Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Paul Findley: Pressure on Campus

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Interest groups successfully stifling academic discourse By Paul Findley A Representative of Illinois in the US Congress for 22 years Excerpted from the They
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 26, 2004
      Interest groups successfully stifling academic discourse
      By Paul Findley
      A Representative of Illinois in the US Congress for 22 years
      Excerpted from the They Dare to Speak Out


      The Israeli lobby pays special attention to the crucial role played
      by American colleges and universities in disseminating information
      and molding opinion on the Middle East. Lobby organizations are
      concerned not only with academic programs dealing with the Middle
      East but also with the editorial policies of student newspapers and
      with the appearance on campus of speakers critical of Israel. In all
      three of these areas of legitimate lobby interest and activity, as in
      its dealings on Capitol Hill, pro-Israeli organizations and activists
      frequently employ smear tactics, harassment and intimidation to
      inhibit the free exchange of ideas and views.

      As government, academic and public awareness of the Middle East
      increased following the 1973 OPEC oil price hike, such organizations
      as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC] and the
      American Jewish Committee [AJC] developed specific programs and
      policies for countering criticism of Israel on college campuses.

      Making It "Hot Enough" on Campus
      In 1979 AIPAC established its Political Leadership Development
      Program, which trains student activists on how to increase pro-
      Israeli influence on campus. Coordinator Jonathan Kessler recently
      reported that in just four years "AIPAC's program has affiliated over
      5,000 students on 350 campuses in all 50 states":

      They are systematically monitoring and comprehensively responding to
      anti-Israeli groups on campus. They are involved in pro-Israel
      legislative efforts, in electoral campaign politics as well.
      However self-serving and perhaps exaggerated such statements may be,
      AIPAC works closely with B'nai B'rith Hillel Foundation on campuses.
      When Kessler is introduced to campus audiences, it is as one who
      has "trained literally thousands of students." His campus contacts
      send him tapes or notes from talks that are considered to be "pro-
      Palestinian" or "anti-Israeli" and alert him to upcoming speaking
      engagements. Kessler keeps the notes on file and when he hears that a
      particular speaker is coming to a campus, he sends summaries of the
      speaker's usual points an arguments, his question-answer style, and
      potentially damaging quotes-or purported quotes-from other talks.
      Kessler specializes in concocting questions with which the speaker
      will have difficulty and in warning the campus organizers away from
      questions the speaker answers well.

      If the student union or academic senate controls what groups may be
      allowed to reserve halls, Kessler works to get friends of Israel into
      those bodies. IF the control is with the administration, speakers are
      accused of advocating violence, either by "quoting" earlier speeches
      of by characterizing them as pro-PLO, AIPAC students also argue that
      certain forums, such as memorial lectures should not
      be "politicized." While this may not always bar the speaker, Kessler
      advises that "if you make it hot enough" for the administrators,
      future events will be discouraged and even turned down rather than

      Kessler's students receive training-through role-playing
      and "propaganda response exercises"-in how to counter anti-Israel
      arguments. These exercises simulate confrontations at pro- and anti-
      Israel information tables and public forums.

      Once a solid AIPAC contingent is formed, it takes part in student
      conferences and tries to forge coalitions with other student groups.
      AIPAC then has pro-Israeli resolutions passed in these bodies and can
      run pro-Israel advertisements signed by the (liberal) Americans for
      Democratic Action and (conservative) Young Americans for Freedom, for
      example, rather than just by AIPAC. The workshop handout says: "Use
      coalitions effectively. Try finding non-Jewish individuals and groups
      to sign letters to the editor, for it is far more effective and

      In 1983 AIPAC distributed to students and faculty around the country
      a ten-page questionnaire on political activism on their campuses. Its
      instructions include: "Please name any individual faculty who assist
      anti-Israel groups. How is this assistance offered? What are the
      propaganda themes ?" The survey results form the body of the AIPAC
      College Guide: Exposing the Anti-Israel Campaign on Campus, published
      in April 1984.

      While AIPAC claims to respect the right of all to free speech, number
      eight on its list of 10 suggested "modes of response" to pro-
      Palestinian events or speakers on campus reads: "Attempt to prevent."
      Number 10 on the same list reads "Creative packaging." Edward Said, a
      professor of comparative literature at Columbia University who
      frequently speaks on campuses in support of the Palestinian cause,
      described a case of "creative packaging" at the University of
      Washington where he spoke in early 1983:

      They stood at the door of the auditorium and distributed a blue
      leaflet which seemed like a program but it was in fact a denunciation
      of me as a `terrorist.' There were quotations from the PLO, and
      things that I had said were mixed in with things they claimed the PLO
      had said about murdering Jews. The idea was to intimidate me and to
      intimidate the audience from attending.
      Said reports another experience at the University of Florida, where
      the group protesting Said's talk was led by a professor of philosophy:

      They tried to disrupt the meeting and [the professor] finally had to
      be taken out by the police. It was one of the ugliest things, not
      just heckling but interrupting and standing up and shouting. It's
      pure fascism, outright hooliganism.
      Another episode involving Said occurred at Trinity College in
      Hartford, Connecticut. In the fall of 1982 Said spoke, at the
      invitation of the college's Department of Religion, on the subject of
      Palestine and its significance to Christians and Muslims as well as
      Jews. As the day of the talk approached, the department began to get
      letters of protest from prominent members of Hartford Jewish
      community and from Jewish faculty members. Said, said the protesters,
      was pro-Palestinian and had made "anti-Israel" statements. One writer
      asked the organizers of the talk: "How could you do this, given the
      fact that there are two Holocaust survivors on the faculty?"

      After Said spoke, more letters of protest arrived at the religion
      department, and a move was made to deny the department a new $1
      million chair in Jewish Studies. The uproar died down after several
      months, but the protests had their effect. Asked whether the
      department would feel free, given the reaction of the Jewish
      community, to invite Edward Said again, a department spokesperson
      responded, "No, I don't think we would."

      The AIPAC College Guide also includes profiles of 100 U.S. campuses
      and the anti-Israel campaign "unprecedented in scope and magnitude"
      which supposedly pervades them. Anti-Semitism is also cited as a
      major influence on some campuses. For example, Colorado State
      University's campus newspaper, the Collegian, is said to have printed
      anti-Semitic letters to the editor; but only a letter which "sought
      to draw attention to the `Jewish lobby and the true extent of its
      influence over the U.S. media'" is cited as evidence.

      An example of how the lobby works on campus came in the spring of
      1982 when the American Indian Law Students Association (AILSA) at
      Harvard Law School hosted a conference on the rights of indigenous
      peoples in domestic and international law. They invited Deena Abu-
      Lughod, an American of Palestinian origin who worked as a researcher
      at the PLO mission to the United Nations, to participate in the
      conference. The Harvard Jewish Law Students Association (HJLSA),
      which according to one source has an active membership of only about
      twenty, first asked AILSA to remove Abu-Lughod from the program.

