An article in the Arts & Ideas section of today's New York Times masquerades as an even-handed look at a dispute among scholars of Islam, but is really a nasty, one-sided smear against Martin Kramer, the editor of the Middle East Quarterly. And against the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which published a recent book by Mr. Kramer.
The Times article quotes John Esposito, who is identified as "a leading American scholar of Islam and the founder of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University," as saying, "If you look at Martin's own profile, and that of his publisher -- which are not primarily concerned with what is best for America -- it's clear that there is an agenda here, which is to discredit the entire Middle East establishment."
If Mr. Kramer and his publisher, the Washington Institute, are "not primarily concerned with what is best for America," what are they primarily concerned with?
The paragraph that precedes the "best for America" quote in the Times notes helpfully that the Washington Institute is "a group that has close relations with Israel," and that Mr. Kramer once served as the director of an academic center in Tel Aviv. At this point, you don't have to be an anti-Semite or a Jew paranoid about anti-Semitism to get the sense that Mr. Esposito, with the help of the Times, is invoking the old dual loyalty canard, the idea that American Jews are somehow less than patriotic Americans and are in fact loyal to Israel before being loyal to America. The Washington Institute, after all, has close relations with Turkey and with the U.S. State Department, as well, but it is only the relations with Israel that the Times sees fit to mention.
It is nasty enough for the Times to collaborate with Mr. Esposito in making this charge. One could argue that the Times is right to print it because it is newsworthy that someone in Mr. Esposito's position would make such a disgusting and false charge. But what's really inexcusable is that neither Mr. Kramer nor the Washington Institute is given a chance to defend against this accusation. Nor is there a follow-up question to Mr. Esposito: There's no sign that the Times reporter said to Mr. Esposito, "Gee, you say that Mr. Kramer and the Washington Institute are not primarily concerned with what is best for America. Who do you think they are concerned with what is best for, and what do you base that assessment on?"
The Times drops the ball on this story in other ways, too. The affiliations of Mr. Kramer and his publisher are probed. But left totally unexamined are Mr. Esposito and his center at Georgetown, as well as a professor from the Middle East Institute at Columbia University, who is also quoted in the article. If the Times is going to get into the fact that Mr. Kramer's publisher has "close relations with Israel," why not also mention the fact that Mr. Esposito's center was funded by Hasib Sabbagh, who made his fortune in construction in a variety of Arab anti-Israel dictatorships? Or that Mr. Esposito's university marked the 50th anniversary of Israel's founding with a lecture series called "Palestine: 50 Years of Occupation." (The West Bank and Gaza only were "occupied" in 1967, so the program seemed to reject even the very existence of Israel.) One speaker in that 1998 Georgetown lecture series referred to the Holocaust as "Jewish propaganda," Seth Gitell reported in the Forward newspaper at the time. Georgetown University was also the venue for a February 24, 1998, speech by the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Nihad Awad, at which Mr. Awad stated, "who of [Clinton's] advisers ... is opposing the latest agreement with Iraq? Look at their last names. Look at their ethnic, their ethnic or religious or racial background."
No wonder the main Web page of Mr. Esposito's "Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding" refers those seeking "more information on Muslim communities and organizations in the United States" to none other than the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Looks like the Times and Mr. Esposito are taking Mr. Awad's advice.