“A REALLY HORRID JOB TO ALWAYS BE FIGHTING” FREYA STARK’S VISION FOR THE MIDDLE EAST AND HER WARTIME U.S. PROPAGANDA TOUR

by

DALIAH JAYE GREENWALD

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Department of History

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

January, 2018

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

We hereby approve the thesis of

Daliah Jaye Greenwald

Candidate for the degree of Master of Arts

Committee Chair

John Broich

Committee Member

Jay Geller

Committee Member

Kenneth Ledford

Date of Defense

11/15/2017

*We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any proprietary

material contained therein.

1

Table of Contents

1. Abstract 4

2. Introduction 5

3. Part I: Freya Stark’s Vision of the Modern Middle East 16

a. Freya Stark: Traveler and Propagandist 16

b. The Brotherhood of Freedom, Lulie Abul-Huda, 17

and Arab Modernizers

c. Freya’s Position, Opposition to British Policy 20

d. Jews and Zionism within Freya’s Vision 23

4. Part II: Freya Stark’s American Tour, Zionism, 29

and the Future of the Middle East

a. Preparations for the American Tour 29

b. The Tour 38

c. Press Coverage: Popular Media 44

d. Jewish Response 50

5. Conclusion 57

6. Bibliography 61

2

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Professor John Broich for all of his help as my adviser on this thesis, as well as for serving as my adviser for both my Graduate and Undergraduate degrees. I would also like to thank Professor Jay Geller and Professor Kenneth Ledford for serving on my thesis defense committee, as well as the entire Case Western Reserve University Department of History for the help and support I’ve received over the past four years.

I also thank the staff at the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin for their assistance in navigating the collections. I would also like to thank Dr. Susanne Brand for her work sending documents to me from The National Archives in Kew, as without her help this thesis would not have been possible in its current form.

3

“A really horrid job to always be fighting” Freya Stark’s Vision for the Middle East and her Wartime U.S. Propaganda Tour

Abstract

by

DALIAH JAYE GREENWALD

Freya Stark was a British traveler, author, and propagandist who authored two dozen books on her experiences in the Middle East and along the

Mediterranean coast. Stark’s decades of experience in the Middle East provided her with a unique vision for the future of the region, which she saw becoming an area containing modern, independent nations after the end of World War II.

Stark’s 1943-1944 tour of the United States of America provided her with an opportunity to explain this perspective. Yet, due to the timing of the tour coinciding with the increased tension surrounding Zionism in the United States and abroad, Stark faced personal criticism that was both inappropriate and avoidant. Freya Stark is now a neglected figure in history, whose vision for the

Middle East and experiences in defense of this vision merit examination.

4

Freya Stark was a British traveler, author, and propagandist who authored two

dozen books on her experiences in the Middle East and along the Mediterranean coast.

Stark’s decades of experience in the Middle East provided her with a unique vision for

the future of the region, which she saw becoming an area containing modern,

independent nations after the end of World War II. Stark’s 1943-1944 tour of the United

States of America provided her with an opportunity to explain this perspective. Yet, due

to the timing of the tour coinciding with the increased tension surrounding Zionism in the

United States and abroad, Stark faced personal criticism that was both inappropriate and

avoidant. Freya Stark is now a neglected figure in history, whose vision for the Middle

East and experiences in defense of this vision merit examination.

Unfortunately, Freya Stark is not taken seriously by professional historians today.

None of her biographers is a professional historian, and only Malise Ruthven, possesses a terminal degree.1 Caroline Moorehead, who wrote the biography Freya Stark (Lives of

Modern Women) which was published in 1986, was the daughter of Lucy Moorehead, an

old friend of Freya Stark’s, also took on the project of assisting Stark edit and type all of

her letters for publication.2 Jock Murray, Freya Stark’s longtime friend and publisher,

commissioned and then rejected a biography of Stark by Molly Izzard, claiming that it

A Subversive Imperialist: Reappraising Freya Stark,” Alif: Journal of“ ,ﺰﻴﻟﺎﻣﻦﭭﺛﺍﺭ Malise Ruthven and 1 Comparative Poetics, no. 26 (2006): 147–67; Caroline Moorehead, Freya Stark (London: Allison & Busby, 2014); Efraim Karsh and Rory Miller, “Freya Stark in America: Orientalism, Antisemitism and Political Propaganda,” Journal of Contemporary History 39, no. 3 (2004): 315–332; Molly Izzard, Freya Stark: A Biography, First Edition edition (London: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, 1993); Jane Fletcher Geniesse, Passionate Nomad: The Life of Freya Stark (Modern Library, 2001); Simon Albert, “The Wartime ‘Special Relationship’, 1941-1945: Isaiah Berlin, Freya Stark, and Mandate Palestine,” Jewish Historical Studies 45 (2013): 103–30; Malise Ruthven, Traveller through Time: A Photographic Journey with Freya Stark (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England ; New York, N.Y., U.S.A: Viking Adult, 1986). 2 Freya Stark, Letters: Bridge of the Levant, 1940-1943, v. 4, ed. Lucy Moorehead (Salisbury: Michael Russell Publishing Ltd, 1978). 5

was too critical.3 The book, Freya Stark: A Biography, was published in 1993, and looks

at Freya Stark’s persona as a construction.4 Jane Fletcher Geniesse also published a

biography of Stark, which carefully balanced criticism of some of her choices and views

with a recognition of her place in history.5 Geniesse’s work, Passionate Nomad, is

probably the best biographical work on Stark to date. Malise Ruthven wrote a number of

books with and about Freya Stark, but these were colored by their close relationship as

godson and godmother.

Interestingly, in 2006 Ruthven co-authored an article for Alif: Journal of

Comparative Poetics entitled “A Subversive Imperialist: Reappraising Freya Stark.”6

This article acknowledges that Freya Stark’s place in history has been called into question, and was an attempt to protect her legacy as well as to highlight her unique position in history. The article established that both Stark’s writing and her accolades as a traveler have been criticized and called into question.7 Ruthven particularly takes issue

with the comparison of Stark to Gertrude Bell, one of history’s most remembered

Orientalists. Unlike Gertrude Bell, whose class and financial position enabled her to

maintain an elite status even while traveling, Stark

“was a little Miss Nobody who ventured into regions few Europeans- least of all an unaccompanied woman- had dared to enter before. She was often short of cash, and had nothing to sustain her beyond her native wits, her charm, resilience, and enthusiasm.”8

A Subversive Imperialist: Reappraising Freya Stark,” Alif: Journal of“ ,ﺰﻴﻟﺎﻣﻦﭭﺛﺍﺭ Malise Ruthven and 3 Comparative Poetics, no. 26 (2006): 149. 4 Molly Izzard, Freya Stark: A Biography, First Edition edition (London: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, 1993). 8. 5 Jane Fletcher Geniesse, Passionate Nomad: The Life of Freya Stark (Modern Library, 2001). A Subversive Imperialist: Reappraising Freya Stark,” Alif: Journal of“ ,ﺰﻴﻟﺎﻣﻦﭭﺛﺍﺭ Malise Ruthven and 6 Comparative Poetics, no. 26 (2006): 147–67. 7 Ibid., 147. 8 Ibid., 151. 6

Professional scholars have written little about Stark in the twenty-four years since

her death. The most notable article about Freya Stark was published by Efraim Karsh

and Rory Miller in the Journal of Contemporary History in 2004. The article, which

discusses Freya Stark’s American tour, accused Stark of romanticizing the Middle East,

and being an orientalist and a closet antisemite.9 Following this article, Freya Stark’s tour is the point of conjecture for Simon Albert’s 2013 article which speculates that her

U.S. tour was set-up to fail by Isaiah Berlin, a political scholar who worked for the

British government at the time.10 In both articles, there is a focus on condemning Stark’s actions, without an effort to understand them. There have been other articles about Stark which discuss her role as a female traveler and writer, but a surprising few about her as a propagandist.11 This was a woman who wrote twenty-four books based on her travels,

published eight volumes of letters, and was living and working in the Middle East for

almost half her life, yet today few acknowledge her expertise.

It is true that Freya Stark studied the Middle East as an Arabist, and her earlier

works, as asserted by Karsh and Miller, do include some standard orientalist phrases.12

Freya Stark was and still is often compared to Gertrude Bell and even T.E. Lawrence, and

perhaps, as Malise Ruthven suggested, she is often mischaracterized through this

comparison.13 Yet, all of the problems in addressing Stark’s perspective are not reason

enough to dismiss her, as many professionals have done. If scholars are willing to take a

9 Efraim Karsh and Rory Miller, “Freya Stark in America: Orientalism, Antisemitism and Political Propaganda,” Journal of Contemporary History 39, no. 3 (2004): 315–332. 10 Simon Albert, “The Wartime ‘Special Relationship’, 1941-1945: Isaiah Berlin, Freya Stark, and Mandate Palestine,” Jewish Historical Studies 45 (2013): 103–30. 11 Mary Henes, “Autobiography, Journalism, and Controversy: Freya Stark’s Baghdad Sketches,” Journeys: The International Journal of Travel and Travel Writing 16, no. 1 (2015): 98. 12 Karsh and Miller, “Freya Stark in America.” 320. .A Subversive Imperialist.” 151“ ,ﻦﭭﺛﺍﺭ Ruthven and 13 7

critical look at Freya Stark, with a skepticism like that of Edward Said, there is much to

be learned from her life and work.

This thesis is divided into two parts. The first part deals exclusively with Freya

Stark’s goals for the Middle East after World War II, and for Palestine and Zionism within this context. Though Stark commented extensively on the success of Transjordan as a newly independent nation with British support, her writings indicate that she wanted even more freedom for the Arab states. She privately believed that a Pan-Arab confederacy was an unachievable pipe dream, but that the British would allow independent states to form under the leadership of the young, western-educated leaders

that Freya Stark worked with in urban centers like Baghdad and Cairo.

Within this framework of an independent, but western-oriented Middle East, Stark

believed that Palestine could thrive with an Arab government. She did not unequivocally

reject the idea of Jewish immigration into Palestine, but believed that it should be

controlled, in order to prevent what she saw as the Zionist attempt to create a majority

Jewish population within Mandate Palestine. With an Arab government in Palestine,

Stark believed that the rights of both Jewish settlers and Arab inhabitants would be

protected, where a Jewish government would forcibly expel Arab communities from the

area.

Stark’s perspective on Zionism, best expressed in her personal correspondences

and in her book East is West (1945,) is based, not in hatred of the Jewish people, or even

entirely in prejudice against the Central and Eastern European Jewish immigrants to

Palestine.14 Rather, her views were based on her firsthand experiences in Palestine, and

14 Stark, East is West, 108. 8

on her fears for the destruction of a well-established and intellectual community of Arabs

at the hands of Zionism. Her predictions were not based on some romantic notion of the

noble Arabs becoming civilized and ruling together, as she clearly admitted to herself that

the Pan-Arab dream was unrealistic and unattainable.15 Instead, Stark’s perspective on the future of the Middle East was a realistic one, based on what she saw in the potential leaders of the new, modern Middle East.

Part two of this thesis discusses Freya Stark’s experiences on her North American tour. This section traces Freya’s journey through the United States, as well as her thoughts and goals for her American visit. Throughout the tour Freya attempted to have intimate, individual conversations with influential figures in the Jewish community, as well as other important American figures. The goals of the trip were to gain American public support for the 1939 White Paper policy, and to encourage the part of the Jewish community that did not support Zionism to voice this sentiment publicly.16 The popular

press following her arrival hailed her as the “Female Laurence of Arabia,” but failed to properly convey the message Freya wanted to send to the American people.17 At the

same time, Stark was eviscerated in the Zionist Press and by prominent leaders within the

Jewish community. In the end, the tour failed to achieve its goals, and the Freya’s

experiences on tour effectively silenced her discussion of the Palestine Question.

