A longtime reader and friend of The Claremont Conservative directed me to this rather curious aspect of Frangieh’s character -- his willingness to see others die so that his cause might survive. S/he asked that her/his name be withheld, but writes to me earlier this week.
One of the most loathsome aspects of the writings you’ve published is Frangieh’s romanticizing of violence. In one passage he says that many thousands of Muslim martyrs will have to perish for Palestine to be rid of the state of Israel. There are several things to say about this - one of them is the deep cowardice it reveals in him. Others must die in the cause he loves - not himself. The deaths he prescribes must take place several thousand miles away from his sorry ass. And the others to whom he suggests this strategy are not even of his communion: they are Muslims, not Arab Christians, and this fact seems to make the sacrifice of their lives an even more satisfactory solution to him. He does not volunteer himself, or suggest that his fellow Christian Arabs should join them on their march toward martyrdom. This strikes me as a kind of faux-aristocratic cowardice - encouraging the rabble to blow themselves up, and take as many Jewish women and children with them as they can.
But this is just a personal quirk of his. Many fine scholars with tenure are personally loathsome, have fantasies of killing Jews, and are unfortunately married to wives who are even more anti-semitic than themselves (you see I have had much experience of academic life). What is really remarkable is that someone with such an attachment to exclusively violent solutions for international problems should be entrusted with the education of America’s diplomats. Don’t you think that it would be interesting to make this argument to the Administration and alumni? [Emphasis mine]
In any event, my friend couldn’t have know about it for I had yet to release the translation but Frangieh in that “exclusive interview” on May 26, 2006 seems to have articulated other pro-violence views through the prism of class resentment. For those wondering as to my sources, here it is, in its original Arabic.
The interviewer asks him very simply how his childhood was and here’s what he responds:
A: I don’t know what to tell you. There’s nothing in my childhood that is enjoyable to hear about. My childhood was not different from that of any Palestinian child refugee—living in camps, etc. Now the well-off Palestinians didn’t go to the camps. They went to other places and lived privileged lives, and sent their children to American universities in Cairo and Beirut and other capitols, as well as to Americaand Europe, to study in ancient universities. They essentially constituted the educated and arrogant Palestinian bourgeoisie. None of them lived in the camps, and therefore they do not know the truth of the suffering of the Palestinian people; however, some of them exercised elitist, arrogant authority over their own flesh and blood. Have you heard of any of them becoming martyrs or fighters, or making sacrifices on behalf of Palestine? Have you heard of them attending lectures in anything but expensive clothing? Yet the common Palestinians applaud them. [Emphasis added]
They and their families have benefited from their unique physical and economic situation, enabling them to gain an excellent education and live in advanced societies, while their citizens continue to live in camps or in situations where they don’t have even the minimal necessities of life, such as food and medical care. If some of them enter into the Palestinian issue, they come with romanticism and claims to exercise superior authority. But if one poor child in the streets ofGaza comes carrying a single rock, he is equal to all of the educated Palestinian upper class.
This opportunity is only provided to the bourgeoisie because of their affiliation with a financially well-off class. This opportunity will not be provided to the Palestinian people who live in the camps. What I said about the bourgeoisie of the educated class (the Palestinian bourgeoisie families are the big business owners, and there are a lot of them) also applies to those who resided after the Nakba in five-star hotels, and opened companies and contracting firms in Arab and foreign capitals. Some of them also became millionaires. They became alienated from the real issue [i.e. the Palestinian issue] during its important phases. They contributed late to building roadmaps for the other Palestinians, for they themselves will never return. Gaza and the West Bank cannot accommodate their companies and palaces.Meanwhile Frangieh’s silence on campus continues, which is curious. If he really is a supporter of Palestine and of Hamas and of Hezbollah, why is he quiet now when they need defense? Could it be that he realizes he’s trapped?
And speaking of trapped, the administration is now telling concerned alumni and parents that the school is in a “difficult situation”. Well, why is it difficult? Frangieh clearly supports these radical groups and it was very easy to find that out by Googling his name before he was hired.
Claremont McKenna’s other unofficial motto is “leadership in the making”. So why has President Gann been so lacking in leadership? Why has she continued to ignore emails and phone calls from concerned parents and alumni?
