Center for Monitoring the
Impact of Peace: Correspondence
On 27 October 2002, the Center for
Monitoring the Impact of Peace sent a letter to Peter Hansen, the
Commissioner-General of UNRWA, criticizing my work. The letter was posted on CMIP’s
website and copies were sent to several officials in Europe and the
United States.
I felt that the letter
went beyond the bounds of fair debate by introducing a completely false (and
indeed, quite hypocritical) charge. I
responded with an e-mail message, which began an exchange with CMIP. The complete record of the exchange is posted
below.
Nathan J. Brown to CMIP, 5 November
2002:
Last week, you
posted the following statement on your website in a letter to Peter Hansen:
"The second
academic, to whom you refer, Professor Nathan Brown, has made general and
unsupported allegations that CMIP reports are 'tendentious and highly
misleading'. The nature of our reports, a maximum of direct quotations and a
minimum of commentary and interpretation, affords him ample opportunity to
illustrate and substantiate his contentions. This he steadfastly refuses to do,
notwithstanding that he has been effectively challenged to do so."
The statement
comes as quite a shock because I have posted information on my website
documenting:
·
1 instance in which CMIP has supplied information about its
funding that is contrary to the report of a highly reputable Jewish
philanthropy in the US;
·
1 instance in which CMIP has doctored one of its own
documents to remove the name of its former director of research as author (as
part of a larger attempt to pretend he had only a small role in the
organization);
·
16 misleading statements (that is, statements that
are designed to lead the reader to a false conclusion);
·
14 totally false statements;
·
3 highly dubious and undocumented claims;
·
3 demonstrably false statements about my work;
·
2 instances of CMIP denying its own statements;
and
·
2 general and unsubstantiated attacks on my motives.
(See: http://www.geocities.com/nathanbrown1/Response_CMIP.htm)
Allow me to add that this is a partial list. There is more that I
would be happy to document if you would wish.
For instance, I am aware of one instance in which an Israeli
academic published selections from your reports in an academic journal without
crediting CMIP. The article in question made a major factual
error, claiming the old Jordanian and Egyptian books were authored by the
PA. (The CMIP reports left this impression on virtually all readers,
leading to frequent misstatements in public, as I have documented.) On
this occasion, CMIP contacted the editor of the journal to complain about the
failure to credit CMIP but made no effort to correct the basic factual
error underlying the entire article. In short, CMIP made not the
slightest attempt to correct the misimpressions it had created; it merely
wanted credit for them. The information for my claim was supplied
by the editor of the journal in question.
If you disagree with any of these claims, please feel free to
tell me why. But do not tell me that I have refused to
respond.
Since one document on your website refers to the information in
the bulleted points above but does not respond to any of it, it is clear
to me that you know that I have illustrated and substantiated my
conclusions. Even if you were not convinced by my responses, your
claim that I have "refused" to respond is completely and knowingly
false. It is you who have refused to respond to me.
I
would therefore request that you do the following:
·
remove the letter to Mr. Hansen from your website immediately;
·
write a letter of correction to all the officials who received
copies of the letter, explaining that I have supplied the information in
question and it is available on my website;
·
if you remain unpersuaded by my claims, explain precisely
why--and, more important, include a link on your website to my own
response so that readers can judge for themselves. If--as you imply--my
response is lacking, that will be clear to all. I suspect most people will come
to the precise opposite conclusion: your work is simply not reliable.
The Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace responded on 7
November 2002:
We are in receipt of your communication of the 5th
November, in which you take exception to a passage in a letter we sent to Peter
Hansen, Commissioner-General of UNWRA, as part of an exchange of letters
relating to the propriety of UNWRA participating in the provision of education
in accordance with the Palestinian Authority’s new textbooks, introduced in
school years 2000 and 2001.
The UNWRA website, in “Myths And Facts”, refers to your
statements regarding these new textbooks, which are the textbooks covered by
our report “Jews, Israel and Peace in Palestinian School Textbooks 2000-2001
and 2001-2002” published in November 2001, as set out in the bibliography at
the end thereof. We wrote to the Commissioner-General drawing his attention to
quotations from the new textbooks, contained in our said report, which were at
variance with the seven statements attributed to you. In reply we were informed
that UNWRA believes that the website accurately reflects the nature of the
Palestinian Authority’s new textbooks to quote from objective, respected
academics such as yourself who have studied the books.