      When this failed, the Jewish group protested vehemently to the dean
      of the law school and also asked the dean of students to consider
      withdrawing all funding for the conference. The latter refused,
      saying she was "not in the business of censoring student
      conferences." But the dean of the law school, who was slated to give
      the opening address at the conference, backed out. Several members of
      the Indian Law Students Association and the director of the Harvard
      Foundation (which co-sponsored the conference), received telephoned
      death threats. One came from callers who identified themselves as
      Jewish Harvard students. Told of these, a member of the HJLSA
      said, "We were contacted by the JDL [Jewish Defense League], but we
      didn't want to have anything to do with any disruption of the

      The conference took place as scheduled, but one organizer recalls:

      The atmosphere was incredibly tense. We were really very concerned
      about Deena's physical safely and about our own physical safety. WE
      had seven policemen there. We had many, many marshals and very
      elaborate security. We had searches at the door, and we confiscated
      weapons, knives-not pocket knives-but butcher knives. We also had
      dogs sniff the room for explosives. The point is that the event did
      occur, but in a very threatening atmosphere.
      The following spring, a group of Third World student organizations at
      Harvard invited the director of the PLO Information Office in
      Washington, Hassan Abdul-Rahman, to speak on the theme "Palestine:
      Toad to Peace in the Middle East." Again the Harvard Jewish Law
      Students Association organized a demonstration, but this time the
      protesters packed the hall and actively disrupted the meeting. "It
      was just an absolute madhouse inside," recalls one student who was
      present. "Abdul-Rahman spoke for probably an hour and a half to
      virtually constant taunting, jeering, insults, screams, shouts,

      According to the Harvard Law Record, a representative of the Harvard
      Arab Students Society "struggled" simply to relate a biographical
      sketch of the speaker and to provide an introduction to his talk. "It
      was an extremely intimidating atmosphere," recalls the student:

      We just barely kept the lid on things. I think the fact that these
      events occurred is a testimony to our perseverance, not to the lack
      of intimidation. Because the intimidation is really very overt and
      very strong.
      In both cases the protesters used material provided by the Anti-
      Defamation League of B'nai B'rith.

      In still another incident at Harvard, a member of the Harvard law
      faculty who had visited the Israel-occupied West Bank on a tour
      organized by North America Friends of Palestinian Universities gave a
      talk on campus after his return. Prior to the talk, a group of
      students from the Harvard Jewish Law Students Association came to the
      professor's office. They told him that they just wanted to make sure
      he knew "all the facts" before giving his talk, and if hew wasn't
      going to give a "balanced" picture, they intended to picket his

      Recently asked if he altered his talk in any way as a response to the
      visit by the students, the professor said, "No, but that's because I
      knew what was going whether or not they came to my office. I knew
      they were going to be there and I knew what the situation was." He
      added that "the presence of a highly charged group of Jewish law
      students" changed the nature of his talk "from one that was more
      directed at what was actually going on for the Palestinians into one
      that was more abstract and about the relationship between power and
      knowledge here and there and in a lot of other places." After the
      talk, the representatives of HJLSA sent the professor a letter saying
      they were "very satisfied with the balanced nature" of his
      presentation. "Which made me think," he said, "it had been a little
      to balanced."

      He said the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was "an issue about which
      we've never had a successful, open discussion at this school." The
      professor said that, while he didn't feel intimidated, "I felt that I
      was operating in a place in which there were limits on what I could

      AIPAC is not the only pro-Israel organization to keep files on
      speakers. The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith keeps its own
      files. Noam Chomsky, world renowned professor of linguistics at MIT
      and author of two books on the Middle East, was leaked a copy of his
      ADL file, containing about a hundred pages of material. Says
      Chomsky: "Virtually every talk I give is monitored and reports of
      their alleged contents (sometimes ludicrously, even comically
      distorted) are sent on to the [Anti-Defamation] League, to be
      incorporated in my file."

      Says Chomsky:

      When I give a talk at a university or elsewhere, it is common for a
      group to distribute literature, invariably unsigned, containing a
      collection of attacks on me spiced with "quotes" (generally
      fabricated) from what I am alleged to have said here and there.
      I have no doubt that the source is the ADL, and often the people
      distributing the unsigned literature acknowledge the fact. These
      practices are vicious and serve to intimidate many people. They are
      of course not illegal. If the ADL chooses to behave in this fashion,
      it has a right to do so; but this should also be exposed.
      Student publications are also monitored. When the monthly Berkeley
      Graduate, a magazine of news and opinion intended for graduate
      students at the University of California at Berkeley, published in
      its April 1982 issue several articles critical of Israeli Prime
      Minister Menachem Begin and his government's policies, the office of
      the magazine began to receive anonymous phone calls, generally
      expressing in crude terms the callers' opinion of the magazine. One
      caller suggested that the editor, James Schamus, "take the next train
      to Auschwitz." According to Schamus, these calls continued for
      several weeks.

      The campus Jewish Student Board circulated a petition protesting the
      content of the April issue and characterized the Graduate as anti-
      Semitic-until it discovered that the editor James Schamus was himself
      Jewish. Schamus met with Jewish Student Board members and agreed to
      furnish space in the following issue of the magazine for a 4,000-word
      rebuttal, but they were not satisfied.

      The following week, members of the Jewish Student Board introduced a
      bill in the Graduate Assembly expressing "regret" at the content of
      the April issue and stipulating that if an oversight committee were
      not formed "to review each issue's content before it goes to press,"
      steps would be taken to eliminate the Graduate. The assembly voted
      down the resolution but agreed to revive a moribund editorial
      oversight committee to set editorial policy. Opponents of the bill,
      including editors of several campus publications, defended the right
      of the Graduate to print "without prior censorship."

      The next day, the Student Senate narrowly defeated a bill that would
      have expressed "dissatisfaction" with the Graduate magazine. An
      earlier draft of the bill, amended by the Senate, would have asked
      the Senate to "condemn" the publication. An editorial in The Daily
      Californian, the university's main student newspaper, said that
      such "meaningless censures" came not our of intelligent consideration
      of an issue, but our of "irrational urgings to punish the progenitor
      of an idea with which one agrees."

      The May issue of the Graduate did contain a response to Schamus's
      original article. The author concluded his piece by calling the April
      issue of the Graduate "simple, unvarnished anti-Semitism in both
      meaning and intent."

      Later in May, Schamus left for a two-month vacation. While he was
      gone, the Graduate Assembly leadership decided by administrative fiat
      to cut the amount of student funds allocated to the Graduate by 55
      percent and to change the accounting rules in such a way that the
      magazine could no longer survive. Schamus resigned, along with his
      editorial and advertising staffs. In an interview with the San
      Francisco Examiner, Schamus said that the series on Begin "directly
      precipitated our silencing." He told the Daily Californian: "This
      whole situation was a plan by student government censors to get rid
      of the magazine and create a new one in its own image next year." The
      chairman of the Graduate Assembly denied any conspiracy. "The Israel
      issue had absolutely nothing to do with it," he said. He
      acknowledged, however, that the controversy over the issue "brought
      up the question of content in the Graduate." The Graduate is today
      little more than a calendar of events that comes out four or five
      times a year.

