arab views of protocols

7/27/2019 Arab Views of Protocols

1/4

Arab Views on "The Protocols"Author(s): Bernard Lewis and Abdelwahab M. ElmessiriSource: Foreign Affairs, Vol. 55, No. 3 (Apr., 1977), pp. 641-643Published by: Council on Foreign RelationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20039693.

Accessed: 08/08/2013 11:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Council on Foreign Relationsis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Foreign

Affairs.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 67.115.155.19 on Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:47:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cfrhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20039693?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20039693?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cfr


2/4

COMMENT AND CORRESPONDENCE 641Mr. Davies' China policy recommendations, as contained on the last page ofhis article, invite comparison with those of Jerome Alan Cohen, in your previous

issue. The Davies' recommendations, clear-cut and consistent with the thrust ofhis article, are otherwise supported only by the most spare of comments.Professor Cohen's, on the other hand, are subjected to extended discussionwhich discloses that he is trying to have his China policy both ways.Professor Cohen would have us withdraw recognition from Taiwan in theinterest of normalizing relations with Peking, and substitute a unilateral defensecommitment to Taiwan in place of the 1954 mutual defense treaty ?which wouldbe terminated automatically upon the withdrawal of U.S. recognition of thegovernment of the Republic of China. However, his suggestion of a congressional resolution authorizing in advance any action in defense of Taiwan that

might, at the discretion of the President, prove necessary is entirely too evocative of the Tonkin Gulf resolution of unhappy memory. Moreover, if we hadboth withdrawn our recognition of Taiwan and recognized the Peking regime, itwould be difficult for us to argue that extending a defense guarantee to Taiwandid not constitute a violation of the principle of noninterference in the internalaffairs of China ?to which we committed ourselves in the Shanghai communiqu?.The persuasiveness of John Davies' policy recommendations derives in part ?though only in part ?from the absence of detailed supporting argument, which

might disclose their strengths and weaknesses. He does not, for example,explore the contradiction between interests of the people of Taiwan and thepolicies of the Nationalist government or estimate the chances that Taiwan couldboth gain and maintain a genuinely autonomous status within the People'sRepublic of China. On the other hand he could have, but did not, make a verypersuasive case for his recommendation that we terminate our defense commitment to Taiwan ?which, for practical purposes, extends also to the offshoreislands with their garrisons totaling perhaps seven divisions. (Incidentally, Iwonder what will become of the policy, which the Nixon/Ford Administrationfollowed quietly, of helping Taiwan beef up its own defense capabilities, apparently in preparation for the anticipated termination of the 1954 treaty, which

might be accomplished either by one party giving a year's notice or by joint agreement.)

Edward E. RiceTibur?n, California(Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State

for Far Eastern Affairs)ARAB VIEWS ON THE PROTOCOLSTo the Editor:

In his article entitled The Anti-Zionist Resolution (Foreign Affairs, October1976), Professor Bernard Lewis makes the sweeping allegation that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are universally cited in Arabic literature on Jewishmatters. He also asserts, with regard to the Protocols, that: To my knowledge,its authenticity has never been refuted or even called into question by an Arabwriter. One is hard put to figure out how Professor Lewis arrived at theseconclusions.

The Research Center of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Beirut isamong the leading institutions which publish literature on Jewish matters. Its

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/4

642 FOREIGN AFFAIRSpublications on Judaism and Zionism are many and varied, but none have ever

made reference to the Protocols, except perhaps in derogatory terms. Dr. A.Razzuk's study on the Talmud and Zionism vigorously opposes the conspiratorial view of the Jews and Zionists.

Likewise, the Institute of Palestine Studies in Beirut has never dealt with thistopic nor has it ever engaged in any anti-Jewish diatribes.Dr. A. Al-Attiyeh, Director of the Palestine Research Center in Baghdad,denounced the Protocols on Iraqi television in the spring of 1974, describingthem as of questionable authenticity.Arab Issues, a periodical published in Damascus by Abdelwahab El-Kayyaliwho is a leading figure in the Palestinian resistance movement and a PLO

member, has also published an article in the same vein.The Center of Political and Strategic Studies, which is part of al-AhramPublishing House in Cairo, has never published any anti-Semitic material. Iworked there for four years as Director of the Zionist Ideology Department andmyself authored an article, which appeared in al-Ahram in February 1974, titledThe Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In it I traced the history of the pamphletand specifically pointed out that it is believed to be a forgery. Furthermore, thearticle in question noted that the diversity of the historical experience of theJewish communities in the world disproves the simplistic theory of a grandconspiracy or a world government by the Jews. I also noted that theProtocols presented a view of the Jew as a unique entity, existing outsidehistory, a concept that has much in common with the Zionist ideology. Thisarticle now constitutes the entry under The Protocols of the Elders of Zion inmy Encyclopedia of Zionist Concepts and Terminology: A Critical Review, published bythe Center in February of 1975. The same material was incorporated in mylectures on the economic history of European Jewry, which was published laterin the same year by the Institute of Arab Studies affiliated with the Arab Leaguein Cairo.