Since UNWRA saw fit to disregard the
quotations to which we drew its attention on the basis of your statements
regarding the new textbooks and presumably in reliance on your allegation,
quoted on their website, that our work is “tendentious and highly misleading”,
our response was that you have as yet not illustrated or substantiated this.
Indeed, as far as we can see, of the
some 270 quotations from the textbooks in our report you have in fact
specifically referred to one only, namely that on page 12 from National
Education, Grade 7, p.22 (Homework), where you claim that by exaggerating the
pejorative nature of a word in Arabic we have created an impression of
anti-Semitism that is absent in the original. We are satisfied that our
translation is correct and that your criticism is misplaced and nothing more
than mere carping. We find support for our view in Hans Wehr, A Dictionary of
Modern Written Arabic, ed. J Milton Cowan, 3rd edition, SLS Inc.
Ithaca, New York, p.569 (greed, greediness, avidity, covetousness; ambitious
desire, ambition: object of desire). We
are more than happy to leave it to those with expert proficiency in Arabic to
decide which translation more faithfully conveys the original.
If you would care to relate any of your
other allegations of misleading and false statements and dubious and
undocumented claims specifically to any part or parts of our above-mentioned
report on the new textbooks, we shall be happy to respond. Until then it does
seem to us that the passage in our letter referred to above does accurately
reflect the situation.
The only other point, which is not
really germane to the subject matter of this letter, but should be addressed
because of its implications for the integrity of CMIP, is your allegation that
CMIP has misled journalists on the sources of its funding. The fact that this
misleading appeared to you to be for no apparent reason should have led you to
the obvious, and innocent, explanation that at the time of the interview the
information given was correct, but subsequently a supplementary source of
financing was found.
I wrote to you on 4 November 2002, complaining that you
had posted a false statement about me on your website and sent it to
several American and European officials. You had claimed in a letter to
Peter Hansen that I had made “general and unsupported”
claims that your reports were “tendentious and highly
misleading.” You further claimed that I “steadfastly refuse” to provide
illustrations or substantiation.
In my reply, I pointed out that this statement
was completely at variance with the record and that you knew this to be
the case. My claims are highly specific and well documented. I
pointed out that I had substantiated (without receiving any response from you):
§
1 instance in which CMIP has supplied information about its
funding that is contrary to the report of a highly reputable Jewish
philanthropy in the US;
§
1 instance in which CMIP has doctored one of its own
documents to remove the name of its former director of research as author (as
part of a larger attempt to pretend he had only a small role in the
organization);
§
misleading statements (that is, statements that are
designed to lead the reader to a false conclusion);
§
14 totally false statements;
§
3 highly dubious and undocumented claims;
§
3 demonstrably false statements about my work;
§
2 instances of CMIP denying its own statements;
and
§
2 general and unsubstantiated attacks on my motives
And my reply noted one additional instance (I can provide others)
in which CMIP took pains to take credit when its reports were used to claims
that CMIP knew to be false.
On 7 November 2002, I received your reply to my complaint.
Unfortunately, the response largely consists of a new series of demonstrably
false statements.
First, your reply attempts to make the case that only your
2001 report is at issue, and that you only meant that I had not substantiated
my criticisms with regard to that specific report. But that is
directly contradicted by your own earlier words. Your original
statement attempted to defend your reports in the plural, used the word “general”
to refer to my criticisms and made utterly no mention of the
2001 report. Your original statement
stated that I have “made general and unsupported allegations that CMIP reports
are ‘tendentious and highly misleading’. The nature of our reports, a maximum
of direct quotations and a minimum of commentary and interpretation, affords
him ample opportunity to illustrate and substantiate his contentions. This he
steadfastly refuses to do, notwithstanding that he has been effectively
challenged to do so.”
Second, you explain your refusal to respond to any of my
criticisms on the strange and unexplained grounds that they do not apply to
your 2001 report. Specifically, you
state, “If you would care to relate any of your other allegations of misleading
and false statements and dubious and undocumented claims specifically to any
part or parts of our above-mentioned report on the new textbooks, we shall be
happy to respond. Until then it does seem to us that the passage in our letter
referred to above does accurately reflect the situation.”
If you refuse to answer any criticism unless it is directed to
your 2001 report, then it is you who are refusing to reply to me—steadfastly
so, in fact—not the other way around. So
the passage in your letter in which you claim otherwise is false. And you might want to explain your utter
silence on the numerous errors, inconsistencies, personal attacks, and
misleading statements I have pointed to.