      Student Editor Under Fire
      Another student newspaper editor who learned to think twice before
      criticizing Israel is John D'Anna, editor of the Arizona Daily
      Wildcat at the University of Arizona in Tucson during the 1982-83
      academic year. In February of 1983, 22-year-old D'Anna wrote an
      editorial entitled "Butcher of Beirut Is Also a War Criminal," in
      which he decried the fact that former Israeli Defense Minister Ariel
      Sharon was permitted to remain a member of the Israeli Cabinet after
      being found "indirectly responsible" for the massacre of Palestinian
      civilians at the Sabra and Shatila camps in Lebanon. If Nazi war
      criminal Klaus Barbie, the infamous "butcher of Lyon" was to be tried
      for his crimes against humanity, asked D'Anna, "shouldn't those
      responsible for the Beirut massacre be tried for theirs?"

      D'Anna was shocked at the reaction to his editorial:

      My grandparents were the only John D'Annas listed in the phone book,
      and they were harassed with late night phone calls. I personally got
      a couple of the type `If we ever catch you alone ' There were threats
      on my life. I also got hate mail. Some of the letters were so
      vitriolic it makes me shudder.
      There followed a series of letters to the newspaper accusing D'Anna
      of "irresponsible polemic," "fanning hatred" and "inciting violence."
      The director of the local B'nai B'rith Hillel Foundation wrote that
      D'Anna's editorial "merely inflames passions, draws conclusions on
      half-truths and misleads."

      The uproar prompted D'Anna to write an apology in a subsequent issue.
      He said that while he stood by his beliefs, "I just wish I had
      expressed those beliefs differently." He agreed with some of his
      critics that it was a bad editorial and that he could have made the
      same points "without arousing passions and without polemic."

      Nevertheless, the day after D'Anna's apology appeared, members of
      twenty local Jewish groups wrote to the university president
      demanding that the Wildcat editor resign or be fired for his "anti-
      Semitic" and "anti-Israel" editorial. If he was not fired by noon the
      following Monday, said the letter, the group would tell Wildcat
      advertisers that the newspaper was "spreading hatred," in the hope
      that the advertisers would cancel their ads. The group's spokesman
      was Edward Tennen, head of the local Jewish Defense League, a group
      founded by Meir Kahane, who advocates the forcible expulsion of Arabs
      from Israel. The JDL is shunned by AIPAC and other Jewish groups.

      When the deadline passed without D'Anna's removal, the group calling
      for a boycott, having dubbed itself "United Zionist Institutions,"
      distributed a letter to local businesses and ad agencies urging them
      to stop supporting the Wildcat's "anti-Semitic editor" and
      his "consciously orchestrated bigotry." Calling D'Anna "an accomplice
      to PLO aims," the letter asked the advertisers to "search your
      consciences and do what you know must be done." D'Anna noted that the
      group's acronym was UZI, the name of the standard issue Israeli
      machine gun.

      Meanwhile, about twenty-five members of local Jewish groups, mostly
      from the campus Hillel organization, attended a meeting of the
      university's Board of Publications during which they confronted
      D'Anna with their complaints. As the former editor recalls it:

      I was on the hot seat for about two hours. And I tried to deal with
      all their questions and they kept demanding that steps be taken. I
      asked them what steps, and they said they wanted a review board. And
      I said `That's fine, you can review anything you want after it comes
      out in the paper,' and they said `No, we want to review it before it
      comes out in the paper,' and I said that was totally unacceptable.
      In the end the boycott effort was ineffective, as only two businesses
      cancelled their advertising. Moreover, D'Anna received firm support
      from the newspaper staff and from the head of the university's
      journalism department, himself Jewish. Yet the former editor recalls
      that the campaign against him had an impact: "It was effective to a
      certain extent. I was gun-shy and it was quite a while before I
      touched any international issue."

      "It Seemed to Be Politics"
      The Hartford Seminary in Hartford, Connecticut, has the oldest
      Islamic studies program in the United States. Beginning in the early
      1970s, the president of the seminary began to receive complaints from
      members of the Hartford Jewish community that the program was anti-
      Jewish. One person said the program was in fact an "al-Fatah support
      group." More recently, Willem A. Bijlefeld, director of the
      seminary's Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim
      Relations, was asked by the local daily Hartford Courant to write a
      piece about PLO leader Yasser Arafat. On New Year's Eve, 1983, the
      day following publication of his article, Bijlefeld received a phone
      call from a man who identified himself only as Jewish. The caller
      said that the seminary had a long tradition of "anti-Jewish
      propaganda" and accused Bijlefeld of supporting "the killing of Jews
      and the destruction of Israel." He then expressed his joy at
      the "extremely painful death" of NBC news anchorwoman Jessica
      Savitch, killed in an automobile accident, which he said was
      a "manifestation of divine justice" since she had "lied" 1982 Israeli
      invasion. The caller said that he was fully confident that this kind
      of punishment awaited "any enemy of Israel." Said Bijlefeld, "The
      implications for me were clear."

      Ostracism is another weapon of the lobby. Eqbal Ahmad is an American
      scholar of Pakistani origin who holds two Ph.D. degrees from
      Princeton University, one in political science and one in Islamic
      studies. He is also a fellow at Washington's Institute for Policy
      Studies, articles published on the op-ed page of the New York Times.
      Ahmad says that as a critic of Israeli policies and a supporter of
      the rights of the Palestinians, he has been ostracized by the
      academic community:

      It is not only the material punishments that people encounter, but
      the extraordinary environment of conformity that is imposed upon you
      and the price in isolation that individuals have to pay for not
      conforming on this issue.
      Ahmad joined the faculty of Cornell University in 1965. "I was a
      young assistant professor, generally liked by my colleagues," recalls
      Ahmad. "And they continued to be very warm and civil to me despite
      the fact that many of them were conservative people and I had already
      become fairly prominent in the anti-Vietnam war movement."

      After the Arab-Israeli war of June 1967, Ahmad made a speech at
      Cornell criticizing Israel's conquest and retention of Arab territory
      and also signed petitions supporting the right of the Palestinians to
      self-determination. Throughout his two remaining years at Cornell,
      says Ahmad, no more than four of the entire faculty spoke to him. "I
      would often sit at the lunch table in the faculty lounge, which is
      generally very crowded, and I would have a table for six to myself."
      Ahmad says that of the four who remained his friends, three were

      The issue is not one of Jew versus gentile. There is a silent
      covenant within the academic community concerning Israel. The
      interesting thing is that the number of prominent Jews who have
      broken the covenant is much larger than the number of gentiles.
      In 1983, Ahmad's name appeared in the B'nai B'rith publication Pro-
      Arab Propaganda in America: Vehicles and Voices. "This they are doing
      to somebody who has not to date received any form of support from an
      Arab government or an Arab organization," says Ahmad. Ahmad says that
      about a quarter of his income comes from speaking engagements, mainly
      university endowed lectures. Since the publication of the B'nai
      B'rith "enemies list," his speaking invitations have dropped by about
      50 percent. "These invitations come from my reputation as an
      objective, independent scholar," says Ahmad. "By putting me under the
      rubric of propagandist they have put into question my position as an
      objective scholar."

