Archive |

Who're You Calling a 'Bigot'? Middle East Studies Professors Attack Opponents of the Ground Zero Mosque

In an article written for Campus Watch and posted at the American Thinker, Brendan Goldman takes a look at the response of Middle East studies academics to the proposed Ground Zero mosque:

John Esposito, director of the Saudi-funded Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, having observed that a large majority of Americans oppose an Islamic center at ground zero, could not decide whether American society now more closely resembles that of Birmingham, Alabama circa 1963 or Nazi Germany on the eve of Kristallnacht:

[Newt Gingrich is] somebody...from the South [who] can remember the problem of racism and civil rights. He's also reportedly a Christian.... He's got to remember how a theology of anti-Semitism led to a history of pogroms that ultimately led to the Final solution.

Such callous historical analogies were but one component of a concerted effort by a group of Middle East studies professors to discredit the opponents of the ground zero mosque, whom they helpfully labeled "rural rednecks," "so-called Christian ministers," and "the Israel lobbies."

To read the entire article, please click here.

By Cinnamon Stillwell | September 1, 2010 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

John Esposito, Islamophobia, and the Ground Zero Mosque

John Esposito

This morning at American Thinker, Stephen Schwartz offers a rigorous critique of Wahhabi apologist Georgetown professor John Esposito's support for the so-called Ground Zero mosque. Schwartz writes as a convert to Sufi Islam, and his essay offers three concise reasons why his religious beliefs support his stance. Here's the introduction:

John L. Esposito, professor of religion and international affairs and director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, is America's best-known apologist for Saudi Wahhabism, the Turkish fundamentalist Justice and Development Party (AKP), and Islamist ideologies in general. To many, he personifies all that's wrong with Middle East studies in America today.

On July 19, 2010, Esposito contributed a column to the CNN website titled "Islamophobia and the Muslim Center at Ground Zero." In it, he downplays complaints about the project for a fifteen-story Islamic cultural center near the site of the 9/11 atrocities by focusing on angry comments from Manhattanites who see the proposal as an expression of Islamist supremacy. Here's how he sums up criticism of the mosque project: "Islam-bashing charges leveled with no concrete evidence by pundits and politicians."

To read the rest of the essay, please click here.

By Winfield Myers | August 3, 2010 at 8:22 am | Permalink

Norton Mezvinsky: Chelsea Clinton's LaRouchite Uncle

New York Daily News

Today at American Thinker, Asaf Romirowsky and I expose the ties between Norton Mezvinsky, a Middle East specialist who recently retired from Central Connecticut State University, and Lyndon LaRouche, the serial conspiracy theorist and presidential candidate. Mezvinsky, who will today become the uncle of Chelsea Clinton, won't be at the wedding in Upstate New York:

Norton Mezvinsky told the New York Daily News this week that he wasn't invited to the wedding because of a family feud with his nephew that stemmed from his support for his disgraced brother, former Iowa Representative Edward Mezvinsky, whose plans to move to New York and write a book after his release from prison were opposed by nephew Marc.

But there's another reason the Clintons might want to keep the Mezvinsky -- who says he's the "senior male member of the family, and Marc's only uncle" -- well away from Rhinebeck on Saturday: Mezvinsky's ties to the conspiracy mongering anti-Semite Lyndon LaRouche.

To read the rest of the essay, please click here.

By Winfield Myers | July 31, 2010 at 7:46 am | Permalink

Campus Watch "Setting The Record Straight" 2010 Update

Since our last update, the number of corrections in Campus Watch's "Setting The Record Straight" section has grown exponentially. Hardly a day goes by when Campus Watch (CW)'s opponents aren't hard at work hurling false accusations, smears, and paranoia in our direction.

The nature of the fabrications generated by CW's critics over the years has remained predictably static, and they tend to fall into just a few categories. The most ubiquitous are the histrionic allegations that we "silence," "censor," "harass," or "intimidate" academics; that we engage in "blacklisting"; that we interfere in tenure decisions; that we represent a threat to "academic freedom"; and that most hackneyed cliché of the Left's vocabulary—that we practice "McCarthyism." Only in the insulated world of academia would mere criticism and accountability be likened to state-sponsored repression. Moreover, the irony seems to be lost that eight years after CW's 2002 launch, such academics are still busy talking—about being silenced.