Freya Madeline Stark was born to bohemian parents in Italy in 1893. When she

was young, her parents discretely separated, and as a result Freya spent most of her early

15 Freya Stark, “Letter from Freya Stark to Rushbrook Williams, Dust In the Lion’s Paw Draft.,” April 19, 1941, Container 26, Box 2., Harry Ransom Center. p. 17. 16 “Telegram from the Ministry of Information to Baghdad, Survey of Jewish Opinion in the United States during the Last Six Months.,” August 21, 1942, E 4048/6/31, The British National Archives. 17 Freya Stark, “Storied Arab World Races For Modern Civilization,” The Chicago Sun, January 23, 1944. 9

life in Italy with her mother.18 Stark was often in poor health, and a bout of illness in

1924 left her bedridden for months after the removal of a gastric ulcer. During her recuperation, Stark spent her days writing letters to family and friends, and studying

Arabic. Stark was motivated by the belief that, in her own words years later, “the most interesting things in the world were likely to happen in the neighbourhood of oil.”19 In

1927, at the age of thirty-four, Freya Stark first departed for the Middle East, where she

would spend almost all her time for the next twenty years.

Though scholars and writers today call into question the validity of Stark’s many

accolades, it is impossible to deny that during her lifetime Stark gained popular acclaim and scholarly recognition for her work. Stark earned the recognition of the Royal

Geographical Society in London in 1931, and was awarded their Back Memorial Prize in

June, 1933. In 1942 they awarded her the Founder’s Gold Medal, the Royal

Geographical Society’s highest honor.20 She was the fifth individual, and first woman, to

be awarded the Royal Asiatic Society’s Burton Memorial Medal in 1934.21 Stark was

awarded a Cross of the British Empire in 1953 and became a dame in 1972.22

In addition to all of these awards, Freya Stark was a well published author, as well

as a wartime propagandist. Stark published seventeen books, a number of

autobiographies, as well as a six-volume collection of her letters spanning over sixty

years.23 Yet her most influential work was as a propagandist for the British government

18 Moorehead, Freya Stark. 20-21. 19 Moorehead, Freya Stark, 34. 20 Ruthven Article, 148. 21 Ibid. 22 Peter B. Flint, “Dame Freya Stark, Travel Writer, Is Dead at 100,” The New York Times, May 11, 1993, sec. Obituaries, http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/11/obituaries/dame-freya-stark-travel-writer-is-dead-at- 100.html. 23 Ibid. 10

during World War II. Freya Stark believed that in order to write convincing propaganda,

it was necessary to understand the perspectives of the individuals you were attempting to

persuade.24

As the nationalist ideas which sparked the Great War spread to Arab lands,

intellectuals began to gather to discuss a move toward Arab independence. Though Arab

leaders suggested many paths for potential sovereignty, one that gained significant

support was Pan-Arab Nationalism. Under this model, each Arab state would have its

own independent rule, but would be a part of the greater Pan-Arab confederation, which

would work together in certain fields. To many Arab intellectuals, this seemed the ideal

solution to the problem of colonial rule.

. On June 28, 1919, the newly formed League of Nations declared in Article 22

that colonies and territories of former states “which are inhabited by peoples not yet able

to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world,” would be

entrusted to developed nations which would help them through the “rendering of

administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they were able to

stand alone.”25 As a result of this declaration, Britain gained control of a number of

former Ottoman territories including Transjordan, Palestine, and Iraq. In the 1920s and

1930s, former Mandates, including Iraq and Jordan, gained relative independence with

the assistance of the British Crown. However, the region was still held under the control

of Britain in the interwar period.

24 Freya Stark, “Apology for Propaganda,” Container 1, Box 3., Harry Ransom Center. 6. 25 “The League of Nations Mandate Provision,” Mid East Web, http://www.mideastweb.org/leaguemand.htm. 11

Freya Stark developed her perspective on the Middle East, in part, during her independent travels prior to World War II, but more significantly through her work for the British government throughout the war. Stark spent most of the war working in Iraq,

Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt. As a propagandist, Stark was placed in a position where she worked closely with Arab intellectuals, to protect British interests. Unlike many of the individuals commenting on the issue of Arab independence, Freya Stark actually spoke, read, and wrote Arabic, and established and maintained an open dialogue with Arabs of different religious and socioeconomic backgrounds, as well as with high ranking British officials operating in the area. She befriended a wide range of important personalities, from writer George Antonius to Harold MacMichael, the High

Commissioner of Palestine.

Stark was also given a fair amount of liberty and flexibility in her work, due to her unique propaganda style. Stark believed that the best way to disseminate propaganda was through intimate, personal discussions, rather than through speeches or flyers.26 Her strengths were in influencing individuals, rather than large groups, which then created a ripple effect. As a woman working in the Middle East, Freya Stark formed her connections differently from her male peers. Stark was able to infiltrate the women’s social circles, and disseminate propaganda through meetings over tea, rather than dropping leaflets.27

As a direct result of her experiences in the Middle East, Freya Stark developed strong opinions on the issue of Arab independence and the Palestine question. Stark believed that the future would be through the political efforts of Arab intellectuals, or

26 Stark, East is West, 31. 27 Ibid. 12

effendis. Originally a Turkish term, effendi meant to Freya an Arab man with an

extensive education, often belonging to the growing middle-class.28 She criticized the

British for working with older, stubborn, less educated Arab officials rather than with the younger, Western educated intellectuals. Stark understood the British concerns about protecting their economic interests in the Middle East, and believed that if they worked with the effendis to create strong, self-supporting Arab States, these states would prove valuable political allies, and would continue to sign trade agreements that would favor

British interests. At a time when other scholars, as well as politicians, either saw the

Arabs as crude barbarians or noble savages, Freya Stark dealt with them as civilized individuals, if not quite as civilized as the British.

Based on this hope for British assisted Arab independence, Stark developed an obvious dislike for the Zionist movement. As a product of her times, Stark held to the pretention that the Central and Eastern European Jews, who comprised the bulk of the

Zionist movement, were inferior to herself as a British citizen, as well as inferior in their behavior to the Arabs who she grew to love. Though she believed that Zionists were intelligent, she felt that they were crude and ill-mannered. While this was a part of her issue with the Zionist movement, it fails to properly explain her entire position. What angered her most about the Zionist movement was what she perceived as its proprietary approach to the land in Palestine. Stark felt that rather than sharing the land with the

Arabs, who had lived there for hundreds of years, the Zionists were intentionally forcing the Arabs out of their homes and excluding them from what was developing into a flourishing community. She did not oppose Zionist immigration to Palestine, which she

28 Ibid., xvi. 13

believed brought technological innovation to the area, but she did oppose Zionist

immigration without the consent and approval of the people already living there. It is

important to note that though there were many different Zionist groups, with different

approaches to these issues, Freya Stark tended to generalize Zionists rather than

differentiate the various groups.

While her position on Zionism was quite clear, Stark’s dislike of this movement

was not based entirely on antisemitic feelings on her part, as some scholars would

suggest.29 Though there were occasions when Stark said explicitly negative things about

certain Jewish communities, these were isolated incidents which did not reflect her

personal beliefs as a whole.30 In many of the places she lived, including Baghdad and

Sana’a, Stark formed close ties with local Jewish communities. Additionally, these

negative comments towards Jews she encountered were largely contained in private

letters to her mother, Flora Stark, as she vented her frustrations regarding the stagnation

of her work in the Middle East. When she rediscovered these comments, as she reviewed

her letters for publication in various works, she edited them herself.31 They were never

intended to be a part of her carefully constructed public persona.

As a result of her beliefs and her success as a propagandist in the Middle East, in

1942 the British Ministry of Information called on Freya Stark to travel to the United

States. The Ministry of Information believed that while her work in the Middle East was

important, they believed it more important to employ her expertise on the Middle East to

29 Karsh and Miller, “Freya Stark in America.” 326. 30 Freya Stark, “Letter from Freya Stark to Stewart Perowne, Dust In the Lion’s Paw Draft.,” September 9, 1940, Container 26, Box 2., Harry Ransom Center. p. 3. Freya Stark, “Letter from Freya Stark to Flora Stark,” August 27, 1941, Container 7, Box 4., Harry Ransom Center. 31 Whether this editing was an attempt at clarification or political correctness is unclear. 14

convince Americans to continue to support British policy in the region. The Ministry of

Information proposed that Stark travel the United States, on a lecture tour, to justify the

1939 White Paper to the American people.32

Though the tour was a failure, there is much to be learned from Stark’s

experiences in the United States. Regardless of whether she was presenting her own

personal opinions or the opinions of the British government, Stark came under fire for

presenting “pro-Arab propaganda” to support rejection of the Zionist arguments for

unlimited Jewish immigration into Palestine. These tactics employed by the Zionist press

and community leaders were part of a greater pattern. Rather than addressing Stark’s

critical arguments against Zionism, leaders chose to disqualify her as an expert by

attacking her personal credibility. By equating Stark’s anti-Zionism with antisemitism,

American Jewish leaders tried to derail her mission by depicting her as an untrustworthy

source of information. In the end, these critics were successful in their mission.

32 “Telegram from the Ministry of Information to Baghdad, Survey of Jewish Opinion in the United States during the Last Six Months.,” August 21, 1942, E 4048/6/31, The British National Archives. 15

Part I: Freya Stark’s Vision of the Modern Middle East

Freya Stark: Traveler and Propagandist

Freya Stark’s first claim to fame was as an adventurer. In 1931, Stark became

the first Westerner to ever travel through the “Valley of the Assassins” in Western

Persia.33 Her first book, The Valleys of the Assassins,34 which recounted this journey,

was a popular success when it was published in 1934. This work was quickly followed

by The Southern Gates of Arabia35 in 1936, and A Winter in Arabia36 in 1940.37 By this

time, Freya Stark had travelled the Middle East for over a decade, and was considered a

bona fide expert on Arabs as the result of her work.

In March 1939, as Britain was on the brink of World War II, Freya Stark offered

her services as a writer to the British government.38 Her knowledge of multiple

languages, including Arabic, Persian, and Italian would be vital to the war effort in the

Middle East. Though Freya started the war as a Southern Arabia expert for the Ministry

of Information Office in London, she was quickly transferred to Aden, then a British

colony in what is now Saudi Arabia, in November of 1940.39 From Aden, she was sent

on a propaganda mission to Sana’a, Yemen, then later to Baghdad and Cairo.

While in Cairo, Freya Stark formulated the idea for one of her most successful propaganda campaigns: The Brotherhood of Freedom. According to Stark’s account, she

33 Ibid., p. 50. 34 Freya Stark, The Valleys of the Assassins: And Other Persian Travels, 1st edition (1934). 35 Freya Stark and Jane Fletcher Geniesse, The Southern Gates of Arabia: A Journey in the Hadhramaut, First Edition Thus edition (London: Modern Library, 2001). 36 Freya Stark, A Winter in Arabia: A Journey Through Yemen, 1 edition (New York: The Overlook Press, 2011). 37 Claudia Roth Pierpont, “East Is West,” The New Yorker, April 11, 2011, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/04/18/east-is-west-claudia-roth-pierpont. 38 Freya Stark, “Letter to Mr. Blaxter, Miss Freya Stark Offer of Service,” March 22, 1939, E 79217, CO 732/85/7, The British National Archives. 39 Moorehead, Freya Stark, p. 67. 16

was a member of a similar organization in Aden.40 The Brotherhood in Cairo started when Freya met with two Egyptian students from Cairo University, who “believed in the principles of democracy and were anxious to help in the defeat of the Axis.”41 These two

students, Muhammad and Kemal, met with Freya on a weekly basis, when they would

drink coffee and discuss the most recent Axis propaganda, and how to assist the British in

contradicting these messages. These meetings, instead of focusing on defending

democratic ideals by force, “laid instead the foundations of a little society that should

work for the same end through persuasion.”42

The Brotherhood of Freedom, Lulie Abul-Huda, and Arab Modernizers

By the autumn of 1940 these meetings were too big to be held on Freya Stark’s terrace. She began to host Brotherhood groups at various places in Cairo, and she published a regular bulletin “so that all our members might think over the same things.”43

In her book East is West, Freya acknowledged that most of the membership in the

Brotherhood was comprised of “students, or teachers, or clerks in offices…Many among them were wealthy.”44 In this way, Freya Stark’s experience of Arab life was limited.