      Since Ahmad left Cornell in 1969 he has not been able to obtain a
      regular teaching appointment. He has been a visiting professor at one
      college or another every year. Towards the end of his 1982-83 term at
      Rutgers University College in Newark, New Jersey, he was considered
      for a regular appointment, by at the last minute it fell through.
      Says Ahmad,

      I have been told privately that it was because Zionist professors
      objected to my appointment. The dean was told that I would not get
      the vote of the faculty because accusations had been made that I was
      anti-Semitic and had created an anti-Semitic atmosphere on the campus
      while I was teaching there. All this was told to me in private; I
      have nothing in writing...
      S.C. Whittaker, former chairman of the Political Science Department
      at Rutgers University College and the man who originally hired Ahmad
      as a visiting professor, was away when the question of a full
      professorship for Ahmad came up. "When I got back," said
      Whittaker, "I was told that he'd been a great smash as a teacher and
      that his enrollments were terrific. But when the proposal to have him
      stay on permanently came up, it was shot down, and it seemed to be

      Arab Funding Too Hot to Handle
      In 1977, three of America's most prestigious small colleges,
      Swarthmore, Haverford and Bryn Mawr, proposed to seek funds from a
      private Arab foundation for a joint Middle East studies program. The
      three "sister schools" located in the affluent "mainline" suburbs of
      Philadelphia, already shared a Russian studies program.

      The idea for the joint program originated in conversations between
      college officials and Swarthmore alumnus Willis Armstrong, a former
      assistant secretary of state who had recently become secretary-
      treasurer of the Triad Foundation. The Washington-based foundation
      had been established by wealthy Saudi entrepreneur Adnan Khashoggi to
      finance, in his words, "programs with long-range goals for building
      bridges of understanding between countries." Khashoggi is a
      flamboyant multimillionaire who made his fortune by serving as a
      middleman to foreign companies, including several major defense
      contractors, seeking business in Saudi Arabia.

      The three-year $590,000 program worked out by Armstrong and the
      colleges was exemplary by everyone's account. The plan would provide
      foreign student scholarships to needy Arab students, expand the
      colleges' collections of books and periodicals dealing with the
      Middle East and strengthen existing Middle East-related courses. In
      addition, about one-fourth of the grant would be used to finance a
      rotating professorship. The visiting professors would be used to
      finance a rotating professorship. The visiting professors would teach
      courses on the Middle East and its relation to disciplines including
      anthropology, art history, economics, history, political science and

      "It was as innocuous and rich as a proposal could be," recalled
      Swarthmore Vice-President Kendall Landis five years later. Haverford
      president Stephen Cary had described it at the time as "promising in
      terms of academic enrichment." The program would serve to "raise the
      consciousness of students about the Middle East situation, "
      commented Haverford's associate director of development, John Gilbert.

      Perhaps the most enthusiastic supporter of the plan was Bryn Mawr
      President Harris Wofford. A former Peace Corps director, Wofford was
      known for his long interest in promoting international understanding.
      He called the Middle East studies proposal "a good prospect for
      something we badly want."

      The grant proposal included a guarantee of absolute academic
      freedom. "This was to be done in accordance with the highest academic
      standards," explained Armstrong. "The colleges would choose the
      visiting professors, they'd buy the books and they'd pick out the
      students to whom to give scholarships."

      Moreover, the rotating professorship meant that no one professor
      would be around long enough to develop roots. "We really bent over
      backwards to be completely fair," said Landis. "Jewish professors
      would be employed as well as others."

      "There was never any pressure from Triad in any discussions we had
      with them," said Haverford's Cary, "nor any indication from them that
      it couldn't be a study that would include Israel. So I never had any
      criticism of the Triad Foundation people at all."

      The agreement with Triad was all but concluded by the three colleges.
      All that remained was to present the grant proposal formally to the
      Triad Foundation which, Armstrong assured the college officials,
      would accept it and write out the check.

      Some, however, like Ira Silverman of the American Jewish Committee,
      saw dangers in the plan. Silverman had received a telephone call from
      Swarthmore political science professor James Kurth alerting the AJC
      to the grant proposal. In a confidential memorandum he prepared for
      the AJC's National Committee on Arab Influence in the United States,
      Silverman wrote:

      Professor Kurth, who is not Jewish, believed that the proposed
      program should be of concern to the AJC inasmuch as it would not only
      expand the study of the contemporary Arab world but would explicitly
      seek to bring the Arab political message to those campuses.
      Professor Kurth brought these facts to our attention and asked for
      AJC help in blocking the implementation of the program. We discussed
      the matter and agreed that it would make most sense to try to kill
      the program through quiet, behind-the-scenes talks with college
      officials, before `going public'; and that protests against the
      program need not be based solely or particularly on Jewish opposition
      to Arab influence. Instead, we thought it should be possible to
      generate concern about the program based on its sponsorship by
      Khashoggi and its evident public relations aims, not appropriate for
      colleges of the stature of these three schools.
      Silverman went right to work orchestrating a campaign to discredit
      Khashoggi and Triad:

      I immediately sent Professor Kurth a folder of information on
      Khashoggi, the Triad Corporation and Triad Foundation which was
      compiled by the AJC Trends Analysis Division.
      I also notified the AJC Philadelphia chapter of these developments so
      that they could be in touch with Professor Kurth to assist in getting
      some local Philadelphia Jewish community leaders, alumni of the
      schools or otherwise associated with them, to raise questions about
      the proposed grant."
      The effect of the AJC's efforts to "kill the program" was stunning.
      Using material provided by Silverman, the Swarthmore student
      newspaper, The Phoenix, published an article which falsely stated
      that Khashoggi was "under indictment by a federal grand jury" in
      connection with certain payments to Lockheed. Asked later about the
      role this article played in the controversy, James Platt, who had
      edited the student newspaper, said: "The Phoenix got things out their
      publicly, at least for students and certain alums who probably hadn't
      heard about it beforehand, to make their phone calls and be upset and
      so forth." Where had he gotten this information? He refused to
      say. "I'd prefer to talk to the people first just to make sure they
      have no problem with that. At the time, it was to remain

      Before the Phoenix article appeared, Swarthmore President Theodore
      Friend called a meeting of department representatives to obtain the
      concurrence of faculty on the tentative grant proposal. Some of the
      faculty were reported to have objected to the plan. On the evening
      after the Phoenix article appeared, a petition was circulated in the
      college dining hall calling Khashoggi a "munitions monger" and
      referring to "kickbacks" in the Middle East. The petition, which
      called on the administration to drop the proposal, was signed by 230
      students and faculty. Almost at the same time, the Philadelphia
      Jewish Federation had a letter on the president's desk.

