Shikaki, whose late brother Fathi was then the head of Islamic Jihad, was a part of the Islamic Jihad fundraising set-up in the United States. Transcripts of FBI wiretaps of Shikaki, al-Arian and their associates showed that Shikaki was responsible for distributing money in the West Bank under the guise of charitable activity and used Swiss bank accounts to launder funds raised in the United States. He claims they were for charities but at the trial of al-Arian, the government claimed the word “orphans” used in conversations between Shikaki and his confederates was a code word for Palestinian Islamic Jihad causes.
Whether the money was used to promote Islamic Jihad among the Palestinian population via charities that sought to promote their cause or to directly help terrorists who were killing Israelis and Americans, Shikaki’s involvement with this group of murderers is clear. After the U.S. government officially designated Islamic Jihad as a terrorist organization in 1995, it appears that Shikaki distanced himself from them. Israeli forces subsequently killed his brother.
According to Steven Emerson, director of the Washington, D.C.-based Investigative Project, there’s no question about Shikaki’s involvement. Emerson, one of the leading experts on Islamist terror connections, says the Palestinian is not telling the truth when he denies involvement with Islamic Jihad – and that the FBI tapes and other evidence combine to make a compelling case that render Shikaki’s explanations hard to believe.
Peace Now and Reinharz seem to rest their defense of him on the fact that Shikaki was not himself a target for prosecution. The acquittal of al-Arian, by a Florida jury that seemed as uninterested in the evidence as the O.J. Simpson jury, gives them further cover. But proof of Shikaki’s money laundering and his relationship with al-Arian and others cannot be credibly denied.
The question is: What should it mean to us now?
Mort Klein, national president of the ZOA, believes Shikaki’s role as a funder of murderers ought to render him untouchable by a Jewish institution such as Brandeis. Emerson won’t say what he thinks Brandeis should do but insists that even if Shikaki is a moderate today he’s lying about his past. Both say the least we ought to expect from him is to own up to what he did and apologize.
The support for Shikaki is apparently driven by a belief that his past is irrelevant. But how can we be expected to believe in his moderation – or scholarship – as long as he goes on lying about Islamic Jihad and asking his Jewish pals to back him up?
A few years ago, another famous school, the University of Notre Dame, fired a man it had just hired as head football coach because journalists uncovered the fact that he had lied on his r
ésumé. Unlike the way Brandeis reacted to revelations about Shikaki, Notre Dame acted fast, and George O’Leary was summarily dismissed.
How ironic that Brandeis, which 50 years ago had a brief fling at trying to create its own major college football team before discarding it to concentrate on academics, now seems to have a lower standard for its Middle East Studies department than its Catholic counterpart has for its football program.
Brandeis needs to do better. So do the rest of us who prefer to ignore the truth because of our desperate need to hold on to hope for the future.
If Shikaki or any other Palestinian believes in peace, then dialogue might be a good idea. But dialogue cannot be built on lies. Nor can peace.