Your reply goes on to make two more problematic statements. First you select one of my criticisms that is
directed against the 2001 report (though not the only one) and attempt to
refute it. The issue dealt with a
passage in which the word “atma‘” was used. Your defense is that the word does refer to
greed. But that is irrelevant to my
criticism, which noted that the word had “covetous overtones.” The meaning of the word was not at issue;
what I criticized was your use of an adjective to modify the noun (when a
single word that combined the adjective and noun would have been more
appropriate), and your attempt to claim that the adjective modified the
word “Jews” which it did not.
If this were your most misleading statement, however, I would
never have criticized your work.
Unfortunately, however, there is a larger pattern of far more
serious misrepresentations and falsehoods in your work—and I have given
dozens of documented examples. For
example, I have shown instances in which you have claimed not to have said
things that you yourselves have posted on your web site, discrepancies in your
accounts of your own history as an organization, and even an occasion in which
you have doctored one of your own documents in an attempt to erase your former
director from your history as an organization.
Let me cite one example of a dubious claim that concerns me
personally. I wrote that after
1994, Israel allowed uncensored Jordanian books to be circulated in East
Jerusalem. Your reply was that Israel
circulated only censored books, and added sarcastically, “since this fact is
well-known amongst researchers, it is puzzling that the information has eluded
Professor Brown.” Might I trouble you to
name the researchers who support your position that Israel never—even after
1994--allowed the uncensored books? And
if you cannot name a single one, might I trouble you to apologize for your
sarcasm and to post the apology in the same location you posted your original
claim?
Your reply ends by finally conceding that one of my dozens of
criticisms—regarding CMIP’s false statement about its funding—needs attention
because of “its implications for the integrity of CMIP.” It is unclear to me why you believe this is
the only issue that involves CMIP’s integrity. I described the issue as
“at best tangential” and could point to far more consequential instances
of intellectual dishonesty. But since
you have selected it for special attention, I will respond.
I pointed out that CMIP had claimed that “Andre Marcus paid for
“its $100,000 annual budget almost entirely by himself,” but that the Jewish
Communal Fund reported granting the organization one-quarter of
that budge--$25,000--in 2000-2001.
I was confused by CMIP’s statement—I could think of no reason not to
point to the support of a highly reputable philanthropy.
CMIP now offers what it calls an “obvious” and “innocent” explanation:
CMIP was financed “almost entirely” by Marcus but then later obtained
other support: “at the time of the interview the information given was correct,
but subsequently a supplementary source of financing was found.” The
problem is that the explanation is neither obvious nor innocent.
First, it is not obvious because of a discrepancy with regard to
timing: CMIP’s statement came in January 2002 in an interview with Marc
Pearlman, a journalist with the Forward.
The Jewish Communal Fund reports having granted CMIP $25,000 in the
fiscal year ending June 30, 2001. (It
reports having granted $76,000 in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002,
presumably a good part of it before the Forward interview). This is why CMIP’s explanation did not seem
so obvious to me.
Second, the explanation is not “innocent.” If CMIP’s statement is accurate, then a major
and esteemed Jewish philanthropy has filed false information with the Attorney
General of the State of New York. If
CMIP really wishes to claim that no significant funds arrived from the Jewish
Communal Fund prior to the Forward interview, the matter is of some
legal consequence.
In conclusion, allow me to reiterate my earlier requests to:
§
remove the letter to Mr. Hansen from your website immediately;
§
write a letter of correction to all the officials who received
copies of the letter, explaining that I have supplied the information in
question and it is available on my website;
§
if you remain unpersuaded by my claims, explain precisely
why—and, more important, include a link on your website to my own response so
that readers can judge for themselves. If—as you imply—my response is lacking,
that will be clear to all. I suspect most people will come to the precise
opposite conclusion: your work is simply not reliable.
Allow me also to note that a portion of this third request has
been met (you have posted my message which includes the url for a portion of my
website, though I would greatly prefer an actual link). You have not met—or even responded to—the
other requests.
On 19 November
2002, I received the following reply from CMIP:
We have received your communication of the 13th
November and note with interest that, although challenged to substantiate and
illustrate your allegations of misleading and false statements and dubious and
undocumented claims by specifically relating them to any part of parts of our
report on the new textbooks, you have chosen, yet again, to have recourse to
extraneous matters including superseded reports.