      "Speaking from memory," says one observer close to the Swarthmore
      scene, "it all happened in about eighteen and a half minutes. It was
      like the Great Fear sweeping across France during the French

      On November 3, 1977, articles appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer
      and in another Philadelphia paper, The Evening Bulletin. The latter
      was headlined: "Colleges Hesitate in Scandal." By November 4, the
      student newspaper published jointly by Bryn Mawr and Haverford had
      also published an article detailing both the grant proposal and
      Khashoggi's background. The same issue included an editorial
      entitled "Say No to Triad."

      The Jewish Community Relations Council, the American Jewish Committee
      and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith also issued a joint
      statement: "It is altogether appropriate that the schools should
      seriously question the wisdom of accepting any grant from such a
      tainted source and one which is dominated by a figure like Adnan

      Finally, the Washington office of the AJC put Professor Kurth in
      touch with Congressman James Scheuer, who is Jewish and a Swarthmore
      alumnus. According to Armstrong, Scheuer called President Friend and
      requested the telephone numbers of the members of the college's Board
      of Managers "so he could call them at once and get them to put a stop
      to this outrageous thing."

      Various groups tried to enlist faculty intervention. Harrison Wright,
      a professor of history at Swarthmore, recalled later that there
      were "memos to the whole faculty and to the department chairmen by
      different groups. It was a fairly short but quite sharp exchange of
      different points of view."

      The first of the three colleges to publicly withdraw from the joint
      effort was Haverford. In a prepared statement, Haverford President
      Cary said the college was "grateful to Triad for its willingness to
      consider an application" but "because of Haverford's Quaker
      background it has decided it shouldn't apply for funds derived so
      directly from arms traffic which it deplores."

      Swarthmore's withdrawal followed immediately. President Friend
      announced the college's decision in these words:

      At a time of rigorous financial planning and examination of
      curriculum, our lack of significant existing base in Middle Eastern
      studies at Swarthmore does not in our view warrant what at present
      could only be a temporary experiment.
      Peter Cohan, a leader of student protest against the Triad grant,
      complained later to a Phoenix reporter that the statement "did not
      establish principles, but spoke only to the immediate situation." In
      the same Phoenix article, Swarthmore Vice-President Landis pointed
      out that the decision on the Triad grant was made "amid a whirlwind
      of protest which arose from `more than just Khashoggi.'" According to
      Landis, "There were other concerns within the protest."

      In a letter to the Phoenix, Ben Rockefeller, another student, agreed
      with Landis:

      Jewish students are not disturbed about the Rockefellers' business
      conduct because they aren't truly contesting anybody's business
      conduct: the alleged concern about Mr. Khashoggi's professional
      character is a ruse to conceal an anti-Arab prejudice.
      Only Bryn Mawr continued to pursue the grant. "I think the question
      of judging the source of money is not a simplistic one," said
      President Wofford. Wofford defended the college's decision in an
      article published in the Bryn Mawr/Haverford student newspaper, The
      News, which was on record as opposing the grant:

      No one at Bryn Mawr has suggested that Mr. Khashoggi's record is
      irrelevant or that we don't care about it. We explored that record in
      the three-college discussions last summer and circulated information
      we found. If there is new information we should consider it
      carefully. But of simply saying `No' to Triad, as The News proposes,
      I think we should examine all the facts and together think about the
      issues raised.
      In deciding our next steps, we need to guard against prejudice,
      against misinformation, and against the politics of purely personal
      psychic satisfaction. Wouldn't it be prejudice to accept a donation
      from Lockheed, for example, which was found guilty of improper
      practices, while refusing it from Triad, whose donor (contrary to the
      Swarthmore Phoenix's allegation) has not been indicted let alone
      convicted of anything?
      The Philadelphia Inquirer supported Bryn Mawr's position. In an
      editorial entitled " But Money Has No Smell," the newspaper said it
      did not believe it necessary that Haverford, Swarthmore and Bryn
      Mawr "look with revulsion" at the source of the $590,000 grant. "We
      believe they would do well to follow the counsel of the celebrated
      American philosopher, Woody Allen, and take the money and run." Like
      Wofford, the newspaper pointed out that "quite a few sources of
      donations to higher education would not bear close scrutiny."

      The American Jewish Committee memo notes with satisfaction that,
      though Bryn Mawr pursued the grant proposal, it did so "on a
      substantially reduced scale."

      In fact, Bryn Mawr's request for funds ultimately went unanswered.
      Khashoggi had been badly burned. He gave up the foundation and with
      it the offer to the three colleges.

      Reflecting on the controversy and on Bryn Mawr's decision to stay
      with the proposal, Wofford said: "We were in a relatively strong
      position because that same year we had started a program of inviting
      people who wanted to contribute to Bryn Mawr's Judaic Studies program
      to donate Israel bonds." The Jewish community was pleased by
      this. "In fact," said Wofford, "I was awarded the Eleanor Roosevelt
      award of the Israel Bonds Organization." Asked how he felt about the
      withdrawal of the other colleges, Wofford said,

      We felt sort of run out on by both of them. In the first place they
      publicly withdrew without any real consultation. And secondly, it was
      something we had thought through and it seemed an unfair flap at a
      potential donor.

      In a letter to President Friend, Willis Armstrong said:

      Swarthmore seems to me to have taken leave of its principles and to
      have yielded all too quickly to partisan and xenophobic pressure from
      a group skilled in the manipulation of public opinion. I am at a loss
      to think how the United States can promote peace in the Middle East
      unless we can gain Arab confidence in our understanding and
      objectivity. For a Quaker institution to turn its back on an
      opportunity to contribute to this understanding is profoundly
      Haverford President Cary, like Swarthmore's President Friend, denies
      that his decision to withdraw from the grant proposal was influenced
      by pressures from the Jewish community. Said Cary:

      I did have some letters from some of our Jewish alumnae who thought
      that we should have no part of such a thing. But that had nothing to
      do with my decision.
      Haverford's provost at the time, Tom D'Andrea, assesses the
      importance of Jewish opposition differently:

      One of the big issues, of course, had to do with very strong
      opposition from Jewish organizations. I think a lot of it had to do
      with Arab influence and the whole Middle East situation. But then, of
      course, you get into really serious questions about academic freedom.
      The freedom of expression. Well, one way you can avoid that is to
      find another peg to hang the protest on and the arms one is a little
      cleaner given the Quaker factor.
      In concluding his memo describing the success of the American Jewish
      Committee's efforts to foil the Middle East studies program at the
      three colleges, Ira Silverman wrote:

      Our participation was not widely known on the campuses and not
      reported in the public press, as we wished. This is a good case
      history of how we can be effective in working with colleges to limit
      Arab influence on campuses-although in view of the schools' Quaker
      background and Khashoggi's cloudy reputation as an arms merchant, its
      happy ending is not likely to be replicated easily in other cases.
      Swarthmore, Haverford and Bryn Mawr have done little since the 1977-
      78 events to improve their offerings in a field that has become too
      hot for many colleges to handle.