Though she would spend time walking through the streets of Cairo, and in her earlier

days she explored areas of the Middle East rarely seen by Europeans, most of her day-to-

day interaction was with educated Arab men who possessed at least some modicum of

financial security. By December 6, 1940, Freya Stark reported that the Brotherhood of

Freedom reached 200 members, with the goal of counting 20,000 members by the end of

40 Freya Stark, East Is West, 2nd Printing edition (Transatlantic Arts, 1982. p. 54. 41 Ibid., p. 53. 42 Ibid., p. 54. 43 Ibid., p. 55. 44 Ibid., p. 57. 17

1941. Membership was diverse, and included individuals from Yemen and Syria, a

British Air Marshal, and a number of women.45 By February 2, 1941, that number rose

to 500 or so Brothers of Freedom and 70 Sisters of Freedom, spreading across the Arab

world.46

One of the women deeply involved with the work of the Brotherhood was Lulie

Abul-Huda, who became a close friend of Freya’s during her time in Cairo. Lulie was a

young Turkish-Syrian woman from an aristocratic background; her grandfather was the

chief religious adviser to the Ottoman Sultan Abdel-Hamid, and her father was a bureaucrat, who ran the Turkish affairs office for Egyptian leader Khedive Abbas Helmi

II in Cairo.47 Though her family background was traditional, her parents encouraged

Lulie’s intellectual pursuits, and even allowed her to attend Oxford University, an

opportunity few women, let alone Muslim-Arab women, had at that time. Freya took a particular liking to Lulie for her strong, opinionated approach. While Freya believed most Arab women would hesitate to correct a man, let alone mock him, Lulie never faltered in her confidence, often mocking the men she worked with when she felt they were failing at their tasks.48 Perhaps Freya saw a bit of herself in Lulie, as a strong,

stubborn, single woman in a male dominated field.49 It is clear as well, from Freya

Stark’s correspondence, that she placed a significant amount of faith and trust in Lulie, as

45 FS to Sydney Cockerell, December 6, 1940. Freya Stark, Letters: Bridge of the Levant, 1940-1943, v. 4, ed. Lucy Moorehead (Salisbury: Michael Russell Publishing Ltd, 1978)., p. 107-108. 46 FS to SP, February 2, 1941. Stark, Letters: Bridge of the Levant, 1940-1943, v. 4. p. 116. 47 Freya Stark, “Apology for Propaganda,” Container 1, Box 3., Harry Ransom Center. Rush, Alan, “Princess Lulie Abul-Huda Fevzi Osmanoglu (1919-2012),” Al Ahram Weekly, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/682.aspx. 48 Stark, East Is West. p. 69-75 49 Alan Rush, “Princess Lulie Abul-Huda Fevzi Osmanoglu (1919-2012),” Al Ahram Weekly 18

it was Lulie who would send letters updating Freya Stark on their mission when Freya

was away on other business.50

Lulie was, in most ways, Freya’s model for the ideal Arab leader. Educated, strong-willed, and determined, Lulie faced more obstacles than her male peers and managed to overcome them. Just as important to Freya was the role that Lulie’s mother played. Though her mother was a traditional Arab wife, she understood that to improve her daughter’s life it was necessary for Lulie to receive an education, and to be free to work and explore as she desired. Freya Stark believed that if all Arabs of the older generations could be like Lulie’s parents, then the next generation would be a strong force of leaders, prepared to take on the responsibility of nation-building in the Middle

East.51 Of course, Lulie had many privileges to which most Arab citizens would not have access. Though Freya did not acknowledge this, the mere wealth that Lulie’s family possessed gave her freedoms that would be unthinkable to the average Arab on the streets of Cairo. Indeed, Freya often failed to acknowledge the role of wealth and socio- economic status in the upbringing of the people she believed to be the next leaders of the

Arab world.

It was within this network that Freya Stark developed her beliefs regarding the future of Arab nationalism. As Stark explained in the introduction to East is West, she

felt that many Europeans and Americans had an outdated understanding of the Middle

East. She claimed that “artists in words or colours find the shaikh in his draperies easier

to deal with than the effendi in his cosmopolitan sameness.”52 Where many saw the

50 Container 8, Box 9. Harry Ransom Center. 51 Stark, East is West, p. 74. 52 Ibid., p. xiii 19

Middle East as an Arab backwater, Freya argued that the emergence of the Arab middle

class, as the result of industrialization, Western education, and British support, was the

future of the Middle East.53

Freya’s Position, Opposition to British Policy

From Baghdad, in 1941 Freya explained her perspective on the Middle East to

Rushbrook Williams, the Foreign Secretary’s chief at the Ministry of Information:54

For years I have been unable to see why our Government should not take every public opportunity to give a purely theoretical blessing to the Pan- Arab cry. What are they frightened of? The sentiment would please every Arab, the realization would remain as Utopian as ever. We have left it to the Germans to call themselves the Protectors of Islam: and they are repeating it so often and we are so circumspect that they begin to be believed. A few statements of general benevolence towards the Arab’s day dreams would go a very long way, especially if we really do mean to stick to the White Paper in Palestine.55

Freya was frustrated with the government that employed her. She believed that the

British were damaging their own position in the Middle East by failing to acknowledge

the stated position of the Axis powers, and respond to it. Additionally, Stark believed

that the battleground for Arab support was whether the British would support the Pan-

Arab state, as a way to counter Axis propaganda in the region. Based on the tone of this

statement, as well as her other writings, Freya Stark did not believe that a Pan-Arab

confederacy was an attainable goal. However, she clearly saw a pledge to support it as

significant to Arab leaders.

Stark was rightly concerned with the power of German propaganda in the Middle

East. Throughout the war, Germany disseminated a clear message that the British

53 Ibid., p. xvi 54 Stark, Letters: Bridge of the Levant, 1940-1943, v. 4., p. 57 fn. 43. 55 Freya Stark, “Letter from Freya Stark to Rushbrook Williams, Dust In the Lion’s Paw Draft.,” April 19, 1941, Container 26, Box 2., Harry Ransom Center. p. 17. 20

government was working with the Jews to oppress the Arab world, and that an Axis

victory would liberate Arabs from British imperial rule.56 On July 3, 1942, Radio Berlin

broadcast the “Joint German-Italian Declaration in Respect of Egypt,” in which they

announced that:

The Axis forces are entering Egypt, not as an enemy country, but to dismiss the British from Egyptian territory, and to continue war operations against Britain in order to liberate the whole of the Near East from the British yoke. The emancipation of Egypt from the chains which have linked her to Britain… will enable her to assume her position among the independent sovereign states.57

This declaration was directly followed by a speech by Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand

Mufti of Palestine, in which he claimed that “the Axis Powers are fighting against the common enemy, namely the British and the Jews.”58 This link between the British

government and Jews was quite common in Nazi propaganda, and this sentiment was

again repeated by the Grand Mufti on November 14, 1942, when he asserted that a

British victory meant “the Jews will rule our countries and deprive the Arabs of their

freedom and independence.”59

Stark was not the only propagandist who saw the clear disadvantage of the Allies

in the Middle East propaganda war. George Britt, who worked for the United States

Office of War Information, argued that the United States silence regarding the 1939

White Paper in Palestine would “make no converts to our side in the war.”60 Britt argued

that the strength of Germany’s propaganda was that it did not oppose the general anti-

56 Jeffrey Herf, Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World: With a New Preface, Reprint edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010). p. 50, 91, 111, 113, 117, 123-125 57 Ibid., p. 123. 58 Ibid., p. 123. 59 Ibid., p. 146. 60 Ibid., p. 168. 21

Zionist sentiments of the Arab world. As Jeffrey Herf explained in his book Nazi

Propaganda for the Arab World,

Anti-Zionism was much broader than support for Nazism, but all supporters of the Axis were anti-Zionists. Indeed, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism were among the sources of the appeal of the Axis whereas those Arabs and Muslims who supported Allies did so, often, in spite of American and British support for some kind of Jewish presence in Palestine.61

Freya further developed her views of the potential she saw in the Arab world in her book Dust in the Lion’s Paw, which she published as an autobiography in 1961. In

the forward, Stark acknowledged that that East is West “was written in 1944 during

success, and this is written after Suez and other phenomena of failure.”62 Though Stark

was writing about World War II from a different perspective, Dust in the Lion’s Paw still

provides insight into what her hopes for the Middle East were during the War. Stark

elucidated her views on the Pan-Arab state in 1939, arguing that

even if the dream of federation is a dream for the future, and a misty one at that, it is well for us to do all we can to further it… the main danger that threatens is foreign interference… and it is fairly obvious that we shall very soon require an Arabia as strong, as peaceful and as favourable to us as we can get.63

Stark expanded on this point, arguing that, leading up to the war, British interest in the

Middle East was helping these countries develop into successful, peaceful, and unique

nations. Most importantly, Freya believed that most British officials understood that

British Imperialism was “a trust that is temporary and does not interfere with people’s

final independence.”64 Though Freya was clearly generalizing her experience and

61 Ibid., p. 168. 62 Freya Stark, Dust In The Lion’s Paw: Autobiography, 1939-46, New Ed edition (London: Arrow Books Ltd, 1990)., p. 2. 63 Ibid., p. 12. 64 Ibid., p. 12-13. 22

perspective to all other British officials, this point does convey that Freya believed that

the role of British governance in the Middle East was that of a temporary caretaker, not

imperialist overlord.

Freya understood what many British officials did not: that it was necessary to

work with the younger generation. A year into the development of the Brotherhood of

Freedom, Rushbrook Williams warned that “it looks to me as if the Embassy are a little

alarmed at the size and strength of your lusty child! At any rate they are profoundly

concerned that the direction of it should not fall into the wrong hands.”65 Stark believed

that the British officials she worked under were afraid of the strength and growing

numbers of the young Nationalists.

During World War II, Freya believed that if the British assisted the Arab states in

working toward independence, that the Arab states would then look favorably on future

trade deals with the British, thereby protecting British trade interests within the area.66

Hence, Freya’s frustration with the perceived success of German propaganda in the

Middle East: if the Germans were able to convince the Arabs that the British did not have

their best interests at heart, the resulting turn against the British would then destroy any

prospect of British-led independence, which Freya believed was the best hope for Arab independence.

Jews and Zionism within Freya’s Vision

In order to understand Freya Stark’s opinions of Zionism, it is necessary to understand Freya Stark’s relationships with the Jewish community. Scholars have accused Stark of antisemitism based on a close, but limited reading of her letters.

65 Ibid., p. 69. 66 Ibid., p. xxi 23

Realistically, these scholars found a few unseemly mentions of Jewish communities,

mostly in the context of her work in Yemen, and cherry-picked these quotes to suggest

that Freya only had negative things to say about the Jews with whom she interacted.67

In reality, this representation is an oversimplification of Stark’s beliefs. Though

there were instances when she suggested that individual Jews lived up to their “greedy”

stereotype, Freya often had positive things to say about the Jewish communities she

encountered in the Middle East. She told her mother Flora in a letter that the Jews of

Yemen reminded her of the perfect, historically accurate image of Christ. She also

explained that Yemeni Jews “are [so] intelligent: the only people ready to adventure into

new realms here.” Stark believed that, in spite of their adventurous spirit, Yemeni Jews

were trapped by religion, both their own Jewish traditions and the strict code of Islamic

laws which existed in Sana’a.68

It is, of course, necessary to acknowledge that this is the same Jewish community that she referred to when, in the same letter, she described a Yemeni Jewish wedding and complained of the “rowdy untidiness – and none of the aristocratic Arab manner of

Welcome in it.”69 Indeed, for every positive remark Stark had about the Yemeni Jews,

she had an equal complaint about them. Yet, while this commentary is critical, it is

hardly antisemitic.

Freya Stark was very careful in her choice of words. All of her published Letters

were carefully edited, omitting quite a bit of her content from her original

correspondence, mostly for personal reasons. Additionally, as Stark went through her

67 Karsh and Miller, “Freya Stark in America.” p. 326. 68 Freya Stark, “Letter from Freya Stark to Flora Stark, Dust In the Lion’s Paw Draft.,” February 23, 1940, Container 26, Box 2., Harry Ransom Center. 69 Ibid. 24

correspondence to include excerpts in Dust in the Lion’s Paw, she edited the letters,

either for coherence or clarity. An example of this is from her letter to Stewart Perowne

on February 9, 1940. For purposes of clarity and length, the quotation “there is

something very difficult to like about the Jews,” which Rory Miller and Efraim Karsh argue is a clear example of Stark’s antisemitism, is taken completely out of context. This quotation, which Stark also edited to “these particular Jews,” follows a brief discussion of her interactions with one of the leading Jewish merchants of Yemen, who was so profit- driven he refused to listen to her explanations of how his plan for the war was extremely

dangerous. The quote is also followed by a description of a different, seemingly greedy

display, that “when they have a wedding here, visitors are allowed to try on the bride’s bonnet at a dollar a time.”70 While Stark may have crossed the line initially, she

acknowledged this and clarified her thoughts when she reviewed her work a second time.

