There was quite a load of reaction and controversy over the past two weeks leading up to Daniel Pipes' appearance at Brandeis today. Pipes came at the invitation of the Middle East Forum at Brandeis (MEFAB). Soon after learning of this, members of the Brandeis Muslim Student Association (BMSA) constructed an opposition group - originally dubbed Hate Haters but since renamed the Brandeis Coalition for Tolerance - based around reactions to Pipes' statements over the course of his career. Before analyzing Pipes and the validity of his writings, I must remark that I am thoroughly impressed by the expeditious nature of discourse surrounding the brief appearance of one scholar.To his credit, Pipes fits the description of an accomplished scholar. He holds multiple degrees in history from Harvard, and has taught both there and at the University of Chicago. He has also conducted research for the Departments of State and Defense. Most recently, he was appointed to the board of the United States Institute on Peace (USIP), a government think tank charged with developing non-military solutions to diplomatic problems. However, Pipes' place at the USIP should be highly suspect. USIP directors are nominated by the president, and President Bush nominated Pipes during congressional recess -bypassing the need for Senate confirmation. More important are Pipes' current activities, many of which indicate he does not bring the most peaceful intentions to the diplomatic circuit.

Last month, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed said, "Jews rule the world by proxy."

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice found those comments deplorable, and later said they are not "emblematic of the Muslim world." While she made the proper condemnation, she followed it up with an open-minded statement. Pipes' column in the New York Post on October 26 contained one of many broad assumptions he makes about Muslim culture.

In reaction to both Mahathir and Rice, Pipes wrote, "Mahathir's views are precisely emblematic of current Muslim discourse about Jews - symbolized by the standing ovation his speech received from an all-Muslim audience of leaders representing 57 states." While I found the Malaysian Prime Minister's comments highly inflammatory, Pipes' response is equally disruptive. Pipes claims to have spent his career trying to firmly discern mainstream Islam from fundamentalist Islam, yet that statement is a direct contradiction of his supposed mission in life. I do not claim to be a Middle East scholar, but I do know a poor statement when I see one.

In the past, Pipes' writings have expressed his convictions that the Arab world should openly submit to Western culture. While the Middle East undoubtedly needs serious reform, a sacrifice of authentic culture is hardly the answer; rather it is anathema to peaceful dialogue toward regional civility. He has also written extensively on his unyielding support for Ariel Sharon, practically giving the Israeli Prime Minister carte blanche in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While Yasser Arafat should have his Nobel Peace Prize revoked for his actions, Sharon has also done very little to elucidate a peaceful solution. Sharon claimed to accept the "road map" earlier this year, but then contributed to its destruction with continued campaigns of air strikes and erecting a wall around the West Bank. While Israel is right to defend itself, Sharon's policies reek of apartheid, and Pipes' defense of these actions are precisely why he should not be a director of the USIP.

In August, Slate columnist Christopher Hitchens gave scathing details to that effect, citing a dismissive piece Pipes wrote after the leaders of Iran rescinded their death edict against "The Satanic Verses" author Salman Rushdie. Hitchens rightfully slammed Pipes for interpreting this event as a sham, and for justifying this belief based on quotations collected from Iranian extremists who continued to harbor resentment against Rushdie.

Hitchens also sharply criticized Pipes for attempting to distort the ethnic origins of the late Prof. Edward Said of Columbia University. Said, whose family left Palestine in 1947 before Israel was established, was sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, but his views advocating mutual respect between Israelis and Palestinians were hardly controversial. Yet, Pipes once had the audacity to claim that Said was never a Palestinian emigre; this is a heinous act of libel.

One reason Pipes earned the prominence to join the board of the USIP stems from his organizations. In addition to espousing his diatribes in the Post, Pipes is the founder and director of the Middle East Forum (MEF) of which our MEFAB is the local outlet. MEF is a research organization that openly states that it seeks to advance American interests in the Middle East. The MEF list of "experts" is an assortment of pundits with views nearly as hawkish as its director. Among the "experts" are William Kristol, the Weekly Standard editor, and Martin Kramer, another Middle East scholar who has made a career of criticizing Middle East studies. It should be noted that Kramer taught at Brandeis in the spring of 2002. If excessive American interests are part of the reason why the Middle East is such a hotbed of turmoil, further promoting them seems hardly analogous with creating a peaceful situation.

An outgrowth of the MEF is Campus Watch, a project that monitors and critiques Middle East studies at American colleges. Not surprisingly, Brandeis - more specifically our department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies - is featured on the Campus Watch Web site. This project of Pipes' has turned heads in the past, most on the basis of outrage over an organization such as the MEF trying to dictate what is taught in our universities.

However, Campus Watch does have some endorsements from a smattering of professors, including Prof. Jonathan Sarna (NEJS).

"Campus Watch provides much needed balance to a field besmirched by politics masquerading as scholarship. Its revelations should serve as a wake-up call to everyone truly concerned about the study of the Middle East in the American academy," the Web site quotes from Sarna.

Whatever Pipes says today, I suspect it will not deviate from his typical assertions. Discourse is vital in political affairs, especially one as delicate as the Middle East, but Daniel Pipes does not hold the answer to that region's problems. Now that he is a high-level policy maker, Pipes has serious credibility, and this is very unfortunate. Based on the results of policies enacted thus far by the Bush administration and Ariel Sharon, another right-wing ideologue in the mix is the last thing the peace process needs.