      Another college about a hundred miles away showed more courage,
      although it too nearly faltered.

      Returning Solicited Gifts
      Georgetown University's Center for Contemporary Arab Studies (CCAS)
      was the first academic program in the United States devoted
      exclusively to the study of the modern Arab world. Established in
      1975, the center is a functional part of the Georgetown University
      School of Foreign Service. As such, CCAS not only offers an academic
      program leading to a master's degree in Arab studies but also
      provides opportunities for students with other international
      interests to learn about the 22 political systems and 170 million
      people in North Africa, the Nile valley, the Fertile Crescent, and
      the Arabian Peninsula.

      Since federal funding for a traditional Middle East center at
      Georgetown had twice been sought and denied, the directors of the new
      center decided early on to seek support from private sources. They
      hoped to obtain about half the needed funds from Arab governments.
      The dean of Georgetown's School of Foreign Service, Peter F. Krogh,
      explained the original plan: "It was our view that we should not play
      favorites among the Arab states and seek support from some but not
      from others. This would then suggest that the academic program would
      also play favorites."

      After obtaining approval for the plan from the university's
      development office and from Georgetown's president at the time, the
      Reverend R.J. Henle, Dean Krogh visited all the Arab embassies and
      missions in Washington. He told them about the center's plans and
      asked for their assistance. "I went to all of them," says
      Krogh, "whether they had diplomatic relations with the United States
      or not, whether they were moderate or radical, whatever their
      stripe." John Ruedy, chairman of the center's program of studies,
      recalls the fund raising philosophy in similar terms: "We were going
      to be sure that we weren't labeled as being in anybody's pocket."

      The first country to contribute was Oman, soon followed by grants
      from Unite Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Then, in May 1977,
      Libya committed $750,000, payable over five years, to endow a
      professorial chair in Arab culture.

      The Libyan gift aroused controversy. According to one faculty member,
      there was "considerable consternation" among faculty, students and
      some administrators and trustees. The protest included a letter to
      the student newspaper, the Georgetown Voice, from columnist Art
      Buchwald. Buchwald calling the gift "blood money from one of the most
      notorious regimes in the world today." But Georgetown's executive
      vice-president for academic affairs, the Reverend Aloysius P. Kelley,
      told the Washington Post at the time that the Libyan
      gift "contributes to the fulfillment of the main purpose of the
      center which is to increase knowledge of the Arab world in the United
      States. Says Dean Krogh, "Libya was responding to the blanket request
      to all Arab countries to take an interest in our work and to help us
      where they could. It was an endowment. They sent the check; we
      deposited it. They never inquired, never asked for an accounting.
      They didn't even ask for a stewardship report." Center Director
      Michael Hudson stressed in press interviews that no conditions were
      attached to the gift regarding who could occupy the chair or what the
      chosen professor could teach. "We don't mix politics and education,"
      Hudson told the Washington Post.

      The next governmental contributors were Jordan, Qatar and Iraq. The
      Iraqi gift of $50,000 came in the spring of 1978. It was an
      unrestricted contribution which the center subsequently decided to
      use to hire a specialist in Islamic ethics.

      In the meantime, Henle had been replaced as president of Georgetown
      by the Reverend Timothy S. Healy. In July of 1978, Healy took the
      unusual step of returning Iraq's $50,000 gift without advising the
      center of his intentions. The official reason given for the action
      was that another donor had come forward to provide funds for the same
      purpose. In his letter to the director general of Iraq's Center for
      Research and Information, Healy wrote:

      I feel obliged in conscience to return to Your Excellency the
      generous check which you have sent us. I hope that in doing this, we
      can continue our conversations and that it will be possible for the
      university to return to the generosity of the Iraqi government in the
      future and ask for a gift for which full credit can be given to the
      government which gave it. I am sure you will understand the delicacy
      of the university's position in this matter.
      But faculty members at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies said
      they did not understand "the delicacy of the university's position."
      Arab Studies Director John Ruedy commented at the time: "Acting as
      agents of the university, we solicited money from Iraq. The president
      of this university returned it without ever seeking our approval. His
      intervention into this is really extraordinary." Dean Krogh told the
      press: "This is the first time we've given back a grant as long as
      I've been here," adding that the issue had been "taken out of my

      According to the Washington Star, both supporters and opponents of
      the Iraqi grant agreed that "decision was politically motivated."
      Ruedy told the Star: "I don't know what other basis there would be
      for refusing the money." CCAS faculty members charged that Father
      Healy's own support for Israel, combined with pressure from the pro-
      Israeli members of the university's community and from influential
      Jewish leaders, led him to return the gift.

      John Ruedy recalls the incident:

      The timing was appalling. We were just shocked. We had been arguing
      with [Healy] over that for a couple of months. He said he didn't like
      it. We knew he was distressed about it. But we thought that we had
      convinced him that he must quietly accept the gift because we had
      asked for it under the mandate given to us by his predecessor.
      According to one member of the CCAS faculty, the center's problems
      really began with the arrival of Healy:

      His whole political socialization regarding the Middle East took
      place within the context of New York City [where Healy grew up]. He
      told us early on that if he had been here in our formative days, we
      wouldn't exist. He was a vulnerable instrument for these people and
      they kept pushing and pushing and pushing. He was under enormous
      Father Healy refused to comment to the press on his decision to
      return the gift, saying that to do so "would only harm the
      institution." The university's executive vice-president for academic
      affairs and provost, the Reverend Aloysius P. Kelley, declined to
      comment directly on whether the university had considered any other
      use for the general purpose grant.

      Despite Healy's return of the Iraqi gift, Georgetown's new Arab
      studies center came under attack. In June 1979 The New Republic, a
      liberal weekly that has become a staunchly pro-Israeli magazine under
      owner Martin Peretz, ran an article by Nicholas Lemann on
      Georgetown's Center for Contemporary Arab Studies insinuating that
      the center was "nothing but a propagandist for the Arabs." Wrote
      Lemann, "Unlike the older Middle Eastern studies centers at other
      universities, the Georgetown center makes no attempt to achieve
      balance by studying Israel along with the Arab nations or by hiring
      Israeli scholars." Center Director Michael Hudson and Dean Krogh
      answered this charge in a reply which was prepared but never

      Since when was it required, for example, that a center for Chinese
      studies study the Soviet Union and employ Soviet scholars The center
      studies the Arabs and it employs scholars recruited through normal
      University Departmental and School procedures which provide for
      appointments without discrimination of any kind. If this country is
      not allowed by particular interest groups to pursue the study of the
      Arabs by the same standards applied to the study of other major
      peoples and cultures, this country's knowledge of, and international
      relations with, a significant group of countries is going to be
      deeply, perhaps tragically, flawed.
      The New Republic article added that the Georgetown Center "is
      constantly charged with violating standards of scholarly objectivity"
      but did not say by whom. Author Lemann referred to the centers
      critics, "who, in the cloak-and-dagger spirit, like to remain

