its Nov. 24-26, 2002 meeting in Washington, DC, however, seemed palpably different. A much higher percentage of panels seemed to focus on subject matter with grave political implications. Of those, two intertwined themes stood out that characterized both the conference and the concerns of its attendees: the critical situation in Palestine and Israel, and the troubling fallout of continuing, and in some ways escalating, effects of 9/11 on the future of Middle East studies in the U.S. and abroad—its subjects, practice, and practitioners alike.

The Future of Mideast Studies

A member of a Canadian-sponsored panel on the future of Middle East studies after 9/11 perhaps best summarized the prevailing mood of MESA this year, at least for those with some knowledge of the field of Middle East studies. Quipped Eugene Rogan of St. Antony’s College, Oxford, “Edward Said won MESA, Bernard Lewis won Washington.”

Another panelist, renowned Harvard scholar Roger Owen, also discussed what he called the “difficult re-emergence” of the Lewis vs. Said dichotomy symbolizing essentialism vs. global perspective. Most of the American public, Owen concluded, still were of the essentialist mindset, seeing Arabs and Muslims as the “other” and focusing their energy on the question, “Why do they hate us?” Owen expanded on the theme of Baghat Korany, of the American University in Cairo and the University of Montreal, that so-called “experts” with little to no training in the field were hijacking research and presenting agenda-oriented views as absolute truth to an ignorant television audience.

Other panelists included Judy Barsalou of the U.S. Institute of Peace, who compared increased funding for Middle East-related (public sector) studies and (private sector) relief. William Cleveland of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia described positive aspects of increased interest and enrollment in Middle East studies and the negative consequences of U.S. mistrust of Canadian citizens of Middle Eastern descent. Cleveland described the case of Muhammad Muhammad, a Canadian of Sudanese origin, who taught across the border at the State University of New York in Fredonia while finishing his doctoral dissertation. Crossing the border several times a week was not a problem until some time after 9/11, when Muhammad was stopped and told that the U.S. did not recognize his Canadian citizenship, and that as a Sudanese he must be registered, questioned and fingerprinted each time he entered the U.S. As a result, Muhammad was unable to fulfill his teaching duties, which ultimately resulted in his being unable to renew his teaching position.

The well-attended panel yielded a virtually universal consensus that MESA and its members must make their knowledge available in easily digestible form to the general public to protect academic freedom, civil rights and human rights.

This conclusion was also voiced by MESA president Joel Beinin of Stanford University in his address to the membership prior to the presentation of the 2002 MESA awards. Beinin began by contesting the popular view that 9/11 changed everything. It certainly changed everything for some people, he acknowledged—for example, all was changed for the victims of the attacks and the victims of the backlash. However, Beinin said, having failed to learn that unpopular U.S. foreign policy carries consequences, Americans suffer from “willfull historical amnesia.”

Beinin cited the 1953 CIA-engineered coup in Iran which deposed a popularly elected head of government Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh and reinstated the deposed Shah Reza Pahlavi. The consequences followed decades later, when Iranian students took over the U.S. Embassy on Nov. 4, 1979, holding embassy personnel hostage for 444 days. The students believed that the current shah was in the U.S. not for medical treatment, but to expedite another CIA coup, replacing him on the Peacock Throne as his father before him had been. President Jimmy Carter, Beinin said, told reporters that 1953 was “ancient history” and not part of anti-American sentiment in Iran.

Beinin also cited the Reagan administration’s green light to Israel to invade Lebanon in 1982, and the subsequent massacre at Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, followed by anti-American attacks in the Beirut car bombing of the U.S. Embassy, a deadly suicide bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks, and a number of widely publicized kidnappings—as another historical lesson lost on both subsequent U.S. administrations, and the American public. “Irresponsible use of U.S. power in the Middle East puts American lives at stake,” Beinin concluded.

Considering the special role of MESA with regard to U.S. policy in the Middle East, Beinin advised increased involvement by Middle East scholars in the public sphere—not to excuse terror, but to explain the reasons behind it. The potential for Mideast experts post-9/11 was to function as sources of reliable information. To that end, he said, scholars must make themselves aware of the historical context, consider the international perspective, and make a commitment to providing explanations. Exceptional circumstances, Beinin argued, demanded that Mideast scholars stretch beyond their primary roles as teachers and researchers.

