Selective Memri
Brian Whitaker investigates whether the `independent' media institute
that translates the Arabic newspapers is quite what it seems
12 August 2002
The Guardian
For some time now, I have been receiving small gifts from a
generous institute in the United States. The gifts are
high-quality translations of articles from Arabic newspapers which
the institute sends to me by email every few days, entirely
free-of-charge.
The emails also go to politicians and academics, as well as to
lots of other journalists. The stories they contain are usually
interesting.
Whenever I get an email from the institute, several of my Guardian
colleagues receive one too and regularly forward their copies to
me -- sometimes with a note suggesting that I might like to check
out the story and write about it.
If the note happens to come from a more senior colleague, I'm left
feeling that I really ought to write about it. One example last
week was a couple of paragraphs translated by the institute, in
which a former doctor in the Iraqi army claimed that Saddam
Hussein had personally given orders to amputate the ears of
military deserters.
The organisation that makes these translations and sends them out
is the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri), based in
Washington but with recently-opened offices in London, Berlin and
Jerusalem.
Its work is subsidised by US taxpayers because as an "independent,
non-partisan, non-profit" organisation, it has tax-deductible
status under American law.
Memri's purpose, according to its website, is to bridge the
language gap between the west -- where few speak Arabic -- and the
Middle East, by "providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi,
and Hebrew media".
Despite these high-minded statements, several things make me
uneasy whenever I'm asked to look at a story circulated by Memri.
First of all, it's a rather mysterious organisation. Its website
does not give the names of any people to contact, not even an
office address.
The reason for this secrecy, according to a former employee, is
that "they don't want suicide bombers walking through the door on
Monday morning" (Washington Times, June 20).
This strikes me as a somewhat over-the-top precaution for an
institute that simply wants to break down east-west language
barriers.
The second thing that makes me uneasy is that the stories selected
by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they
reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way
further the political agenda of Israel. I am not alone in this
unease.
Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations told
the Washington Times: "Memri's intent is to find the worst
possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as
widely as possible."
Memri might, of course, argue that it is seeking to encourage
moderation by highlighting the blatant examples of intolerance and
extremism. But if so, one would expect it -- for the sake of
non-partisanship -- to publicise extremist articles in the Hebrew
media too.
Although Memri claims that it does provide translations from
Hebrew media, I can't recall receiving any.
Evidence from Memri's website also casts doubt on its non-partisan
status. Besides supporting liberal democracy, civil society, and
the free market, the institute also emphasises "the continuing
relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of
Israel".
That is what its website used to say, but the words about Zionism
have now been deleted. The original page, however, can still be
found in internet archives.
The reason for Memri's air of secrecy becomes clearer when we look
at the people behind it. The co-founder and president of Memri,
and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called
Yigal Carmon.
Mr -- or rather, Colonel -- Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli
military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism
adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak
Rabin.
Retrieving another now-deleted page from the archives of Memri's
website also throws up a list of its staff. Of the six people
named, three -- including Col Carmon -- are described as having
worked for Israeli intelligence.
Among the other three, one served in the Israeli army's Northern
Command Ordnance Corps, one has an academic background, and the
sixth is a former stand-up comedian.
Col Carmon's co-founder at Memri is Meyrav Wurmser, who is also
director of the centre for Middle East policy at the
Indianapolis-based Hudson Institute, which bills itself as
"America's premier source of applied research on enduring policy
challenges".
The ubiquitous Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's defence
policy board, recently joined Hudson's board of trustees.
Ms Wurmser is the author of an academic paper entitled Can Israel
Survive Post-Zionism? in which she argues that leftwing Israeli
intellectuals pose "more than a passing threat" to the state of
Israel, undermining its soul and reducing its will for
self-defence.
In addition, Ms Wurmser is a highly qualified, internationally
recognised, inspiring and knowledgeable speaker on the Middle East
whose presence would make any "event, radio or television show a
unique one" -- according to Benador Associates, a public relations
company which touts her services.
Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's
translations but there are other reasons to be concerned about its
output.
The email it circulated last week about Saddam Hussein ordering
people's ears to be cut off was an extract from a longer article
in the pan-Arab newspaper, al-Hayat, by Adil Awadh who claimed to
have first-hand knowledge of it.
It was the sort of tale about Iraqi brutality that newspapers
would happily reprint without checking, especially in the current
atmosphere of war fever. It may well be true, but it needs to be
treated with a little circumspection.
Mr Awadh is not exactly an independent figure. He is, or at least
was, a member of the Iraqi National Accord, an exiled Iraqi
opposition group backed by the US -- and neither al-Hayat nor
Memri mentioned this.