      Hudson and Krogh, in their unpublished reply, wrote:

      Detective Lemann, to his credit, discovers "an informal network of
      people" operating in the "cloak and dagger spirit" who are busy
      trying to embarrass the center in some way. To his discredit, he
      associates himself with this undercover group by borrowing upon these
      anonymous accusations in criticizing an open, legitimately
      constituted academic program. A more worthy approach would have been
      to investigate and reveal the composition, operations, and
      motivations of this "informal network." We think the public should be
      deeply concerned about an underground group which seeks to undermine
      the imparting of knowledge and understanding about the Arab world;
      certainly we would be interested in any findings Mr. Lemann (or his
      publisher, Mr. Martin Peretz) could provide on this question.
      Despite the return of the Iraqi grant, Georgetown continued to
      receive Arab funds, including grants of $1 million each from Kuwait
      and Oman in the fall of 1980. An article in the Washington Post
      reporting the Kuwaiti gift quoted Ira Silverman of the American
      Jewish Committee [and the Swarthmore/Haverford/Bryn Mawr controversy]
      as saying that Georgetown's Arab studies center "has a clearly marked
      pro-Arab, anti-Israel bias in its selection of curriculum material,
      its faculty appointments, and speakers." By accepting money
      from "political sponsors of one point of view," Said Silverman,
      Georgetown might be "selling something very precious to Americans-the
      integrity of its universities."

      Georgetown officials rejected criticism of the Arab gifts, pointing
      out that if it had pro-Arab scholars in the Arab studies center, it
      had pro-Israel scholars elsewhere on its faculty, particularly in its
      Center for Strategic and International Studies.

      Then, in February 1981 President Healy again returned an Arab
      donation which had been solicited and received by the Arab studies
      center. This time it was the grant from Libya received four years
      earlier. Of the $750,000 pledged over five years, $600,000 had been
      received. Healy personally took a check for that amount plus $42,000
      in interest earned, to the Libyan embassy. Healy said Libya's "accent
      on violence as a normal method of international policy and its
      growing support of terrorism made [keeping the money] incompatible
      with everything Georgetown stands for."

      Once again, many doubted the official reason given. As one professor
      in the Arab studies program put it: "If it was strictly an ethical
      judgment, it certainly was a long time in coming." John Ruedy added:

      If you ask around here, you'll probably find nobody in our center who
      approves of the policies of [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein. But we
      have tried to maintain cooperative relationships with the government
      and, to the extent that we can, with the Iraqi people. We think that
      this is our mission. And I feel the same way about Libya. I find
      [Libyan President] Kaddafi very objectionable in most instances. This
      was a gift, as far as I'm concerned, from the Libyan people.
      "This whole thing is something out of the blue," Professor Hisham
      Sharabi told the Washington Post. "It's very strange."

      Dean Peter Krogh opposed returning the money but did not make an
      issue of it. He declined to comment to the press, except to say, "We
      never felt any pressure from the Libyan government" on how the money
      was to be spent. But, he observes: "Deans are deans and presidents
      are presidents. Presidents do pretty much what they please."

      Ira Silverman of the American Jewish Committee was "delighted that
      Georgetown has made this decision." Moreover, the day after the
      return of the Libyan money, the New York City investment firm, Bear,
      Stearns & Co., donated $100,000 to Georgetown. Said senior managing
      partner Alan Greenberg, "We admire them, and this is our little way
      of saying thank you."

      Healy told the Post that in returning the money to Libya, "I was
      under absolutely no heat and pressure, but it worried me. I guess I'm
      just kind of slow to move, but I came to a growing realization that
      what Libya is up to is incompatible with Georgetown."

      In an interview with the Washingtonian magazine, however, he was more
      candid. Originally, he had approved the Libyan gift despite some
      misgivings. He told the magazine the Libyan money "had been a huge
      nuisance and had kept him entangled in a verbal version of the Arab-
      Israeli war." Reported in the Washingtonian:

      His Jewish friends screamed at him privately, and the American Jewish
      Committee issued a statement publicly condemning the university. Even
      his gestures of appeasement and balance-a goodwill trip to Israel, an
      honorary degree for the Israeli ambassador to the United States,
      refusal of a gift from Iraq, wearing a yarmulke at a Jewish service
      on campus-did little to offset the Jewish anger over the Libyan money.
      In fact, pressure on Healy had been intense before his return of the
      Libyan grant. One expression of Jewish anger took the form of a visit
      to Healy's office by a delegation of rabbis. Max Kampelman, an
      influential Jewish member of Georgetown University's Board of
      Trustees, also interceded with Healy directly. As a former ambassador
      to the Helsinki Accords, Kampelman was "a major factor," observes
      Dean Krogh. Former ambassador to the United Nations Arthur Goldberg
      reportedly added his weight to the combined pressure. In addition,
      Healy received, according to John Ruedy, "loads of letters." Another
      Georgetown professor called it "hate mail."

      Indeed, controversy over the Arab studies program largely subsided
      after the return of the Libyan grant. As one professor at the center
      put it, "If returning the Libyan money has brought us some breathing
      space and gotten the monkey off our backs, maybe it was worth it."
      But since then Arab governments have been less forthcoming with
      contributions. Says Ruedy, "We Know that in some cases it has
      specifically to do with a sense of affront. Returning a gift in one
      donor's face is seen as an attack on all of them."

      On the other hand, Georgetown University has now committed itself and
      its won financial resources to Arab studies. In the spring of 1983,
      Arab studies was one of nine graduate programs which the
      university "designated for excellence." "I feel that this may mean we
      have crossed the Rubicon," said Ruedy.

      One reason Georgetown's Arab studies center has been able to survive,
      and even prosper despite the controversy, is that it is affiliated
      with a private university. Says Ruedy,

      You could probably not have an Arab studies program in a public
      institution. You can have a Jewish studies program, of course. In
      fact, that is politically very advantageous Georgetown and the
      Jesuits are as far from dependency on Jewish support as you could be.
      "That Was the Buzzword, `Arab'"
      The second U.S. university to create an Arab studies program,
      Villanova University in Pennsylvania, is also Catholic. In 1983,
      Villanova set up the Institute for Contemporary Arab and Islamic
      Studies. The director, Father Kail Ellis, is an Augustinian priest of
      Lebanese origin. Villanova's is a modest program, involving as yet no
      outside funds, which offers certificates in Arab studies to
      undergraduates majoring in other fields. The institution also
      sponsors conferences, lectures and cultural events. Says Father
      Ellis: "Our goal is to familiarize the students with the history,
      language, politics and culture of the Arab Islamic world."