Beinin drew some laughs, but made an important point, when he reminded the audience that he was sure every person in the room knew more about Afghanistan than the local television news anchor, even if it was outside their area of expertise. However, he added, scholars should not speak with one voice as though they were one authority, but as informed individuals.

Finally, Beinin acknowledged what had been a prime topic of informal, ad hoc discussions—the attacks on MESA and specific Middle East scholars and programs, frequently by “neo-conservatives with close ties to the most powerful government in history, who are seemingly bent on making and unmaking regimes, particularly in the Middle East.”

MESA should meet accusations head on, Beinin said, and not dismiss them as vacuous. He described as the wrong approach Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers’ labeling of divestment from Israel movements as anti-Semitic, contrasting it to the “wise and brave” approach of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in defending its decision to require incoming freshmen to read a book on the Qur’an. MESA attendees responded to Beinin’s speech with a standing ovation.

Israel and Palestine at MESA

Ambassador David Satterfield garnered quite a different response during a MESA plenary session on American policy and prospects for Middle East peace. Appearing instead of Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs William Burns, Satterfield said that in addition to having seen carnage on both sides of the issue, he also had seen the collapse of faith and hope.

Reiterating the policy of the Bush administration and the international “Quartet” (the U.S., U.N., Russia and the EU), Satterfield listed the three phases necessary to achieve a Palestinian state:

1. an end to terror, Palestinian elections and progress to relieve Palestinian suffering;

2. the declaration of a Palestinian state; and

3. a permanent agreement based on U.N. Resolutions 242, 338, and 1397.

Syria and Lebanon must be part of the peace process, Satterfield added. Finally, the U.S. diplomat argued that the present was a better time for a “road map” to peace than Oslo in 1993 because Arab endorsement of the Saudi peace plan offered a “unique moment.” Satterfield added, however, that, in 1993, the Palestinians had transformed themselves from “rogues” to “partners for peace,” but that in 2000 (with the start of the al-Aqsa intifada) they had reversed the transformation. “We will do all we can,” he said, “but violence and terror must stop” before peace can be pursued.

According to University of Virginia professor William Quandt, U.S. complacency regarding the peace process had fostered its breakdown, and an unusually high level of serious commitment by all parties, including the U.S., was required to resolve the issue. Moreover, Quandt argued that the U.S. president must take political risks, and use both the carrot and the stick to influence behavior.

Citing contradictory polling figures—Israeli support for both a hard line and a two-state solution, Palestinian support for both suicide bombers and living side by side in peace—Quandt accused the Clinton and Bush administrations of having missed opportunities, and cautioned that the Bush administration must take mediation seriously.

Like Satterfield, Quandt viewed Arab endorsement of the Saudi peace plan as a unique opportunity, adding that the Israeli peace camp’s endorsement of former Haifa Mayor Amram Mitzna for prime minister was another opportunity for peace. Quandt’s plan for peace included making it clear to Israel that aid and arms will at some point be connected to such Israeli actions as continued settlement growth. While not insisting on a total cessation of Palestinian violence prior to negotiations, because it gives extremists veto power over talks, Quandt emphasized that attacks on civilians must cease. Further, he said, there must be generous compensation for Palestinian refugees in exchange for abandoningtheir right of return, as well as a settlement based on 1967 borders, the return of Israeli settlers to Israel proper, and the declaration of Jerusalem as an open city.

Agreeing with the other speakers that peace was possible, Rashid Khalidi of the University of Chicago accused the past three U.S. administrations of having contributed to the worsening of the situation. Former Secretary of State James Baker and former President George H. W. Bush had made a good start, Khalidi said, but invited disaster by leaving the hard “final status” issues for late in the process. According to Khalidi, former President Bill Clinton created a debacle at Camp David in the summer of 2000. As Clinton was about to leave office “the lamest of ducks,” however, he laid a possible ground work for the future—although current events could nullify that. However, Khalidi argued, the eight years of the peace process under Clinton’s auspices hurt both Israelis and Palestinians.