Continue to full text of posting...

By Cinnamon Stillwell | July 29, 2010 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

Rashid Khalidi Appeals for Funds for Ship to Run Israeli Blockade of Gaza

Rashid Khalidi

Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, has signed an appeal for funds to outfit a ship--to be named The Audacity of Hope after Barack Obama's second book--that will challenge the Israeli blockade of Gaza in September or October, according to a report by Robert Mackey at The Lede, a blog of the New York Times. His wife Mona is also a signatory.

The appeal is posted at the site USTOGAZA.ORG, which says the ship will sail from the US to the Eastern Mediterranean, where it will join ships from "Europe, Canada, India, South Africa and parts of the Middle East." The appeal employs the word "we" when speaking of the upcoming trip, which gives the impression that the signatories intend to be aboard.

The site's opening paragraph is laden with falsehoods of commission and omission:

This is an important moment in history. In the aftermath of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla massacre and increased world-wide scrutiny of Israel's blockade of Gaza, the Israeli government has mounted a huge public relations campaign spreading the lie that by letting a few more items into Gaza the blockade has been lifted. This is not the reality. Gaza is still under siege, vital building materials and other supplies are banned, exports of goods from Gaza are denied and neither ships nor people can travel without permission from Israel, permission which Israel will not give. Gaza is essentially an open-air prison under a U.S.-backed Israeli blockade.

Continue to full text of posting...

By Winfield Myers | July 20, 2010 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

"Socialist Worker" Makes False Charges Against Campus Watch

Brian Napoletano, in a June 22, 2010, article in Socialist Worker (yes, it's still around), mischaracterized Campus Watch's mission when he wrote:

Organizations such as Campus Watch, a Middle East Forum project, have already invested substantial resources into identifying and attacking scholars who criticize the Israeli government's treatment of the Palestinian people, and they are still attempting to characterize the growing discontent with Israel's illegal occupation as spontaneous outbursts of 'anti-Semitism.'

Let's deal with each old Left buzzword in order:

First, CW does not, in fact, "attack" anyone for any reason. We critique scholars of the Middle East for politicized scholarship, biased presentations of their subjects, and other epistemological and pedagogical errors. For many on the far left, disagreement comes only in the form of "attacks," as if all who deign to differ with their interpretation of history are necessarily militant by nature. The fruits of false consciousness, one assumes.

Second, we do not even critique scholars who "criticize the Israeli government's treatment of the Palestinian people." Our aims are not political, nor are they petty. Unlike writers for Socialist Worker, however, we critique politically biased scholarship that somehow finds fault with only one side of the Arab-Israeli conflict while turning a blind eye toward atrocities committed by the other. We seek balance in scholarship because that quality, among others, separates true scholarly writing from propaganda.

Third, CW is far more reluctant to accuse anyone of anti-Semitism than Napoletano is to charge us and others with doing so. But on rare occasions when we decide that the charge is warranted, under no circumstances do we mischaracterize objections to Israeli policies as anti-Semitism. Such a charge against us is unfounded and therefore unprovable.

Socialist Worker is on Twitter, MySpace, and Facebook, the better to communicate with the proletariat, one assumes. Workers of the World: Tweet!

By Winfield Myers | July 12, 2010 at 11:40 am | Permalink

Muqtedar Khan Wants Muslims and Christians to Unite--Against Israel

Muqtedar Khan

Campus Watch has followed Muqtedar Khan's career for several years, and today Jared Sorhaindo reports on a recent lecture in which Khan once again demonstrated his radicalism. "Muqtedar Khan Wants Muslims and Christians to Unite--Against Israel," appears today at FrontPage Magazine. Here's a taste:

On June 17, Georgetown University held the event "Evangelicals & Muslims: Perspectives on Mission & Partnership" at its Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. The last of its four panel discussions wrestled with the question: "Can Muslims and Christians be Partners in Reconciliation and Conflict Transformation?"

....