It is clear that Freya Stark did subscribe to certain antisemitic stereotypes,

particularly surrounding Jewish greed. While in Palestine, Stark remarked that Jews

maintained the eastern tradition of bargaining for sport, without acknowledgment that

Arabs did the same.71 Additionally, Stark could not “see that there is any way of dealing

with the Jewish question except by massacre now and then. What can one do? It is that

last ruthless penny they squeeze out of you which does it.”72 Of course, in 1941 this was not an appropriate comment, even in a private letter to her mother, but to a certain extent this was a visceral reaction to the inequality she saw between the standard of living on the

70 Freya Stark, “Letter from Freya Stark to Stewart Perowne, Dust In the Lion’s Paw Draft.,” September 9, 1940, Container 26, Box 2., Harry Ransom Center. p. 3. 71 Freya Stark, “Letter from Freya Stark to Flora Stark,” August 27, 1941, Container 7, Box 4., Harry Ransom Center. 72 Ibid. 25

Jewish kibbutz and the poverty in which the Arabs lived a short distance away. Where

many Zionists and their supporters argued that a rising tide lifts all ships, and the

technological advancements the Zionists brought would improve the lives of everyone in

Palestine, Stark felt that what she witnessed disproved this argument. Moreover, she

believed that Zionist development prevented independent Palestinian development, which

she believed to be the best hope for a peaceful Middle East. Again, Freya emphasized

that Zionist immigration was not the problem, but rather unrestricted Zionist immigration

without the consent of the indigenous population.73

Stark clearly differentiated between Zionists and Jews in her correspondence.

Most of her comments on Zionists were intolerant for many reasons. First of all, Stark

had a clear distaste for the Central and Eastern European roots of the vast majority of

Zionists going to Palestine.74 Unfortunately, Freya Stark either failed to understand or

refused to acknowledge the magnitude of the crisis facing the European Jewry, though

this is not clear from her correspondence. What is clear is that Freya Stark disliked the proprietary attitude with which the Zionists entered what was meant, in her mind, to be a shared territory. When she visited a northern kibbutz in September of 1941, she was impressed with the hygiene and the communal system of care, but remarked on how there were suffering Arab communities nearby.75

To explain many of Freya’s concerns regarding Zionism, and how Zionism

affected her work elsewhere in the Middle East, it is useful to look again at Freya Stark’s

73 Stark, East is West, p. 99. 74 Freya Stark, Letters: The Open Door, 1930-1935, ed. Lucy Moorehead, vol. 3, 8 vols. (Salisbury: Michael Russell Publishing Ltd, 1978). p. 11. 75 Freya Stark, “Letter from Freya Stark to Flora Stark,” September 9, 1941, Container 7, Box 4., Harry Ransom Center 26

April 1941 letter to Rushbrook Williams, Freya Stark’s superior officer in the Foreign

Office. While working in Baghdad shortly before the Iraqi coup d’état of 1941, Stark wrote that “There is no doubt that, under Hitler, the Mufti [Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-

Husseini] is the main immediate cause of trouble… I feel I must add the usual wail to my report – namely that the Palestine question lies at the root of all our troubles.” She complained throughout the letter that neutralizing the problems she encountered in

Baghdad were “beyond the scope of the wretched propagandist,” like herself. Freya

regularly reported that discontent with Zionism, and the position of the British regarding

this issue, were frustrating Arab communities with which she worked.76

Freya Stark understood the intricacies of the conflict between Zionists and

Palestinians. She knew that Zionists entering Palestinian territory, regardless of the

validity of their reasons, were antagonizing Palestinians both in their presence and in

their actions. Stark saw that the presence of Jews brought technological advancement,

but that this advancement did not mean an improvement in the lives of all citizens of

Palestine. Most importantly, Stark noticed how this influx of Jewish immigration

affected the rest of the Middle East. The rest of the developing Arab world noticed the

treatment of Palestinian Arabs, and the perception that the British government supported,

or at least tolerated, their mistreatment destabilized the Middle East. During World War

II, it became imperative that the Middle East remain stable, and ideally provide resources

and men to the war effort. Since the British also refused to declare their support for the

Pan-Arab dream, many individual Arabs looked to the Axis powers as potential allies.

76 Freya Stark, “Letter from Freya Stark to Rushbrook Williams, Dust In the Lion’s Paw Draft.,” April 19, 1941, Container 26, Box 2., Harry Ransom Center. p. 17. 27

Freya Stark believed that the Arab states should eventually reach independence, but that

Zionism was a threat to that future.

28

Part II: Freya Stark’s American Tour, Zionism, and the Future of the Middle East

Preparations for the American Tour

On August 18, 1942, Kinahan Cornwallis sent a telegram to Freya asking her to

go to the United States. The next day Freya responded, saying “of course if they really

want to send me to the U.S.A… go I must and will.”77 On August 23, 1942, Stark wrote

to her mother about this request, claiming that, though it would be “glorious…from a

private point of view,” she had a number of concerns regarding this proposal. Though a

trip to the United States might be both informative and profitable, Freya was worried

about what would happen to the work that she was already doing in the Middle East.

Stark was worried that if she left her propaganda work, there would be no one to take her

place, meaning that all her work creating connections between the Arabs and the British

would be for nothing. She also felt that the timing was wrong for her to leave, as she

believed that “we are to be in the thick of all the fighting” within the next year.

However, she realized that in the end it was not up to her, and that even though she

expressed these concerns to the government, it was likely that she would be sent to the

U.S. at a later date. She did, however, protest that she “would prefer anything to a lecture

tour.”78

Perhaps, most importantly, she felt that she was not the right representative of the

British perspective, as she had no experience with the American public; she believed that her assistant, Pamela Hore-Ruthven, would be a better choice. Hore-Ruthven was a war

77 Freya Stark, “Letter to Kinahan Cornwallis, 19.8.42,” Stark, Letters: Bridge of the Levant, 1940-1943, v. 4., p. 238. 78 Freya Stark, “Letter from Freya Stark to Flora Stark,” August 23, 1942, Container 7, Box 4., Harry Ransom Center. 29

widow living in Cairo, who worked with Freya Stark on the Brotherhood of Freedom.79

In comparison to Freya, Pamela was “young blonde and glamorous,” and “seizes

everybody’s heart at sight.”80 Freya also believed that sending a British representative

would not be the best way to convince Americans of the British perspective. Rather, she

suggested that the British request a few carefully selected Americans to come assist with

their work in the Middle East. That way, they would see what the British were up

against, sympathize with their view, and return to the U.S.A. to spread this perspective

themselves. She ended her explanation of her assumption with the request that if she were

to go to the U.S.A, that this trip at least be delayed until there was less work to do in the

Middle East.81

In the end, Stark was correct in her assumption that, despite her objections, she

would be sent to the United States. M.A. Macmillan of the American Division of the

Ministry of Information pointed out, in her letter addressed to Sir Maurice Petersen, that

his division of the MOI originally proposed the year before “that Miss Freya Stark should

visit the U.S.A. under the auspices of this Ministry, in order to state the Arab viewpoint

on the Palestinian question.”82 The concern was not so much that the United States

government was going to use Zionism as a way to exert influence in the Middle East.

Rather, the propaganda was leading to an increased “anti-British sentiment” in the United

States, which impeded the course of the war.83 Miss MacMillan stated that, at this time,

Freya Stark was invited by the Chicago Oriental Institute, the Near East museum and

79 Stark, Dust in the Lion’s Paw, p. 63. 80 Freya Stark, “Letter to Kinahan Cornwallis, 19.8.42,” Stark, Letters: Bridge of the Levant, 1940-1943, v. 4., p. 238. 81 Ibid. 82 “Telegram from the Ministry of Information to Baghdad, Survey of Jewish Opinion in the United States during the Last Six Months.,” August 21, 1942, E 4048/6/31, The British National Archives. 83 Ibid. 30

research program at the University of Chicago, to deliver two lectures between October

10 and November 10, making this the perfect opportunity for the government to utilize

Freya’s talents in the United States by merely extending this scheduled trip.84 In

particular, MacMillan believed that Stark “will be spending a considerable amount of her

time in informal discussions and making important contacts,” addressing Freya’s

previous concerns that she did not want to do a public lecture tour, as well as

emphasizing that this trip employed Freya’s talents to their fullest.85

Essentially, the purpose of the tour was to defend the White Paper of 1939. The

White Paper was a British law that limited Jewish immigration to and Jewish purchase of

Arab lands in Palestine. The backlash against the White Paper was immediate and intense, as Zionists around the world felt that the White Paper was a complete betrayal of the 1917 Balfour Declaration. However, many in the British government believed that this regulation was necessary, both to protect the Arab population in Palestine and to maintain a peaceful working relationship between Britain and the Arabs throughout the

Middle East.86 Those who supported the White Paper understood the necessity of

securing Arab alliances, or at least Arab neutrality, in order to maintain Middle Eastern

resources like oil, as well as a clear route between Europe and British interests in India.

Beginning in 1941, in response to the 1939 White Paper as well as the

increasingly dangerous position of European Jewry, Revisionist Zionism and Militant

Zionism increased in popularity amongst American Jews. Revisionist Zionism, led by

84 “The Oriental Institute Museum | The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,” https://oi.uchicago.edu/about/oriental-institute-museum. 85 M.A. Macmillan, “Question of Miss Freya Stark Visiting the United States of America to State The Arab Viewpoint on the Palestinian Question,” September 22, 1943, E 5758, The British National Archives. 86 “The Avalon Project: British White Paper of 1939,” accessed October 1, 2017, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp. 31

Ze’ev Jabotinsky until his death in 1940, followed by Menachem Begin, argued that Jews

had the right to sovereignty over the whole territory of the abstract biblical Land of Israel,

which included all of Mandate Palestine. This belief, if it prevailed, would mean the

failure of any proposed two-state solution to create both independent Jewish and Arab

states within the Mandate. Militant Zionism, which emerged from Revisionist Zionism

after Jabotinsky’s death and was championed in different forms by individuals like

Menachem Begin and Avraham “Yair” Stern, took the beliefs of Revisionism a step

further: not only did Jews have the right to sovereignty over the entire Mandate, every

Jew had the right to enter Palestine at will. Additionally, Militant Zionists believed that the only way to overcome Arab control was through active, sometimes violent retaliation, and that an armed force was the only way to guarantee a Jewish state.87 Though this

form of Zionism was by no means the most popular or widely supported movement, the

increase in its popularity and effective propaganda increased tensions in the United

States.

Though no one knew in 1943 of the extent of the actions of the Nazi

government’s efforts to systematically eliminate the Jewish community, there were

certainly indications and warnings that this was a distinct possibility. In late 1942 Jan

Karski traveled to London and delivered a report to the exiled Polish government and

British government officials, including Foreign Minister Anthony Eden. Karski was a

former diplomat and a member of the Polish underground, who was smuggled in and out

of both the Warsaw Ghetto and the Izbica transit camp, which was en route to Belzec. In

this report, Karski detailed the horrors the Jews suffered under Nazi occupation, and

Howard M. Sachar, A History Of Israel From The Rise Of Zionism To Our Time ~ 1st Edition (Alfred M. Knopf New York, 1976). p. 265–266 32

warned of the Nazi plan to murder the European Jewish Community. In July 1943,

Karski met with President Franklin D. Roosevelt and delivered the same warning.88 As a

result of news from Europe, Zionist fervor to assist refugees in escaping to Palestine

reached new heights, which resulted in enhanced British enforcement of the White Paper

policy. This led to the unfortunate incidents involving the SS Patria and the SS Struma,

both of which were turned away from the Palestinian borders and then sunk, though

neither through the direct actions of British forces. Both incidents caused mass casualties, for which the British government was blamed.89

As the result of these incidents, 1942-1943 saw an increase in American protest of the White Paper policy, as well as increased violence in Palestine at the hands of Zionists.