As we have already made clear, our correspondence with UNWRA
relates only to the new Palestinian textbooks. UNWRA, on its website, has seen
fit to deny “the myth” that “UNWRA schools and textbooks teach hatred of
Israel”, by basing itself on statements made by you concerning the Palestinian
Authority’s new textbooks and on your criticism that our work is “tendentious
and highly misleading”. In reply to our letter drawing the Commissioner
General’s attention to quotations from these textbooks that are inconsistent
with these statements UNWRA reaffirmed its position. Our contention, that your
allegations that our reports are tendentious and highly misleading are general
and unsupported, is clearly within the context of this correspondence with UNWRA,
as is immediately obvious to any fair-minded reader of it. This is the issue
with which we are concerned, and from which you seem so intent on sidetracking
this exchange of communications.
The methodology in all our reports, those
relating to the Syrian and Israeli textbooks as well as the 2001 report on the
Palestinian textbooks, is such as to afford you - and other critics - ample
opportunity to illustrate and substantiate your allegations. We are still
waiting for you to do so and it is to be hoped that such specific criticisms as
you have to make will be of a somewhat higher order than your quibble over
whether a particular word in Arabic is to be translated into English by one or
two words and whether “greedy ambitions of the Jews” is a roundabout way of
saying “ambitions of the greedy Jews” (hypallage of epithet). Until then your
continued silence speaks far more loudly than all your protestations.
My reply to CMIP:
CMIP’s
reply is simply incorrect in its claim that “any fair-minded reader” would
understand that CMIP’s charges involve only the 2001 report. Indeed, there is virtually no way the
statement can be construed in such a way.
First, my criticism that CMIP’s work is “tendentious and highly
misleading” was made before CMIP issued its 2001 report and could hardly have
referred specifically to it. Second,
UNRWA’s letter to CMIP made no specific mention of the 2001 report. Third, CMIP’s response to UNRWA—which I took
issue with—made clear that my criticisms were directed against CMIP’s reports
(in the plural).
CMIP
is also misleading in its claim that all its other material is
“superseded.” In fact, the reports are
still posted on its website and still lead those who read them to draw false
conclusions—conclusions which CMIP eagerly takes credit for and makes no effort
to correct. And when I criticized those
reports, CMIP defended them rather vociferously (though not particularly
honestly).
If
CMIP really wishes to disassociate itself with its previous work, it should do
so openly.
With
regard to the 2001 report, I have said that I welcome one notable improvement
in method (when compared with other CMIP work): it stopped the practice of
mixing older material (authored in Jordan and Egypt) with newer,
Palestinian-authored material without clearly labeling the different. I did make other criticisms of the report,
however, which have not drawn any response from CMIP. And this one improvement, though significant,
has been recently abandoned in CMIP’s latest 2002 report.
Finally,
with regard to the translation issue:
once more, I do agree that this is minor compared with some of the other
errors and misleading statements and techniques in the reports. But the simple fact is that CMIP transformed
a reference to Zionism with pejorative overtones into an anti-Semitic slur by
sleight of hand. I do not regard this as
simply a quibble.
The
only positive element I can find in the reply is that it taught me a new word,
“hypallage,” for which I had to consult a dictionary. But it turns out to fit precisely.
CMIP’s reply, posted on its website in late November 2002:
Professor Brown seems to believe that if something is repeated a
sufficient number of times it somehow becomes true. First, it is interesting to
learn from him that the support derived by UNWRA for its defense of the new
Palestinian textbooks is based on criticisms made by him before our 2001 report
on them was issued. It is surprising that he has not seen fit to draw the
attention of UNWRA to this so that its website could be corrected.
Secondly, since the whole correspondence with UNWRA originated
out of its website which specifically refers to the "Palestinian
Authority's new textbooks introduced in 2000 and 2001", the agency's
letter to CMIP did not need to make specific mention of the 2001 report, which
is the only report which deals with them. Its letter could not refer to
anything else. The mere fact that Professor Brown feels the need to raise such
an argument is further indication that he has no real substantive argument
against the contents of this report.
Thirdly, Professor Brown's criticisms may well have been against
our reports (in plural), but that has never been the issue, which is whether he
can impugn the 2001 report. As far as we can see his criticism of that report
is restricted to what we regard to be a quibble over translation - and those
conversant with the Arabic language will be able to decide for themselves which
of us is correct - and to the question of the legitimacy our report ascribing
to a textbook the views expressed in another book to which it refers the
pupils.
In conclusion, Professor Brown has been repeatedly challenged to
point to misleading and false statements and dubious and undocumented claims in
our 2001 report. This he has not done. The facts speak - rather loudly - for
themselves.
My reply to CMIP, 2 December 2002:
This
is probably the most frustrating exchange I have ever been engaged in because
my interlocutor is so rich in chutzpa but totally bereft of elementary
honesty.
