Mr. Kadhim responds on The Volokh Conspiracy. His self-defense is not very encouraging.

The reference to the Protocols was not part of the core of the class material. It came about as a result of an un-invited monologue by Ms. Klein, as I was explaining the social of the "Iraqi oaths" for students. I was merely telling the students about the Iraqi conventional wisdom, as opposed to the other side.

As you know, this issue of authenticity and the identity of the author -- or authors -- of the Protocols has not been settled between the Middle Eastern disputants (that is to say, no one said to the other, "you are right.").

The noise between Egypt and Israel about the TV show (A Knight without a Horse) recently is only one good example. The show presented the conventional wisdom which I mentioned. It was not endorsed by the government of Egypt, but by many Arab intellectuals and the masses.

I am not in the business of endorsing one view over the other, at least in that debate that happened in the class.

Being misunderstood is a frequent risk all of us, teachers, have to run. It is interesting however, that in a small room, only one student heard one thing and all other students heard another!!!

Unfortunately for clarity, there are two ways to parse this. The first-- and damning-- way is to conclude that Mr. Kadhim is well aware of the Protocols and has not made his mind up one way or another. Or, to put this another way, to Mr. Kadhim the 'Zionist Jews' may or may not control the Universe. Even more damning-- and not contradicted by the letter-- would be to say that Mr. Kadhim believes that the Jews control the world, but is undecided whether or not the Protocols is a real document. But the letter doesn't prove that either.

The other way-- and the one that provides an escape-- is that Mr. Kadhim mentioned that the authenticity is in doubt between disputants in the Middle East, and that he's not interested in spending class time denouncing the Protocols as a fake. He just wants to teach some Arabic.

On balance, the first reading seems more likely. It doesn't take much effort to take a stand on the Protocols of Zion, yet Mr. Kadhim carefully doesn't do so. Simply to entertain that they may be true demonstrates a worldview where all banking is run by the Jews, etc etc. It seems a lot more likely that Mr. Kadhim is saying 'I have not taken a stand on if the Protocols are true' then 'I have taken a stand against them, but am too busy teaching class to be Mr. Condemn anti-semitism.' If he wrote to put controversy to rest, surely a simple 'I was showing the class about an ongoing debate, but do not believe in the Protocols myself, whatever Ms. Klein may say' would have done so. Instead it's left vague-- almost as if Mr. Kadhim wants to keep his job but doesn't want his friends to read him saying 'I don't believe in the Protocols.'
Email This Post!