Lohemi Heirut Israel, better known to English speakers as LEHI or the Stern Gang, made numerous attempts on the life of High Commissioner Harold MacMichael. Though

LEHI was by no means representative of the vast majority of Zionists, many of whom condemned the organization as terrorists, these attacks were no doubt in the back of

Freya’s mind when she travelled to the United States. As Harold MacMichael was one of

Freya’s closest friends and allies in the Middle East, these assassination attempts no

doubt colored her perspective when she constructed her attacks on Zionism.90

This did not mean she made it easy for those responsible for her journey. On

October 2, 1943, Freya Stark wrote a disgruntled letter to the Ministry of Information in

London. In it, she stated that when she arrived in England to prepare for the U.S. tour,

88 “Jan Karski,” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, accessed November 19, 2017, https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10008152. 89 Passionate Nomad: The Life of Freya Stark (Modern Library Paperbacks) by Geniesse, Jane Fletcher (2001) Paperback (Modern Library, 1900), p. 308-309 90 Geniesse, Passionate Nomad. p. 109 33

which she described as “a mission of some importance,” she was told, with no warning,

that her salary would be significantly reduced from £950 per year (approximately

$53,000 today) to £640 per year (around $36,000 today.) Stark’s frustration was

compounded by the fact that her salary of £950 was already the result of a voluntary pay

reduction from the salary she received for her work in Cairo, which was £1,200 a year,

and tax free. Stark included in her letter that “the subsistence allowance which is given

to people when travelling does not enter into this matter at all,” perhaps in anticipation of

the Ministry of Information’s response to her complaint.91

Stark argued that, since her mission to America was “if anything, more

responsible” than her work in the Middle East, the suggestion that she be paid less for

this work was absurd. She believed that to cut the salary of someone who had already

voluntarily taken a pay cut, to do work that was considered even more essential and

difficult than her work in the Middle East, was unjust. She even said that if this were a

peace time mission, she would quit before accepting a salary this low. However, “[in]

war time, it is a duty to do what one can to be useful, and I should be reluctant not to

continue my work as long as it is wanted.” Though she states in the letter that she would

go on the American tour regardless of the salary decision, there was certainly a veiled

threat in her letter. Simply put, if they wanted her best work, the Ministry of Information

would have to pay for it, perhaps because Stark realized exactly how difficult this task

would be.92

91 Freya Stark, “Letter from Freya Stark to the Ministry of Information.,” October 2, 1943, Container 4, Box 5., Harry Ransom Center. 92 Ibid. 34

It is unclear today just how much of the language of the tour was planned by the

Ministry of Information, and how many of the talking points were formulated by Freya herself. A significant problem the tour encountered was that the Ministry of Information did not utilize the information that they received from the United States before having

Freya Stark embark on this tour. Before she even left for the United States, Freya Stark requested that the government provide her with information about the common opinions of Jews in the United States, the activities of American Zionists, and a basic demographic breakdown of the Jewish community. The government provided her with multiple reports, though it is unclear how much Stark believed these reports, or how much they assisted in crafting her message.

Regardless of whether these documents were entirely accurate representations of the Jewish community in the United States, it appears that Freya Stark did take these documents seriously. In a letter to her friend Peggy Drower, Stark explained that there was “no day without seven or eight separate engagements and all the Zionist literature to read up in between.”93 The same day, Freya wrote to Christopher Scaife explaining that

“one is very worried about the Zionists here as the pressure grows.”94 Some of them did

provide information which might have been useful, if it could be considered reliable.

However, there is something humorous about the British government building a file

entitled “Jewish Opinion in the United States, December 1941-June 1942.” This

document likely discouraged Stark, if she took it seriously, as it explained that the

prevailing Zionist case regarding Palestine was “strengthened by the general American

93 Freya Stark, “Letter to Peggy Drower, 10.10.1943” Letters: New Worlds for Old, 1943-46 v. 5, ed. Lucy Moorehead (Salisbury: Michael Russell Publishing Ltd, 1978)., p. 5. 94 Freya Stark, “Letter to Christopher Scaife, 10.10.1943.” Stark, Letters, v. 5, p. 6. 35

tendency to brand unpopular policies as ‘appeasement.” This, in turn, weakened any

opposing argument, as “nobody cares to risk being called ‘anti-Semite’ (if a Gentile) or

‘appeaser’ (if a Jew) when there are neither votes nor fame to be gained thereby.”

Simply put, it would be nearly impossible to convince anyone with political aspirations or

a public image to stand up and support the White Paper, because it was an unpopular

stance, support of which would essentially be political suicide in the United States.95

Additionally, the report outlined the main lines of the attack on the White Paper.

Americans believed that, in addition to the White Paper being incompatible with the responsibilities of the British Mandate, it was unnecessarily cruel in the decision to turn away refugees from Nazi Europe. Further, based on the limited information that reached the United States despite censorship, the Americans assumed that the majority of British citizens disapproved of the policy. The talking points emphasized by this report were twofold: First and foremost, it was necessary to emphasize how difficult and destabilizing integration of massive post-war immigration would be: second, Freya Stark would have to suggest that there were other options for European refugee immigration than Palestine.96 By breaking down each complaint against the White Paper into

actionable steps, the report implied that if Freya Stark addressed each concern with the

White Paper, and proposed a solid argument for Arab support, that she would be able to

convince Americans to support the White Paper, at least until the end of the war.

Another file, specifically constructed for Freya, was sent to her in September of

1943. This file, entitled “Information on the Jews” should have been extremely useful, as

95 “Jewish Opinion in the United States, December 1941-June 1942.,” July 2, 1942, E 4048, The British National Archives. 96 Though it was not suggested in the report, Freya’s example for this was always the United States. 36

it provided a breakdown of American Jewish sentiments regarding Zionism.97 The report

explained that the actual proportion of Jewish millionaires was much smaller than many

assumed, and that the majority of Jews were middle or lower class. The vast majority of

Jews, it claimed, shared the same political opinions, and supported President Roosevelt

and his policies. Most importantly, the report estimated that only about one hundred

thousand of the estimated almost five million Jews in the United States actually

considered themselves Zionists. The report also emphasized that there were two factions

in the United States; Zionists led by Rabbi Stephen Wise and the anti-Zionists of the

American Jewish Committee (AJC.) The report argued that though the majority of Jews in the United States were sympathetic to the “Zionist spirit in Palestine” and were

“sentimentally attached to the thought of a progressive, model, Jewish democracy in

Palestine,” very few American Jews had the inclination to emigrate to the promised land.98

Also significant was that, though the official count of American Zionists was only

about two percent of American Jews, any perceived threat to Zionist goals in Palestine

would result in an outcry from the larger Jewish community. Even if the general anger

would pass, any issue would be kept alive by the Jewish press, which was active, prolific,

and universally Zionist.99

However, the report does eventually move into the ridiculous. In an attempt,

perhaps, to save face, the report argued that even if an American Jew was not political, he

“finds himself in the embarrassing position of being egged on to criticism of British

97 “Information about the Jews for Miss Freya Stark.,” September 23, 1943, E 5835, The British National Archives. 98 Ibid., p. 1-2. 99 Ibid., p. 1. 37

policy.” Though American Jews acknowledged that Jews in Britain were treated well,

they saw the colonial policy as an attack on the Jewish community. This would explain

why American Jews would support Britain in the war effort, but would simultaneously

condemn British policies in the Middle East.100

The report contained limited information on the Arab community in America.

Sadly, the report simply noted that not much was known about Arabs in America. There

was no official population estimate, no clear leadership, and no record of any coordinated

attacks on Zionism. The official report also failed to provide a religious breakdown of

the Arab community. The British believed that the failure of Arab Americans to confront

Zionism resulted from “the fact that Arab societies are scattered and somewhat apathetic

in character.” Though there were eleven Arab newspapers, only one of these was in

English, and eight of the papers were published in New York City.101 The British

officials clearly did not believe that Stark could rely on American Arabs to publicly

support the White Paper in the United States.

The Tour

The Tour also had a difficult start due to Freya Stark’s health problems. Stark had

suffered bouts of illness throughout her life, but as she was sailing across the Atlantic

Stark developed acute appendicitis, and she required surgery immediately upon arrival in

Halifax. After her surgery, Stark wrote to Stewart Perowne, and quoted Jezebel from

Jean Racine’s tragedy Athalie, writing “’Tremble’, m’a t-elle-dit,’ fille digne de moi. Le cruel Dieu des Juifs l’emporte aussi sur toi. Je te plairs de tomber dans ses mains

100 Ibid., p. 1. 101 Ibid., p. 5-6. 38

ridoutelles…”102 She then jokingly observed from her hospital bed that, “even a Zionist

can’t give one appendicitis without some sort of supernatural assistance,” implying that

Freya knew what sort of reception she was likely to receive.

Freya Stark arrived in New York City in November 1943, a month behind

schedule with a full roster of events. On November 20, Stark began a diary of the tour,

which did not last more than a few days. However, it did provide a general schedule of

her tour. Beginning in January, Freya would venture across the country, and February

would be spent in California. From there Freya would venture north to Canada to visit a farm her father had left to her in his will. After that, the end of March through her departure in May would be spent on the east coast visiting Boston, New York, and

Washington, D.C.103

Freya Stark was given a certain amount of freedom of movement because she had

developed her own unique take on propaganda. As she described it in her “Apology for

Propaganda,” her propaganda, particularly her work with the Brotherhood of Freedom,

was based as much on listening to what was happening as it was to spreading

information.104 Her work was based on creating a ripple effect; each member of her core

Brotherhood group would meet with her weekly, and then hold their own weekly

meetings. This way, “our influence, we saw, could thus radiate indefinitely from a

102 “Tremble,” she told me, “Daughter worthy of me. The Lord of the Jews also prevails over you. I plead you to fall into his formidable hands.” The whole quote is in itself a fitting display of both Stark’s intelligence and her understanding of the situation she was about to enter. To quote Jezebel, a reviled female heretic in the Jewish Bible perhaps alludes to her understanding that the Jewish community would hate what she was going to present to them. Freya Stark, “Letter from Freya Stark to Stewart Perowne.,” October 24, 1943, Container 6, Box 1., Harry Ransom Center. 103 Freya Stark, “Diary of Miss Freya Stark’s Tour of United States,” 1943, E 8012/87/31, The British National Archives. 104 Freya Stark, “Apology for Propaganda,” Container 1, Box 3., Harry Ransom Center. p. 6. 39

centre, however small.”105 Every two weeks, Freya would host a party, “a social affair

not meant for the Brothers of Freedom, but we used to keep an eye open for any likely

candidates.”106 Freya also took advantage of other social opportunities to discuss larger

issues, and was willing to push boundaries while others were not. During the 1941 coup

d’état in Iraq, Freya just happened to run into Palestinian writer George Antonius and the

Grand Mufti of Palestine, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, having lunch in the Zia Hotel. Though

the Mufti was persona non grata in opinion of most British officers, Freya sat down with

them and said “I am delighted to meet you… so few of us British have a chance to do so

now.”107 In propaganda, Freya cultivated and then maintained relationships to succeed.

Though the American Tour was billed as a lecture circuit expanded from Stark’s

invitation to the Oriental Institute of Chicago, the main tactics used to spread Freya’s

message were small, closed-door meetings with important individuals, and dinner-party small talk. Both tactics were meant to play to Freya’s strengths, as well as the perceived weaknesses of Zionists. Freya arranged to stay with her friends in many of the cities she stopped in, and her friends in turn introduced her to influential individuals.108 Even

before the Tour, Freya explained that one-on-one conversations were best, as “in any

case it is my firm conviction, after nearly four years of propaganda, that the way to make

people believe a thing is to make them say it themselves!”109

Stark attempted this form of propaganda on the November 19 with Howard Dietz,

described as “a big man in the cinema industry,” who argued that Chaim Weizmann

105 Ibid., p. 7. 106 Ibid., p. 12. 107 Stark, East is West, p. 143. 108 Stark, “Diary of Miss Freya Stark’s Tour of United States.” 109 Freya Stark, “Letter to Elizabeth Monroe, 21.5.1943,” Stark, Letters. V. 4, p. 287. 40

claimed that there was no reason for Jews and Arabs not to get along. Freya reminded

him of the second clause of the Balfour Declaration, which stated that “nothing shall be

done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish

communities in Palestine,” and that if immigration to Palestine ceased, she believed that

friendship between the two communities was a possibility.110 Freya managed to

convince Baroness Alix Hermine Jeanette Schey de Koromla, the wife of Guy Rotshchild

and a member of the prominent banking family and the Jewish community, that “to upset

all the Moslem interests of the British would not be compensated by the advantages of

getting a million or so Jews into Palestine.” Freya ended the entry sympathizing with the

Jewish community in America, saying that “their social treatment here is appalling.”111

Stark seemed optimistic that in individual conversations, she could use facts to convince

members of the Jewish community that Jewish immigration must be temporarily halted.