Also, Mr Awadh's allegation first came to light some four years
ago, when he had a strong personal reason for making it. According
to a Washington Post report in 1998, the amputation claim formed
part of his application for political asylum in the United States.
At the time, he was one of six Iraqis under arrest in the US as
suspected terrorists or Iraqi intelligence agents, and he was
trying to show that the Americans had made a mistake.
Earlier this year, Memri scored two significant propaganda
successes against Saudi Arabia. The first was its translation of
an article from al-Riyadh newspaper in which a columnist wrote
that Jews use the blood of Christian or Muslim children in
pastries for the Purim religious festival.
The writer, a university teacher, was apparently relying on an
anti-semitic myth that dates back to the middle ages. What this
demonstrated, more than anything, was the ignorance of many Arabs
-- even those highly educated -- about Judaism and Israel, and
their readiness to believe such ridiculous stories.
But Memri claimed al-Riyadh was a Saudi "government newspaper" --
in fact it's privately owned -- implying that the article had some
form of official approval.
Al-Riyadh's editor said he had not seen the article before
publication because he had been abroad. He apologised without
hesitation and sacked his columnist, but by then the damage had
been done.
Memri's next success came a month later when Saudi Arabia's
ambassador to London wrote a poem entitled The Martyrs -- about a
young woman suicide bomber -- which was published in al-Hayat
newspaper.
Memri sent out translated extracts from the poem, which it
described as "praising suicide bombers". Whether that was the
poem's real message is a matter of interpretation. It could,
perhaps more plausibly, be read as condemning the political
ineffectiveness of Arab leaders, but Memri's interpretation was
reported, almost without question, by the western media.
These incidents involving Saudi Arabia should not be viewed in
isolation. They are part of building a case against the kingdom
and persuading the United States to treat it as an enemy, rather
than an ally.
It's a campaign that the Israeli government and American
neo-conservatives have been pushing since early this year -- one
aspect of which was the bizarre anti-Saudi briefing at the
Pentagon, hosted last month by Richard Perle.
To anyone who reads Arabic newspapers regularly, it should be
obvious that the items highlighted by Memri are those that suit
its agenda and are not representative of the newspapers' content
as a whole.
The danger is that many of the senators, congressmen and "opinion
formers" who don't read Arabic but receive Memri's emails may get
the idea that these extreme examples are not only truly
representative but also reflect the policies of Arab governments.
Memri's Col Carmon seems eager to encourage them in that belief.
In Washington last April, in testimony to the House committee on
international relations, he portrayed the Arab media as part of a
wide-scale system of government-sponsored indoctrination.
"The controlled media of the Arab governments conveys hatred of
the west, and in particular, of the United States," he said.
"Prior to September 11, one could frequently find articles which
openly supported, or even called for, terrorist attacks against
the United States . . .
"The United States is sometimes compared to Nazi Germany,
President Bush to Hitler, Guantanamo to Auschwitz," he said.
In the case of the al-Jazeera satellite channel, he added, "the
overwhelming majority of guests and callers are typically
anti-American and anti-semitic".
Unfortunately, it is on the basis of such sweeping generalisations
that much of American foreign policy is built these days.
As far as relations between the west and the Arab world are
concerned, language is a barrier that perpetuates ignorance and
can easily foster misunderstanding.
All it takes is a small but active group of Israelis to exploit
that barrier for their own ends and start changing western
perceptions of Arabs for the worse.
It is not difficult to see what Arabs might do to counter that. A
group of Arab media companies could get together and publish
translations of articles that more accurately reflect the content
of their newspapers.
It would certainly not be beyond their means. But, as usual, they
may prefer to sit back and grumble about the machinations of
Israeli intelligence veterans.
The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections
and Clarifications column, Wednesday August 21 2002
In an article headed Atrocity stories regain currency, page 13,
August 8, and in an article headed Selective Memri on the Guardian
website, we referred to Dr Adil Awadh, an Iraqi doctor who alleged
that Saddam Hussein had ordered doctors to amputate the ears of
soldiers who deserted. Dr Awadh has asked us to make it clear that
he has no connection with Memri (Middle East Media Research
Institute), and that he did not authorise its translation of parts
of an article by him. He is no longer a member of the Iraqi
National Accord (INA). He is an independent member of the Iraqi
National Congress (INC). His reference to orders by Saddam Hussein
to cut off the ears of deserters has been supported by evidence
from other sources.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002
Reprinted for Fair Use Only.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/MEMRI.html (hypertext)
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/MEMRI.txt (text only)
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/MEMRI.pdf (print ready)