Khan, who spoke first, refused to appear on a 2007 academic panel with an IDF veteran who had served in the West Bank, yet somehow maintains a veneer of moderation. A fairly charismatic speaker, he got off the ground quickly by claiming a moral equivalence between Pat Robertson and Osama bin Laden. "We must condemn the extremists in our midst," he said, patting himself on the back for denouncing bin Laden. While Robertson has undoubtedly made controversial statements, comparing him with bin Laden, whose terrorist organization has murdered thousands of people in the United States and abroad, is appalling and absurd.

To read the rest of this essay, please click here.

By Winfield Myers | June 28, 2010 at 10:39 am | Permalink

Joel Beinin's Old Time Religion of Israel Bashing

Joel Beinin

Today Campus Watch reports from and on Stanford University: Stanford senior Jonathan Gelbart attended a recent on-campus lecture featuring two Stanford professors, including Joel Beinin. In "Joel Beinin's Old Time Religion of Israel Bashing," which appears today at FrontPage Magazine, Gelbart writes that Beinin lived up to his reputation as a vitriolic critic of Israel:

Stanford University history professor Joel Beinin joined colleague Steven Zipperstein, a professor of Jewish culture and history, for an event on June 2, 2010 titled "Israel and Palestine: How To Talk About It and What To Talk About." It was co-sponsored by the Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies and the Taube Center for Jewish Studies—the first such joint sponsorship in the history of the two programs. Beinin lived up to his reputation for holding views whose outlandishness is matched only by the ferocity with which he clings to them.

Beinin began his opening remarks by lamenting the "unhealthy" state of the Arab-Israeli conflict debate—something he chalked up to the allegedly disproportionate influence of pro-Israel groups. Invoking the typical "Israel Lobby" paranoia, he claimed that organizations such as the American Jewish Committee and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) discreetly control the debate with publications such as Commentary Magazine and think tanks such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. According to Beinin, these organizations routinely "attempt to ban [anti-Israel academics] from speaking [on college campuses] and attack them politically when they come up for tenure." Using alarmist rhetoric, he claimed this behavior is tantamount to "a McCarthyite campaign of exclusion."

To read the rest of this essay, please click here.

By Winfield Myers | June 23, 2010 at 10:40 am | Permalink

California's Middle East Studies Profs Target Israel

My latest Campus Watch article, which appears today at Frontpage Magazine, examines the involvement of California Middle East studies academics in the anti-Israel BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) movement, including a petition supporting the recently failed divestiture effort at UC Berkeley:

In recent months, two University of California campuses, Berkeley and San Diego, have been embroiled in fierce debates following the introduction of anti-Israel divestiture resolutions by their respective student senates. Both were defeated, but not before a number of California's Middle East studies academics signed a petition supporting divestment.

The petition is posted at the website for the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, which is dedicated to the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement. The list of names reads like a Who's Who of California's anti-Israel academics.

To read the entire article, please click here.

By Cinnamon Stillwell | June 15, 2010 at 11:49 am | Permalink

Middle East Studies Profs Usurp New Roles to Censure Israel over Gaza Flotilla

The latest Campus Watch Research, by Brendan Goldman, appeared yesterday at American Thinker. In "Middle East Studies Profs Usurp New Roles to Censure Israel over Gaza Flotilla," Goldman examines the lack of objectivity and willingness to ignore the facts about the incident by leading members of the Middle East studies establishment:

"The martyrs of the [Gaza flotilla] ships are heroes," writes Mark LeVine, professor of history at the University of California, Irvine. "They are warriors every bit as deserving of our tears and support as the soldiers of American wars past and present."

In the aftermath of the death of nine mercenaries on the deck of the Gaza-bound Turkish vessel, the Mavi Marmara, professors of Middle East studies lined up to denounce the Jewish State. Ignoring overwhelming video and documentary evidence of the activists' radical agenda and affinity for violence, these professors asserted that the "Freedom Flotilla" of the six Gaza-bound vessels were on a purely "humanitarian" mission.

"Those ships were just bringing aid to the impoverished Palestinians," said New York University professor of modern Middle Eastern History Zachary Lockman. "It's not [the Palestinians'] fault they are under Hamas rule." Has Lockman already forgotten that Hamas was democratically elected by the Palestinians in January 2006?

To read the rest of this essay, please click here.

By Winfield Myers | June 14, 2010 at 2:11 pm | Permalink