Stark attempted to find compromises with influential Jewish leaders regarding the

issue of Jewish immigration. In a conversation with Isador Lubin, the commissioner of

the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Stark pointed out that Zionists in Palestine were missing

an excellent opportunity to influence the Middle East because they fostered an attitude of

isolation and exclusion.112 Since the Arabs felt that they were only harmed by the

immigration of Jews into Palestine, they did not want immigration to continue. Freya

believed that any increase in Jewish immigration to Palestine would lead to more

bloodshed. She contended that after the war, the Middle East would stabilize, which

110 Stark, “Diary of Miss Freya Stark’s Tour of United States.” p. 1. “Text of the Balfour Declaration,” accessed October 1, 2017, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/text-of- the-balfour-declaration. 111 Stark, “Diary of Miss Freya Stark’s Tour of United States.” p. 2. 112 Freya Stark “Letter to Elizabeth Monroe 12.23.1943” Letters: New Worlds for Old, 1943-46 v. 5, ed. Lucy Moorehead (Salisbury: Michael Russell Publishing Ltd, 1978)., p. 36. 41

would allow for more discussion and likely increased Jewish immigration, but not if

Zionists continued to force the issue.113

A conversation with Mr. Alan Stroock supported this belief. Alan Stroock was a

prominent lawyer in New York City and supposed member of the “moderate Jewish party

which has just seceded from the Zionists,” which Freya interpreted as someone who would potentially be open to her perspective.114 Freya felt that she managed to have

some effect on his understanding of the White Paper, but she would have been more

successful “if he had not been convinced by British informants that four members of the

War Cabinet and Mr. Churchill were in favour of abrogating it.” More importantly,

though Mr. Stroock “did agree that it was urgent to make his party much more vocal and

as obviously and loudly as possible anti-Zionist, and he is going to do this,” his party was still preparing a paper that argued that the White Paper was a violation of international law. This was perhaps one of Stark’s first realizations that anti-Zionists would oppose the White Paper, regardless of the question of Jewish sovereignty.115

Freya also believed that it was necessary to correct the misconceptions of

American leaders by contextualizing the situation in Palestine with facts. One of the

facts Freya used most in her arguments was the comparison of the Arab birthrate of 2.4

113 Louis Lyons, “British Publicist Sees Strife If Jews Crowd Arabs in Palestine,” The Boston Daily Globe, May 24, 1944. 114 Stroock was a prominent lawyer in New York City who already had an impressive resume by 1943. From 1934 to 1936, Stroock clerked for Associate Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo, and made partner in the Stroock law firm by 1939. More importantly, Stroock was involved throughout his life in the workings of the New York Jewish community. Two years after this discussion, Stroock was one of the founders of Commentary Magazine, which is still managed by the AJC to this day. Eric Pace, “Alan M. Stroock, 77, Lawyer and Jewish Leader, Is Dead,” The New York Times, March 30, 1985, http://www.nytimes.com/1985/03/30/nyregion/alan-m-stroock-77-lawyer-and-jewish-leader-is- dead.html. Stark, “Diary of Miss Freya Stark’s Tour of United States.” p. 2. 115Geniesse, Passionate Nomad, p. 114 42

and the Jewish birthrate of 1.6. Freya used this to argue that if Jewish immigration was

limited, the Arab population would be willing to negotiate the place of Jews in

Palestine.116 In her mind, as long as the birthrate remained constant, the Arabs would

feel secure that their majority was not threatened, and would be more open to the

possibility of allowing the Jewish community to grow at a controlled pace.

The American tour was exhausting for Freya Stark. Throughout the tour she

found herself repeating the point that there should be no externally imposed solutions to

the Palestinian conflict. Not only was she attacked for her position on Palestine, but for

British colonial policy around the world. At one point, she wrote to her publisher, Jock

Murray, expressing frustration that “there is a war on. When it is over, then we can

address these problems.”117 Stark eventually expressed to Elizabeth Monroe, the Foreign

Office coordinator for the tour, that she felt like “an unarmed Christian in the arena with

no particular method for dealing with lions.”118

There were small victories throughout the tour. In the 15 surviving pages of

Freya Stark’s tour diary, which detail her time in Los Angeles, she focused her attention

on recounting her days, the meetings she had, and the potential victories she won. She

had a successful meeting with 15 men from the International Affairs Cabinet, in which

she managed to dispel the rumors Rabbi Wise told regarding Arab cooperation

throughout the war.119 After a speech at Occidental College, Freya spoke to an editor on

116 Stark, “Diary of Miss Freya Stark’s Tour of United States.” p. 1. 117 Freya Stark, “Letter to John Gray Murray, 6.1.1944,” Letters: New Worlds for Old, 1943-46 v. 5, ed. Lucy Moorehead (Salisbury: Michael Russell Publishing Ltd, 1978), p. 42. 118 Ibid., p. 29. 119 Stark, “Notes on visit to the United States.”, p. 8. It is unclear whether this meeting was planned by the Ministry of Information for Freya Stark as an official representative of the British government, or whether she was able to organize this meeting through her influential connections. 43

the Los Angeles Times staff who never saw the Arab view on the issues presented by the

Zionists.120 Freya’s diary ended with the assessment that public opinion was not universally biased against the Arabs, and that the American public was open to hearing about them and wanted to be fair.121

By April 1944, Freya Stark was ready to return home, either to Britain or the

Middle East. In her letter to Stewart Perowne, Freya exclaimed that “the pictures of the

old sheikhs did make me homesick.” She remarked that in retrospect the American tour

would be “one of the most interesting I have ever made, but at the same time it is a really

horrid job to be always fighting and I do think I have done enough controversy for one

year.”122

Press Coverage: Popular Media

Much of the mainstream media coverage of Freya Stark’s tour was positive, even

to the point where she saved the newspaper clippings in her files.123 The press followed

her throughout the tour, from Chicago to the west coast with San Francisco papers, and

then back east to New York and Boston. Most of the published clippings follow a

standard pattern: the earliest publications did not even mention Palestine, and as the tour progressed the Palestine question was often only mentioned in the last paragraph or two of her articles. The short clippings were more dedicated to Stark’s particular areas of expertise, the Middle East and Palestine, while the longer spreads often focused on Freya

120 Ibid., p. 14 121 Ibid., p. 15 122 Freya Stark, “Letter to Stewart Perowne, 27.4.1944” Letters: New Worlds for Old, 1943-46 v. 5, ed. Lucy Moorehead. p. 88. 123 Container 24, File 8., Harry Ransom Center. 44

Stark as a woman in an exotic location, braving difficulties that most average Americans

would never experience.

Much of the press regarding Stark focuses on her as an Orientalist sensation. The

Chicago Sun claimed Stark as ““probably the best known contemporary British

explorer.”124 In Newsweek, Freya was praised for her determination, recounting the tale

of how she rode through the Arabian desert on a donkey while battling pneumonia 125

Collier’s Weekly, a nationally distributed magazine based in New York City, published a full profile on Freya Stark in early April, 1944, which emphasized her individual role in dispelling the myths circulated by Axis propagandists.126 In general, these articles

focused as much on capturing Freya Stark as a character as they did on explaining her

message. When they did discuss Freya’s beliefs regarding Palestine, it was only a brief

part of a larger narrative which emphasized her importance in the Middle East, her

bravery in exploration, or her role as a woman in a male-dominated society.

In these articles, Freya Stark only mentions the reason for her visit to the United

States at the very end. In her full page spread in Newsweek, which emphasized her role

in the Brotherhood of Freedom, Palestine is only discussed in the last two paragraphs. In

the article Freya emphasized that the future of Palestine “cannot be settled if there is a

constant stream of immigration. That is like forcing food on a person who has just eaten

a big dinner.” She also pointed out that, for the past two millennia, Palestine was an Arab

country. In response to the suggestion that the Palestinians should settle elsewhere, Stark

124 Freya Stark, “Storied Arab World Races For Modern Civilization,” The Chicago Sun, January 23, 1944. 125 “From the Capital,” Newsweek, January 17, 1944. 126 One might think, from the tone of the essay, that Freya was single-handedly holding the Middle East together. Amy Porter, “Mission for Miss Stark,” Collier’s Weekly, April 8, 1944. 45 noted that “[m]oving Arabs out of [Palestine] is like telling Pennsylvanians they must go to live in Canada because the language is the same.”127

The Chicago Sun similarly barely touched on the issue of Palestine, and instead discussed the Arab world as a unified whole, arguing that Arab advancement was occurring at a rapid pace. Stark wrote that “it is worth looking at [Arabs], for they are going to be with us in the future.” The Middle East was entering the modern world, and it was time to start working with Arabs on more balanced ground.128

When Freya Stark mentioned the issue of Palestine, she started by complimenting the Jewish community in Palestine, declaring that “the pace of modern development has been greatly stimulated” by their presence. However, she followed, the Jewish community only hastened a process that was already occurring within the area. This comment served as Stark’s attempt to undercut one of the key arguments for Jewish immigration: that their presence was the key to developing Palestine from an Arab backwater into a modern western nation. She followed this blow with her argument in favor of the White Paper, namely that Jewish immigration should take place only with the consent of the Arab community that had lived there for generations. Stark argued that the

Palestine question boiled down to whose claim was stronger: her conclusion was that the rights of “these people [Arabs] who have lived in Palestine for over 2,000 years, is stronger than the right of people who still love it after 2,000 years of exile.”129 Most importantly, Freya Stark concluded by observing that “Palestine, is, however, only one of the family of Arab nations whose gradual union promises a new stability in the Near

127 “From the Capital,” Newsweek, January 17, 1944. 128 Freya Stark, “Storied Arab World Races For Modern Civilization,” The Chicago Sun, January 23, 1944. 129 Ibid. 46

Eastern world,” contextualizing Palestine within the greater Middle East, and reiterating the possibility of a Pan-Arab confederacy.130 Again, the focus was on Freya Stark, not on the issues she wanted to address.

The emphasis was once again on Freya, rather than her message, when Collier’s

Weekly published a multi-page interview. The reporter, Amy Porter, emphasized that

“Miss Stark’s success is grounded in her sure knowledge of the Arabs,” supporting her credibility to discuss the Arab viewpoint on political issues. Dubbing her, as many had before, “Lady Lawrence of Arabia,” the article recounts her experiences living among both city-dwellers and “less civilized” Arabs. The article even includes Freya’s criticisms of other British women living in the Middle East, who failed to “trouble to make the acquaintance of the natives.” Freya claimed that “the British appear to be popular wherever they go, until they bring their wives with them.” However, the issue of

Palestine is again only mentioned in passing, as Porter recounted the Brotherhood’s role in fighting Axis propaganda, which alleged that the British would allow unlimited immigration to Palestine.131

When Christian Science Monitor published an article on Stark for their section

“Today’s Woman,” it emphasized, like Collier’s Weekly, Freya Stark’s bravery as a woman working in the Middle East. The article focused on Stark as a small part in the fight against the Axis powers, mentioning her presence in Baghdad during the 1941

“Axis-stirred Iraqi revolt” and her propaganda films for the ladies of the Yemeni court.

Again, only at the end of the article is Palestine even mentioned. The author, Kimmis

Hendrick, wrote that Stark “thinks the difficult problem of the Arab-Jew relationship in

130 Ibid. 131 Amy Porter, “Mission for Miss Stark,” Collier’s Weekly, April 8, 1944. 47

Palestine, aggravated currently, can certainly be solved peacefully if both Jews and Arabs

will take time to work it out together.” It is necessary to note that this position is much

more neutral than Stark’s earlier stance on the issue, mellowed perhaps by five difficult

months in the United States arguing with the Jewish community, or possibly

mischaracterized by Hendrick.132

These articles did not give Freya much of an opportunity to fully explain her

arguments. Other articles focused more on her expertise on the Arab perspective of the

war, which gave her a better platform to argue for the Arab perspective. The Chicago

Daily News focused on Freya Stark’s assertion that the Allies needed to be more grateful

for the neutrality and friendship of the Arabs. She argued, and truly believed, that “if the

Arabs had not been neutral and friendly, we would have lost the Middle East, and the

Japanese would have taken India.” Writer Frank Hayes asked Freya why the Middle East

was only neutral, rather than joining in the war effort, she responded by pointing out that

much of the lend-lease aid going to Russia traveled through Iraq.

