Arabist scholars judged Arab rulers by treatment of Arabs, not foreign alignment

Evidence

One group, from whom some guidance might have been expected, in fact gave very little—the Arabists3 and other scholarly specialists in the Middle East. The commitment of the Arabist to the Arabs is not based on the international or ideological alignment of Arab governments, to be abandoned or reversed when that alignment changes. He is not pro-Arab because the Arabs are pro-Russian or pro-Western or anti-Israel, and then anti-Arab when the Arabs change their minds. Such relationships rest ultimately on contempt or indifference; his rests on respect—the respect of a scholar for the people to whose language, history, and culture he devotes his life. For such a one, as for many Arabs who cannot speak out, the final test of Nasser or any other Arab ruler is not his attitude to Israel and the powers, but his treatment of the Arabs—those under his rule and those of other Arab countries. Arabists may hold various views on the rights and wrongs of the Arab-Israel conflict, and some of them have expressed these views. Many, however, confronted with a choice between condemning the Arabs and defending the re´gimes which represent them, have preferred to remain silent. — Bernard Lewis, From Babel to Dragomans, 1233

Categorization

Category: Factual Claims

• DEFINE: Defines the distinctive ethical commitment of the Arabist scholar—loyalty rooted in respect for a people’s culture rather than passing political alignment.