First,
let me stress once more that this entire exchange began when CMIP posted a
letter stating that I had not substantiated my claims about its reports (in the
plural) and that I had been challenged to document them but failed. This was an utter and complete falsehood, and
I asked CMIP to withdraw the charge. I
have pointed out repeatedly that I have documented every single one of my
statements and that it is CMIP thas has failed to respond. CMIP has yet to cite even one
statement of mine that is not documented, yet the organization repeats their
charge ad nauseum.
Second,
CMIP is simply not telling the truth when it claims that UNRWA was referring to
their 2001 report. In CMIP’s entire
correspondence with UNRWA, the 2001 report was not mentioned once by either
side. Once again, if the correspondence
was referring only to the 2001 report, why did CMIP refer to reports in the plural
(indeed, it did so twice)? What is at
issue is CMIP’s credibility as an organization, especially its methodology and
truthfulness. UNRWA’s statement
questions CMIP’s general reliability, and quotes me (with my permission and
approval) in that regard. UNRWA seems to
have taken the quite sensible position (perhaps more sensible than mine) that
it is simply not worth entering into detailed dialogue with such a mendacious
party.
Third,
it is simply false to say that CMIP’s 2001 report is the only one that covered
the new books. CMIP has published other reports and material that make mention
of the new Palestinian books; its 2000 report (the most recent when I wrote my
paper last year) is still widely circulated.
I am glad to see that CMIP has finally taken that horrid document off
its website, but it has done so without repudiating it. And other shameful materials remain. My own paper paper simply could not have
referred to CMIP’s 2001 report because it was written before that report came
out—which CMIP knew but still had the audacity to criticize for not mentioning
it! CMIP’s criticism of that paper—in a
rejoinder filled with repeated and easily documented falsehoods—is still posted
on its website. CMIP’s attempt to
restrict all discussion to its 2001 report is a clear attempt to divert
attention from its ugly record of calumny and distortion. If CMIP would remove all the offensive
material from its website and present only its 2001 report as indicative of its
views, I would be happy to update my evaluation of its work by providing a
detailed assessment of that document.
Fourth,
CMIP’s claim that “Professor Brown's criticisms may well have been against our
reports (in plural), but that has never been the issue…” is utterly false. Those criticisms—and CMIP’s charge that they
are undocumented--remain precisely the issue, because CMIP has made them the
issue by posting. the charge on its
website and sending it to numerous European, UN, and American officials. It is unclear to me why CMIP believes it can
smear people and then, when challenged, claim that the smear is not at issue.
CMIP
has simply lied repeatedly—about its finances, its origins, its own reports,
and a whole host of other matters. The
organization is even unable to quote its own words honestly! Its general technique seems to be to mislead
people and, when caught, throw up a large number of falsehoods, personal
attacks, and confusing statements in order to divert attention from its
dreadful record. It has followed this
path with the Palestinian textbooks, UNRWA, the EU, and now me. All of this is richly documented elsewhere on
this (and CMIP’s own) website.
I
have finally tired of CMIP’s dishonesty and decided to confront it. If, in the process, I have made any error, I
welcome a correction. If such an error
is documented, I will acknowledge it and apologize to any affected party.
If
CMIP were to adopt a similar policy, it would find its staff occupied with
writing apologies for quite some time.
POSTSCRIPT: Message from Nathan J. Brown to CMIP, 30
November 2002
In order to resolve the clear contradiction between the
information you have publicly posted and that reported by the Jewish Communal
Fund, I contacted the Fund's Executive Vice President. In a personal
communication, she confirmed the accuracy of the information in their annual
reports.
As you have said, the matter does have implications for the
integrity of CMIP. I wonder if you might therefore double-check your
records to see whether your are absolutely certain regarding your account,
because the inescapable implication would be that the Jewish Communal Fund is
filing false reports with the Attorney General of New York State.
If it turns out that it is CMIP that has been in
error on the matter, you might want to consider posting an apology
for your earlier sarcastic response to me on your website. You might also
wish to explain to the Jewish Communal Fund why you accepted over $100,000 from
them--a good portion before CMIP's statement to the Forward--and
then did not tell the truth about it. And finally, you might contact the Forward
and explain that you misled them as well.
An alternative that would satisfy me would be to simply remove the
entire correspondence from your website, starting with your letter to
UNRWA. That would have the added benefit of retracting all the other
problematic statements you have made.
[Return to Nathan J. Brown homepage]