Interestingly, Freya chose not to contradict Hayes by pointing out that the Arab

Legion had declared for the Allied cause.133 The reason Freya Stark gave for the Middle

East’s neutral status was that the Allies were not able to provide air support in the region, and a lack of neutrality would place Arab civilian lives at risk. At the end of the article,

Freya Stark predicted “an Arab federation after the war.” With this quote, Freya Stark opened the possibility of a Pan-Arab nation or confederacy. This was an interesting choice, as her superiors in the British Ministry of Information certainly did not suggest

132 Kimmis Hendrick, “Her Friendship For Arabians Helps Allies,” Christian Science Monitor, May 9, 1944, sec. Today’s Woman. 133 “Jordan - History - The Tragedy of Palestine,” accessed October 12, 2017, http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_palestine.html. 48

that this would ever be a possibility, and even Freya Stark believed that this was an

unattainable goal. Yet, it is possible that Freya, who had consistently argued to her

superiors that the British should at least pay lip-service to this idea, if only to gain Arab support, was trying to do just that.134

Among her news clippings, Freya kept what appears to be a draft of an article

titled “British Publicist Sees Strife if Jews Crowd Arabs in Palestine,” written by Louis

M. Lyons. The article was never published, but it was intended for the Wednesday, May

24, 1944 edition of the Boston Daily Globe, and was perhaps the best summary of Freya

Stark’s argument against Zionism, and one of the only articles to solely discuss this issue.

The article emphasized that, while the Jewish community had helped modernize

Palestine, “the settlement of 500,000 Jews has affected Arab psychology.” Freya

attempted to compare the issue to the United States accepting 65,000,000 foreigners in

the span of a few years, perhaps with the hope that Americans would begin to see just

how significant an impact such immigration would have.135

In response to claims that the question should be settled on an economic basis,

Stark argued that economics was not the issue. She claimed that “Economically Texas

could take millions of Jews,” a claim that she commonly made on the tour. This was a

direct attack on American Zionists, arguing as she did in her letter to the New York Times

that American Zionists were so focused on forcing immigration in Palestine that they

were ignoring the opportunity to lobby their government to allow more Jews into the

United States, and other ports. She presented the view that Arabs were frustrated with

134 Frank Hayes, “Stark Asserts Allies Owe Thanks to Neutral Arabs,” Chicago Daily News, January 11, 1944. 135 Ibid. 49

the economic argument, because other nations had plenty of room for Jewish

immigration, yet maintained that it was the responsibility of a small Arab territory to

absorb this community. Freya also repeated her regular argument that at that moment, in

1944, the only way the Arabs would consent to more Jews entering Palestine was “at the

point of the bayonet.” 136

The popular press, though it pleased Freya Stark enough that she saved the

clippings, did not focus on the issues that brought Freya to the United States. Both the

letter that Freya Stark wrote to the New York Times and Louis Lyon’s article for The

Boston Daily Globe, the clearest statements of Stark’s beliefs and logic regarding the

conflict between Zionists and Arabs, remained unpublished, relegated to Freya’s

correspondence and personal papers. In many ways, the popular press failed to provide

Freya with an opportunity to make her observations as a well-informed witness, and did not offset the severe criticism she received from the Jewish press in America.

Jewish Response

Freya Stark arrived in the United States at a time when the Jewish press mounted numerous successful campaigns in the fight against antisemitism, and Stark became one of the casualties in this fight. Though some of the attacks mentioned Stark’s position on the issue of Jewish immigration, much of the argument against her tour was based on her assumed, and later confirmed, position within the British Ministry of Information, or the suggestion that because her stance was pro-Arab, all of her points should be dismissed.

With few exceptions, the opposition to Freya Stark were based on her personal

136 Frank Hayes, “Stark Asserts Allies Owe Thanks to Neutral Arabs,” Chicago Daily News, January 11, 1944 50

credibility, not the validity of her argument.137 Thematically these responses can be

divided into two categories: the accusation that Stark was spreading pro-Empire propaganda and therefore not to be trusted, and the claim that She was anti-Zionist and potentially antisemitic.

In response to Newsweek’s coverage of Freya’s tour, The Jewish Post, a paper published in Indianapolis since 1933, published a scathing criticism of Stark. The editorial attacks Stark’s credibility by targeting her role as a propagandist for the British government, even though it was unknown at this time that she was on the British government payroll. However, rather than directly challenging the quotation regarding

Arab relocation that they found offensive, and correcting Freya Stark’s argument, the author attacked her credibility based solely on her relation to the British Government.

This relationship discredits her to any reader of The Jewish Post, as the British government is portrayed as constantly betraying the Jewish people with its actions, the most egregious of which was the White Paper of 1939.138

The B’nai Brith Messenger, a Los Angeles based Zionist newspaper, claimed that

Freya’s purpose for visiting the United States, “whether as a free-lance or on assignment

from her government, is quite clear. It will be her job to tell the people of the United

States about the Arabs, the Jews and the complexities of the Palestine problem.” Though

this seems like a fair assessment of her mission, the author immediately accuses her of

137 “National Publications Must Know Jewish Problems,” The Jewish Post, January 28, 1944, sec. Editorial Page. “Lady Box Office,” B’nai Brith Messenger, January 28, 1944 Arnold Levin, “Arab Issue,” B’nai Brith Messenger, April 2, 1944, sec. Heard in the Lobbies. “Emanuel Celler,” accessed October 13, 2017, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/emanuel-celler. Freya Stark, Letters: New Worlds for Old, 1943-46 v. 5, ed. Lucy Moorehead (Salisbury: Michael Russell Publishing Ltd, 1978). p. 78. 138 “National Publications Must Know Jewish Problems,” The Jewish Post, January 28, 1944, sec. Editorial Page. 51

“attempting to put words in the mouth of the Jew in an effort to get across her point,

which is not pro-Arab, but just good old pro-Empire.” The article ended with an appeal to its readers to see that any organization which invited Freya Stark to speak “not go overboard for her box office appeal,” and to spread the news of her true mission throughout the Jewish community to prevent Jews from inviting her to speak at events.139

A later article published in the B’nai Brit Messenger suggested that Stark would

even “venture into isolationist territories,” since her talks were likely meant to promote

the view that Americans should avoid involvement in the Middle East and the Palestine

question, as this view was in Britain’s best interest, as well as the best interest of

American oil companies.140 This commentary on Stark’s presumed plan and motive was

part of the same article which describe the meetings of Arab leaders as “a series of

huddles of Arab political chieftains who gather in that citadel of blitzkrieg neutrality,”

supposedly to determine how best to exploit an impending peace “toward which they

have contributed nothing but the Mufti, an Axis coup in Iraq and an Arab legion fighting in Greece.”141 Regardless of the reality that there were Arab soldiers serving in the

British army, Freya Stark’s message that Arab neutrality was critical to the impending

victory in Europe was anathema to the arguments made in Zionist papers. To the B’nai

Brith Messenger, Arab leaders were still uncivilized, the Middle East was clearly

supporting Axis powers under the guise of neutrality, and the Arabs failed to prove their

loyalty to the Allied cause from which they sought to benefit.142 Since Freya Stark’s

entire message was that of Arab modernization, and Arab support throughout World War

139 “Lady Box Office,” B’nai Brith Messenger, January 28, 1944. 140 Arnold Levin, “Arab Issue,” B’nai Brith Messenger, April 2, 1944, sec. Heard in the Lobbies. 141 Ibid. 142 Ibid. 52

II, and this article provided the exact opposite message, it is no surprise that Freya

struggled to win over Zionists in the United States.

Freya’s attempts to present her perspective were thwarted further when Jewish

newspapers received proof that she was in America as a representative of the British

government. Throughout the trip, Freya was careful in each talk and interview to present

everything she said as her personal opinion, based on her years of experience in the

Middle East. In May 1944, the Bnai Brith Messenger reported that Brendan Bracken, the

British Minister of Information, admitted in the House of Commons that the Ministry was

responsible for both Stark’s salary and travel expenses while in the United States.

Though Bracken “vehemently denied that she had come to the United States for the

purpose of spreading pro-Arab propaganda,” the damage to her credibility was done.

When it was originally proposed that Freya Stark would go to the United States, a

Foreign Office official expressed the sentiment that, though he believed she would be

able to present the Arab perspective well, “the danger is that she will put it forward as a

point of view approved by H.M.G.”143 Once it became known that the British

government paid all of Freya Stark’s expenses, it was irrelevant whether the ideas she

presented were her own or those espoused by the Ministry of Information, her message

was now seen as the British government’s attempt to manipulate Americans.

While the accusation that Stark was not to be trusted based on her role as a British

propagandist was problematic, the accusations that she was antisemitic were much more aggressive. On March 29, 1944, Congressman Emanuel Celler of New York addressed

Congress regarding the White Paper. Celler, a representative from Brooklyn, who spent

143 M.A. Macmillan, “Question of Miss Freya Stark Visiting the United States of America to State The Arab Viewpoint on the Palestinian Question,” September 22, 1943, E 5758, The British National Archives. 53

the majority of his nearly 50-year career in Congress fighting for immigration rights and

reform, was particularly motivated to save Jews from Europe during the war.144 In this

speech, Celler argued that

it is tragic indeed, to have Britain seal the doors of Palestine against Jewish immigration… But the British Ministry of Information adds insult to that injury by importing into this country one Miss Freya Stark. She is a paid ‘agent provocateur’… spreading lies concerning the Palestine Jews.145

Celler continued, calling her a “mischief maker…modern Molly McGuire trouble

breeder…Judeaphobe and an Arabophile…we want none of her kind in this country.”146

Not only did Celler accuse Freya of antisemitism, he called for her removal from the

United States on the floor of the House of Representatives. Though Celler was correct in

his assumption that the Ministry of Information was paying for her work in America, the

Embassy felt it counter-productive to the mission to acknowledge its sponsorship of her

journey, and began to deny these claims almost immediately.147 Freya did not even

understand some of the insults that Celler used. Unfamiliar with the plight of Irish

coalminers in northeastern Pennsylvania, she wrote to Sydney Cockerell asking, “can you

tell me about Molly McGuire, so that I may know what I am really like?”148

Additionally, Stark was condemned by key Jewish leaders, Rabbi Stephen Wise

and Rabbi Hillel Silver. Though Silver and Wise were rivals, and often disagreed on

144 “Emanuel Celler,” accessed October 13, 2017, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/emanuel-celler. 145 Geniesse, Passionate Nomad, p. 314. 146 Ibid., p. 314. 147 Ibid., p. 314. 148 Freya Stark, Letters: New Worlds for Old, 1943-46 v. 5, ed. Lucy Moorehead (Salisbury: Michael Russell Publishing Ltd, 1978). p. 78. The Molly Maguires were a group of terrorists who attacked anthracite coal mining sites in the 1860s and 1870s. In the context of Celler’s speech, he was referring to them as an example of disruptive and damaging behavior. 54

issues of Zionist leadership, they were united in their antipathy to Stark’s message.149

Unfortunately, we do not know what exactly was said, as much of the Foreign Office

documentation of the Tour was subsequently destroyed. Simon Albert suggests that the

absence of these files suggests that there was documentation of the controversial nature

of the tour, a response to a complaint made by Stephen Wise at the Washington Embassy

which protested Stark’s pro-Arab propaganda, and other documentation regarding the

difficulty of the tour.150 However, since these documents no longer exist, it is impossible

to know what was said.