      Despite the program's modest scope and the absence of Arab funding,
      there was considerable opposition to it from within the university,
      mainly from the political science department. "The pressure wasn't
      really overt as such," says Ellis. "It was always behind the scenes.
      There are a couple of faculty people who were the most vocal against
      it and they organized the opposition."

      The political science department was originally asked to comment on
      the proposal for establishing the institute. In a minority report
      attached to the departments comments, one professor warned about the
      effect of such a program on the Jewish community:

      Villanova exists in a larger community on which it depends for both
      financial and political support. This larger community is made up of
      Protestants, Catholics and Jews and very few Muslims. If Villanova
      creates an Islamic Studies Institute, it will have no effect,
      positive or negative, on its Catholic and Protestant constituencies.
      But because this issue has high emotional content, it will in my view
      have strong negative effects on the Jewish community in the Villanova
      area who though relatively few in number are financially and
      politically influential.
      Such an institute might reflect on Villanova University's president
      in such a way as to affect his ability to function on the Holocaust
      Committee where his efforts have provided great credibility for
      Villanova among the Jewish Committee. It is my opinion that the
      existence of such an institute might dry up possible Jewish financial
      and political support.
      Another professor commented:

      Israel is the single most important United States ally in the Middle
      East politically, it has extensive and close economic and business
      ties with the U.S., it is the cultural and religious homeland of
      millions of Americans. To exclude the study of Israel from the
      proposed program is a mistake and may affect potential enrollment.
      Ellis explains: "The idea was to broaden the program from Arab
      studies. That was the buzzword, `Arab.'"

      Georgetown's John Ruedy was invited to Villanova as a consultant to
      participate in the preparations for the Arab studies proposal. "The
      opposition was very interesting," says Ruedy:

      It was the Zionist issue but nobody said it. I could just tell,
      because I'd been there before. The first line of opposition is on
      academic grounds. But when you get around all these and answer all
      the questions, then they bare their fangs and say, "This is anti-
      Israel, this is anti-Semitic, and it will be against the interests of
      the university. And we have to relate to Jewish donors and so on."
      This is precisely what happened at Villanova.
      After the institute opened, Father Ellis received a letter from
      American Professors for Peace in the Middle East, a national pro-
      Israeli organization. The executive director, George Cohen, took
      issue with a map that appeared in the brochure. The map, clearly
      labeled "The Arab and Islamic World," shows only the Arab countries
      of the Middle East and Africa in dark green and the non-Arab Islamic
      countries, namely, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan in light green.
      Cohen noted that the map did not identify Israel. "Is this an error,"
      he asked, "or is it intended to make a political statement, excluding

      Ellis wrote back that the purpose of the map was to identify the Arab
      and Islamic countries with which the program dealt:

      It was not our intention to make a political statement about Israel,
      or any other country, such as Ethiopia, Cyprus, Mali, Chad or even
      Turkmen, Uzbek and Tajik Republics of the Soviet Union, all of which
      are located in the area and have substantial Moslem populations but
      which were excluded from the map.
      Cohen was not satisfied and wrote another letter, saying he did not
      accept Ellis's response and asking him to "present this issue to your
      department before I take it further."

      Cohen did not specify what measures he might employ in "taking it
      further," and Ellis did not respond to his second letter. Meanwhile
      the Institute for Contemporary Arab and Islamic Studies has continued
      to gain acceptance within the Villanova scholarly community.

      Meanwhile, the attacks against the academic community in Middle East
      studies are, in the view of a leading scholar, continuing
      and "perhaps getting even stronger." He adds, "They are not directed
      just at one or two institutions but appear to have a nationwide

      Think Tank Under Pressure
      Of the many "think tanks" that have sprung up around the country in
      the last two decades, Georgetown University's Center for Strategic
      and International Studies is one of the most prestigious. Established
      in 1965, CSIS has grown to comprise a staff of 150, with a budget of
      $6 million and a publications list of nearly 200 titles. Among the
      eminent names on the Center's roster are Henry Kissinger, Howard K.
      Smith, Lane Kirkland and John Glenn. CSIS is a non-profit, tax-exempt
      organization which, though known to be conservative in outlook,
      includes both Democrats and Republicans on its advisory board.

      Based in Washington, the center views the provision of expert
      research and analysis to government leaders as one of its most vital
      functions. As part of Georgetown University, CSIS considers itself
      an "integral part of the academic community." Scholarly participation
      in all center activities "insures that the widest and most rigorous
      thinking is brought to bear on issues."

      The center, says its brochure, is "well-equipped to function in a
      true interdisciplinary, nonpartisan fashion." Yet, a report completed
      in 1981 by the director of the Oil Field Security Studies Project was
      suppressed on the eve of Congressional action on the sale of AWACS
      planes to Saudi Arabia. Supporters of Israel from outside the center
      were opposed to the sale and did not want the contents of the report
      known because they feared it could be used effectively in winning
      Congressional approval. Six months later, the author of the offending
      study was fired by the center and urged to leave town.

      The victim was Mazher Hameed-a native of Saudi Arabia, a graduate of
      the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a specialist on
      international security affairs. Former U.S. ambassador to Saudi
      Arabia James Akins wrote of Hameed in 1983, "I know of no one else in
      this country with his insight, his honesty, his analytical ability
      and his profound knowledge of the Middle East, particularly the
      Arabian Peninsula." Hameed was hired by the center in November of
      1980 as a research fellow "with responsibilities for research on a
      project on Saudi oil field security." In the letter of appointment,
      CSIS Executive Director Amos Jordan wrote: "This letter also
      constitutes a formal approval of the oil field security project."

      The scope of the project was outlined in a memorandum to Jordan
      prepared a month earlier by Wayne Berman, responsible to Jordan for
      fund raising. That memo stated that the project would focus on the
      political and military analysis of oil field vulnerabilities in the
      Middle East, the likelihood of attacks from various sources, an
      examination of security planning, and technical defense profiles.

      Amos Jordan himself brought up with Hameed the need to evaluate the
      AWACS/F-15 enhancement package before it became an issue on Capitol

      For the next nine months, Hameed carried out his research and wrote a
      series of drafts of a report on his results. These drafts were shown
      to Amos Jordan, who had become vice chairman of the center, and to
      David Abshire, the chairman, as well as to several experts outside
      the center. The final report was to be published by CSIS.

      Jordan told Hameed after reading one of the earlier drafts that his
      work was "brilliant" and that he wanted to see more work for that
      caliber emerging from the center. Abshire concurred with this view.
      Jordan personally gave copies of one of the earlier drafts to William
      Clark, at the time deputy secretary of state and subsequently
      President Reagan's national security advisor. Other Middle East
      experts who praised the report were Anthony Cordesman, international
      editor of the Armed Forces Journal, and William Quandt, director of
      the Energy and National Security Project of the Brookings Institution.

      In August 1981, Abshire and Jordan left together for a trip to Tokyo.
      They took Hameed's final draft with them. Jordan sent back a Telex
      praising the study: "On plane I read Hameed's Saudi se<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.