All this is to underscore the fact that almost all the Arab institutes engaged inPalestinian, Jewish or Zionist studies hold a negative view of the Protocolsand classify them as among the more objectionable anti-Semitic literature.Professor Lewis' allegations are typical of the derogatory generalizations oneoften comes across in the Western press and in literature from Western sources.Regrettably, any action that tends to disprove such allegations is generallyignored in the Western media of information. Last August in Tripoli, Libya, anumber of papers delivered at an International Symposium on Zionism andRacism strongly denounced anti-Semitism. . . .An American rabbi, highly critical of Israel, called for its expulsion from the U.N... .The credentials of an

Argentinian delegate who praised the Protocols were withdrawn and hisspeech was expunged from the records of the conference. Yet none of this wasreported in the Western press.

Dr. Abdelwahab M. ElmessiriAssistant Professor of Englishand American PoetryAin Shams University, Cairo

Professor Lewis replies:It is encouraging to hear from Dr. Elmessiri that there is now some dissentfrom the long list of presidents, kings, members of governments, party leaders,ideologues, divines, journalists, scholars, and ministries of information, educa



4/4

COMMENT AND CORRESPONDENCE 643tion and culture that have used or endorsed the so-called Protocols of the Eldersof Zion. His comments, however, are sadly revealing of the limits of this dissent.An Iraqi television program, he says, describes the Protocols as of questionable authenticity. He himself, he tells us, has pointed out in an article that theyare believed to be a forgery. If Dr. Elmessiri, writing in English in the pages of

Foreign Affairs, cannot bring himself to say outright that the book is an antiJewish fake, then one may expect the denunciations in Arabic publications tobe even more circumspect.Dr. Elmessiri's article in al-Ahram (February 22, 1974, page 4) confirms thisimpression. The prevailing opinion at the present time, he says, is that theProtocols are a forged document. This cautious formulation is a step forward.

However, some questions remain. Who forged them and what do they represent? Here Dr. Elmessiri is remarkably equivocal. Apart from some ratherambiguous references to the Bolshevik revolution and the German defeat, thereis little indication that the forgers were anti-Jewish and that the Protocols wereused by the Nazis and others to justify racist action against the Jews. On thecontrary, the unwary reader could be left with the impression that if theProtocols were not actually fabricated by Jews, they nevertheless accuratelyreflect the image which the Zionists hold of themselves and desire to project toothers. Here Dr. Elmessiri sketches the theory which he has developed morefully in other writings ? that Zionism and anti-Semitism are the same, thatZionists and anti-Semites are natural allies and collaborators, and thus whetherthe one or the other was responsible for the Protocols really makes very littledifference. As Dr. Elmessiri aptly summarizes his thesis ? Eichmann was a Zionist. By the same reasoning, apartheid is a form of Black nationalism.As I pointed out in my article, some Arab writers are unhappy with theProtocols, not because they are forged, but because they represent a naivelypersonal and conspiratorial and therefore ineffective approach to the problemof Zionism. Dr. Elmessiri has a further concern about the Protocols ? that theyproject a possibly demoralizing image of the Jew as the possessor of immensehidden power. He is ready to consider that they may be a documentary forgery,but insists that they authentically represent Zionist views and aims. The falsity ofthese, he says, is demonstrated by the October War, which showed how baselessis the image of secret Jewish power and organization. In concluding his article

on the Protocols, Dr. Elmessiri observes: We must know our enemy, but wemust not accept his delusions about himself.In a sentence to which Dr. Elmessiri took exception, I said of the Protocols:To my knowledge its authenticity has never been refuted or even called intoquestion by any Arab writer. The first part stands; the second needs modification. Dr. Elmessiri has shown that some Arab writers have indeed called itsauthenticity into question, or rather have shown awareness that others havedone so, though with a curious reluctance to abandon it entirely. There isprogress ?but the careful ambiguity with which this, like some other matters,is presented remains an obstacle to understanding.


arab views of protocols

Documents