Regarding the current Bush administration, Khalidy speculated that Washington’s backing up with muscle its “enunciation of a Palestinian state as a clear objective of U.S. policy” would be “a major contribution, and could possibly resolve the conflict.” He cautioned however, that if the Bush call for a Palestinian state remained mere words while Israel continued to gobble up Palestinian land and destroy the Palestinian economy, the president’s words would “go down as an awful mistake on a grim page of American history.” Citing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s recent description of the Israeli occupation as “so-called” and his statement that settlements were not really a problem, Khalidi questioned the seriousness of the administration’s commitment to its stated goal of a Palestinian state—especially by Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Given the dangerous situation, Khalidi suggested that MESA members stop doing nothing and make a serious attempt to speak out now--the same conclusion MESA panels were arriving at in regard to both the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the future of Middle East studies. Although those who do speak up might be reviled, Khalidi warned, the penalty for not doing so would carry far graver consequences. Speaking out would be the loyal patriotic thing to do, he advised, reminding the audience that many sympathetic people would be emboldened to act themselves if they heard a “calm, reasoned scholar in the field” giving his or her views on the matter.

—Sara Powell

MESA Participants Discuss Textbook Views of the Other

An ongoing Israeli public relations campaign has focused on alleged incitement in Palestinian textbooks against the Jewish state and its people. A panel discussion at the Middle East Studies Association focused on this issue in an attempt to provide accurate views of “the other” in both Palestinian and Israeli textbooks.

Prof. Nathan Brown of George Washington University said that, while most of the current debate has focused on allegations of incitement in Palestinian textbooks, there is a lot of misleading information on the subject. Reporting on a survey of Palestinian textbooks, Brown said that, since 1948, the curriculum of Palestinian schools in Gaza followed that of Egypt, while schools in the West Bank followed Jordan’s. Most of these textbooks were very outdated, he said, so in 1994 the Palestinian Authority (PA) began putting together a new curriculum. The PA sought to add Palestinian perspectives to the Jordanian and Egyptian textbooks.

Brown found that the biggest problem faced by the PA curriculum is that the textbooks are unable to deal with fluid and unsettled controversial matters, such as independence, citizenship and territory. Instead, most resort to adapting the official rhetoric, that at times could be quite irrelevant or confusing.

For example, he noted, on some exams, students were asked to draw boundaries of Palestine, which are subject to ever-changing occupation plans. Furthermore, Brown said, Palestinian books were fraught with affirmations of allegiances to the state, God and the family, with no attempts to challenge or distinguish among them.

Progressive Palestinian intellectuals, Brown stated, consistently question the type of Palestinian citizen their curriculum is molding. This led to a detailed critical report published in 1996 which challenged authoritarian themes in existing books. In 2000, new books were introduced which attempted to inculcate national identity, God and family while inserting progressive views on civic education, human rights and democracy. The new books, Brown said, provide active pedagogy that was more gender-sensitive and less patriarchal.

Elie Podi, professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, analyzed the image of the Arab in Israeli history books. Because they are social constructs transmitting values and norms to society, he noted, textbook analysis is important in understanding cultural and psychological roots of the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis.

Israeli textbooks were influenced by various historical phases, Podi said. Although the current historiography in Israel has tolerated alternative views of historians such as Benny Morris and Ilan Pappé, they were not welcomed before.

Podi divided Israel’s historical texts into three phases. The first phase extended from 1948 to the mid-1970s, which he dubbed the childhood phase. This is the most problematic phase, he explained, containing omissions, distortions and even lies about the other. Maps of this period showed Israel as empty before the first and second waves of Jewish immigration. There was no acknowledgement of the indigenous Palestinian population.

The second phase, which Podi labeled the teenage years, witnessed the insertion of some limited corrections. Most of the Israeli public, he noted, was brought up in the first two generations.

The final stage, said Podi, which he labeled early adulthood, witnessed the most profound changes, allowing for alternative views and revisionist theories. Israeli historiography is still transitioning to more open and diverse views, he said, and concluded by saying that today Palestinian textbooks include many omissions and biases similar to the ones found in Israel’s first generation of textbooks.

University of Haifa Professor Ilan Pappé stated that, given the horrific violence engulfing the two peoples in the past two years, it is difficult to talk about educational systems in Palestine or revision and self-criticism in Israel. Such violence, he said, may in fact have dealt a strong blow to any positive steps taken by Israeli or Palestinian educators.

