Talk:Center for Contemporary Arab Studies

Is this really how the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies was created?
If Barry Rubin is to be believed, Georgetown University "was the place that accepted tens of thousands of dollars from Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi--who was, of course, very active in promoting anti-American terrorism--to establish an endowed chair in Middle East studies." The campus "is flush with Arab money, full of apologists for anti-American Islamism, a place where no Israeli or pro-Israel student might dare to tread"

According to How to Turn a Campus into an Indoctrination Center, in 1975 Professor Carroll Quigley "explained that he had just come from a meeting where it was made clear that the university had a problem. They were getting Arab money, but on the secret condition that it was for teaching about the Middle East but none of it could be used to teach about Israel. How was this problem to be solved? Simple. They would call the institution to be created the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies. It was explicitly expressed that this was how the problem would be dealt with. … Ever since then, I have referred to that institution as the Center for Contemporary Arab Money." Asteriks (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Center for Contemporary Arab Studies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130130013700/http://ccas.georgetown.edu/story/1242688927166.html to http://ccas.georgetown.edu/story/1242688927166.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Change of "Zionist Jesuit" comment
The quote from the WaPo article was, obviously, maliciously changed to make Sharabi's words appear worse than they are (not to say that they are good). The WaPo source does not speak of "accusations" but rather as if Sharabi "described" Healy that way. Also, the wording of "Zionist Jesuit" was turned around to "Jesuit Zionist", which sounds a lot more like invective. Saflid (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)