Education, Pappé argued, is a precondition to reconciliation between the two sides. Any post-Zionism reform of the Israeli educational system is less of a revolution than previously thought, he maintained, because Zionization of culture and knowledge remains prevalent in Israel.

Although Israelis attempted to deviate from Zionist influences in academia, the arts, the media and theater, they were soon stifled, said Pappé. He cited as an example a recent book entitled A World of Transformation, banned by a Knesset commission in the year 2000. The commission objected to the author’s attempt to universalize aspects of the holocaust. Members of the commission also found objectionable the author’s mention of the possibility that Arabs may have been deliberately expelled from Palestine in 1948. The book’s author, Pappé noted, omitted entirely the infamous Zionist Plan D of 1948, later unearthed by various historians, which was a blueprint for the mass expulsion of Palestinians that later ensued. While the author mentioned that Israel took over Palestine from the British and conquered Palestinian villages and towns, clauses referring to premeditated plans to expel, banish and ethnically cleanse the indigenous population were left out altogether, said Pappé. Even attempts like these, he concluded, fall far short of serious educational reforms in Israel.

—Asma Yousef

Evergreen State Hosts Mideast Peace with Justice Conference

Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington held a conference Nov. 23 and 24 entitled, “Seeking Peace with Justice in the Middle East.” The two-day conference, co-sponsored by The Peace and Justice Association, Olympians for Peace in the Middle East, Olympia Coalition to Stop the War and The Evergreen Peace Coalition, attracted activists who have been engaged in the struggle to bring justice to Palestine since the 1970s, as well as others who were new to the subject.

Brianna Crane, a newcomer, said she was furious that her tax money was used to inflict harm on the Palestinians. Linda Frank of “Women in Black” attended to help with the brainstorming session. Chris Allert, recently returned from Gaza, spoke about his experiences helping out with computer work and acting as a human shield to protect Palestinians from Israeli soldiers.

Opening remarks were given by Simona Sharoni, an Israeli professor who left Israel to protest against the brutality of Israeli military occupation of Palestine and its people. She provided an insight into what it was like to be an activist for Palestinian human rights, saying she was considered a traitor to her country and was told in no uncertain terms to leave Israel. Since arriving in the United States, she has been active as an advocate for human rights and justice in Palestine.

A special showing of the documentary film “Break Through the Walls,” an exposé of Israeli war crimes, enabled the audience to see firsthand the brutality and humiliation inflicted on Palestinians at Israeli military checkpoints. The film also documented the demolition of Palestinian homes with American-made Caterpillar bulldozers and Israeli soldiers ransacking a U.N. health center. Another film,“Free Radicals,” documented the Israeli Communist Mazpan justice movement and its activities.

Hekmat El Sarraj of Gaza’s Woman’s Affairs Center spoke about the devastating effect the occupation has had on Palestinian children. Almost 30 percent of children suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, she said, because they have witnessed the death, maiming and humiliation of their parents and close relatives. The military violence, sounds, anxieties, and fears of the war swirling around them cause major problems for children and result in abnormal behavior, learning difficulties, bedwetting, and acting out.

Mohammed Saleh, national secretary of the West Bank’s Legal Affairs Department, addressed the problems Palestinian workers face finding work and their resulting inability to provide for their families’ basic necessities. Israeli border troops actively harass Palestinian workers as they cross into Israel to find work as day laborers. Their food is confiscated, and they are not allowed to wear shoes or coats when they cross the border into the Jewish state.

Haithem El-Sabri described the calls by right-wing Israelis for the expulsion of all Palestinians from Palestine under the cover of a war on Iraq. His presentation was so compelling that it made the unthinkable a possibility.

A brainstorming session of 30 or so activists moderated by attorney Linda Bevis produced a number of ideas to promote justice in Palestine. These included:

•Blocking Interstate 5;

•Demonstrating outside the Caterpillar dealership;

• Asking heavy equipment operators to refuse to use Caterpillar equipment;

•Building a coalition of like-minded people (for example, joining forces with Right to Life Groups and pointing out that funds given to Israel support birth control and abortions).

Conference attendees enjoyed entertainment by Palestinian musical performers and a belly dancer, as well as a delicious meal of Middle Eastern food.

—Lawrence Helm