What is known, based on Freya’s record of her correspondence was that Rabbi

Silver and Rabbi Wise both wrote to Lord Halifax, who served as Ambassador of the

United States from 1940 until 1946. According to Stark, Wise and Silver misquoted her,

and “accuse me of saying things I have particularly avoided saying.”151 In response to

this attack, Stark drafted a letter to the New York Times, which she copied to her Foreign

Office colleague, Elizabeth Monroe. In this letter, Freya claimed that because, when

questioned, she presented her views that the imposition of Jewish immigration on the

Arabs in Palestine by force was not only wrong, but also contrary to the interests of

Zionism, she was accused of antisemitism. She wished the world to know “that I am in

no sense anti-Semitic, that indeed I am not anti-Zionist except insofar as I feel that their

149 The differences between Wise and Silver came to a head only shortly before Freya Stark’s arrival in the United States, at the American Jewish Conference on August 20, 1943. Stephen Wise, a follower of Chaim Weizmann and proponent of more moderate Zionism, urged that the conference participants avoid reference to the Biltmore program, which called for more militant action. In opposition to this, Silver “launched into a savage tongue-lashing of the aged Wise for sacrificing “principle” to “expediency.”” Howard M. Sachar, A History of the Jews in America, Reprint edition (New York: Vintage, 1993). p. 569- 570. 150 Albert, p. 112-113. 151 Stark, “Letter to Elizabeth Monroe, 8.4.1944,” Letters: New Worlds for Old, 1943-46 v. 5, ed. Lucy Moorehead, p. 80-81. 55

establishment in Palestine can only rightly be made by agreement with the inhabitants of

the country and not by force.” She ends the letter on a somewhat exasperated note,

claiming that “many Zionists are sacrificing the cause of the Jews in Europe to the cause

of Palestine.” As Freya argued throughout the tour, if Zionists were open to exploring

other ports of refuge, they were likely to have more success in saving European Jews.152

Unfortunately for Freya, the Times never published her letter.

The Jewish press also focused on a comment which Freya made at the end of her

tour, while in Ontario on April 7, 1944, that “as a rule, those Jews whose ancestors had

lived in Palestine sided with the Arabs in their opposition to Zionism.”153 In response, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported from Jerusalem on May 1st that the Bnei

Hayishuv (Sons of the Old Settlers) commented that “it wholeheartedly supports Jewish

immigration as the best means for the normal development of the entire Palestine Jewish

community and of achieving its national aims.”154 To the Zionist press, this proved that

Stark was either terribly misinformed, or willing to deceive the public to prove her point

regarding who was to blame for discontent in Palestine. It was much more likely that she

was misinformed than willfully lying to the American people, as first tenet of Stark’s propaganda was that she would only write and disseminate a message that she believed.

She believed that propaganda was only useful if those spreading the message firmly agreed with what they were saying.155

152 Ibid., p. 80-81. 153 Jewish Telegraphic Agency, “British Agent Says Jews Oppose Zionism,” The Jewish Post, April 7, 1944. 154 Jewish Telegraphic Agency, “Old Settlers in Palestine Protest Charges of Anti-Zionism by British Official,” April 30, 1944. 155 Stark, Dust In The Lion’s Paw, p. 65. 56

Conclusion

Freya Stark’s opinionated perspective caused trouble for her throughout her

career, but no argument caused as much trouble for her as the Palestine Question. In

private correspondence she vented her frustrations to her mother and to her friends. In

her reports to superiors she emphasized the problems caused by the British policy. She

defended her views in front of aggressive and hostile audiences. Yet, at the hands of

American Zionists, Stark felt personally attacked for beliefs which she never attempted to

hide.

Freya Stark exemplifies an issue which affects many scholars of the Middle East

today. Her tour of the United States, though part of the British government’s agenda, was

also Freya’s attempt to convince the American people of her beliefs regarding the Arabs

and the Palestine Question. These views were supported by Freya’s personal experiences

on the ground in the Middle East, which differentiated her from many writers and

politicians of the time. Though in her personal life Freya occasionally said one offensive

thing or another, none of her off-color commentary was even available to the public until her letters were published in the nineteen seventies. More importantly, even Freya herself recognized these comments as problematic, as she edited them for clarity in her later publications.

Regardless of whether Freya Stark was antisemitic in her personal life does not

negate the validity of her arguments regarding the Arab perspective during World War II.

Her arguments might have been more sympathetic to the Arab cause because of this, but

every point she made was based on her observations and the political realities of the time.

While it was problematic of the British to limit Jewish immigration at a time when the

57

Jews were suffering in Europe, in 1939 no one could have foreseen the fate of the

European Jewry. More importantly, Freya’s logic in supporting the White Paper was sound. She believed that Jews should be permitted to immigrate to Palestine, but only with the consent of the majority Arab population. The issue was not that Jews were

entering Palestine, but rather that the Arab population felt that they forced their way in,

and then mistreated their Arab neighbors by restricting their access to the new economy.

Based on this logic, as well as her well-founded concerns as a propagandist, that the

Palestine question was destabilizing the rest of the Middle East in the midst of a war, it is

quite obvious that regardless of her personal concerns, Freya had enough cause from her

professional life to support her positions.

Based merely on her professional persona, Freya Stark was attacked, even vilified

by the Zionist community. Though she might have provided a unique critique of their

argument, rather than meeting with her and discussing their opposing views, leading

Zionists worked to personally discredit her, on the grounds that a Pro-Arab propagandist

had no place lecturing in the United States. Eventually, they succeeded in destroying her

credibility when they published that she was on the British government’s payroll, though

she claimed to be espousing her own views on the issue. Rather than attacking her

talking points, the American Zionists attacked Freya Stark herself.

More importantly, this is still happening to Freya Stark today. Though the tide is

changing, and recently more scholars have been willing to address Freya Stark, she is still

largely neglected by academics, particularly in her role as a propagandist. Even worse,

some academics who have addressed Freya Stark’s work have used a few of her quotes

and letters to mischaracterize and continue to defame Freya.

58

Efraim Karsh and Rory Miller wrote their article “Freya Stark in America:

Orientalism, Antisemitism and Political Propaganda” based on a number of false premises. The first false premise was that Freya Stark was an orientalist. One of the first points the authors made about Freya Stark was to immediately place her in the same category as T.E. Lawrence, Gertrude Bell, and others, arguing that “she came to view the

Arab world in primarily romantic and idealized terms.”156 The only supporting evidence for this claim was a secondary source which provides a quote that Freya supposedly told a friend in 1928, as well as a small quote from Stark’s 1950 autobiography The Coast of

Incense. Karsh and Miller chose to completely ignore Stark’s key work on the Middle

East, East is West, which specifically argued against the type of romantic orientalism of which they accuse her in their article.157

Karsh and Miller also claim that “the virulence of Stark’s anti-Zionism raises the question of whether her position was purely motivated by political calculation or was rather influenced by the fact that one of the parties concerned was the Jews.” Essentially,

Karsh and Miller took five quotes from Stark’s published volumes of letters, and used these quotes out of context to argue that Freya Stark found Zionism problematic because she had an irrational hatred for the Jewish community. The authors failed to even contextualize these quotes within the letters they are found in, and seemingly do not care to support their claim that this directly affected Stark’s political opinions.

The Karsh and Miller article is so problematic because it accuses Freya Stark of thinking a certain way based on limited, non-contextualized evidence, which did not even come from the original source. All of Karsh and Miller’s quotes of Stark come from her

156 Karsh and Miller, p. 320. 157 Stark, East is West, p. xiii. 59 published eight volume set of letters, rather than from the original letters, held in the

Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin. Though their research at the

British National Archives was well done and clearly contributed significantly to their argument, Karsh and Miller failed to engage in the same due diligence in researching the subject of their article. This in turn led to weak analysis based on partial evidence.

This thesis began as an attempt to correct the wrongs in Karsh and Miller’s work.

Freya Stark was by no means a perfect scholar of the Middle East, and her biases become clear from reading her original letters and drafts of books. Yet, Stark was uniquely positioned to understand the Arab position throughout the war, and predict the best future course for the region after an Allied victory. She certainly deserved better treatment than she received on her tour in the United States, and her work deserves more scholarly recognition than it receives today.

60

Bibliography

Albert, Simon. “The Wartime ‘Special Relationship’, 1941-1945: Isaiah Berlin, Freya Stark, and Mandate Palestine.” Jewish Historical Studies 45 (2013): 103–30. Bar-Gal, Yoram. Propaganda and Zionist Education: The Jewish National Fund, 1924- 1947. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2003. Berlin, Isaiah. Flourishing: Letters 1928–1946. Edited by Henry Hardy. London: Random House UK, 2005. “British Official Disseminates Pro-Arab Propaganda on Tour of Canada.” Jewish Telegraphic Agency (blog). Accessed September 7, 2017. http://www.jta.org/1944/03/28/archive/british-official-disseminates-pro-arab- propaganda-on-tour-of-canada. “Emanuel Celler.” Accessed October 13, 2017. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/emanuel-celler. Flint, Peter B. “Dame Freya Stark, Travel Writer, Is Dead at 100.” The New York Times, May 11, 1993, sec. Obituaries. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/11/obituaries/dame-freya-stark-travel-writer-is- dead-at-100.html. “Freya Stark: An Inventory of Her Collection at the Harry Ransom Center.” Text. Accessed May 9, 2017. http://norman.hrc.utexas.edu/fasearch/findingAid.cfm?eadid=00607. “From the Capital.” Newsweek, January 17, 1944. Geniesse, Jane Fletcher. Passionate Nomad: The Life of Freya Stark. Modern Library, 2001. Hayes, Frank. “Stark Asserts Allies Owe Thanks to Neutral Arabs.” Chicago Daily Sun. January 11, 1944. Hendrick, Kimmis. “Her Friendship For Arabians Helps Allies.” Christian Science Monitor, May 9, 1944, sec. Today’s Woman. Henes, Mary. “Autobiography, Journalism, and Controversy: Freya Stark’s Baghdad Sketches.” Journeys: The International Journal of Travel and Travel Writing 16, no. 1 (2015): 98. Herf, Jeffrey. Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World: With a New Preface. Reprint edition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010. “House Foreign Affairs Committee Opens Hearing on Palestine Resolution Today.” Jewish Telegraphic Agency (blog). Accessed September 7, 2017. http://www.jta.org/1944/02/08/archive/house-foreign-affairs-committee-opens- hearing-on-palestine-resolution-today. Izzard, Molly. Freya Stark: A Biography. First Edition edition. London: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, 1993. “Jan Karski.” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Accessed November 19, 2017. https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10008152. “Jewish Opinion in the United States, Zionist Movement.” British National Archives, 1942. FO 371/31379. The British National Archives. Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “British Agent Says Jews Oppose Zionism.” The Jewish Post. April 7, 1944.

61

———. “Old Settlers in Palestine Protest Charges of Anti-Zionism by British Official.” April 30, 1944. Karsh, Efraim, and Rory Miller. “Freya Stark in America: Orientalism, Antisemitism and Political Propaganda.” Journal of Contemporary History 39, no. 3 (2004): 315– 332. “Lady Box Office.” B’nai Brith Messenger. January 28, 1944. Levin, Arnold. “Arab Issue.” B’nai Brith Messenger. April 2, 1944, sec. Heard in the Lobbies. Lyons, Louis. “British Publicist Sees Strife If Jews Crowd Arabs in Palestine.” The Boston Daily Globe. May 24, 1944. Macmillan, M.A. “Question of Miss Freya Stark Visiting the United States of America to State The Arab Viewpoint on the Palestinian Question,” September 22, 1943. E 5758. The British National Archives. Moorehead, Caroline. Freya Stark. Lives of Modern Women. Penguin, 1985. Myers, Denys P. “The Mandate System of the League of Nations.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 96 (1921): 74–77. “National Publications Must Know Jewish Problems.” The Jewish Post. January 28, 1944, sec. Editorial Page. “Old Settlers in Palestine Protest Charges of Anti-Zionism by British Official.” Jewish Telegraphic Agency (blog). Accessed September 7, 2017. http://www.jta.org/1944/05/01/archive/old-settlers-in-palestine-protest-charges- of-anti-zionism-by-british-official. Pace, Eric. “Alan M. Stroock, 77, Lawyer and Jewish Leader, Is Dead.” The New York Times, March 30, 1985. http://www.nytimes.com/1985/03/30/nyregion/alan-m- stroock-77-lawyer-and-jewish-leader-is-dead.html. Pierpont, Claudia Roth. “East Is West.” The New Yorker, April 11, 2011. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/04/18/east-is-west-claudia-roth- pierpont. Porter, Amy. “Mission for Miss Stark.” Collier’s Weekly. April 8, 1944. “Princess Lulie Abul-Huda Fevzi Osmanoglu (1919-2012).” Al Ahram Weekly. Accessed December 2, 2017. http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/682.aspx. “Rally Against Bigotry.” B’nai Brith Messenger. January 28, 1944. Ruthven, Malise. Traveller through Time: A Photographic Journey with Freya Stark. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England ; New York, N.Y., U.S.A: Viking Adult, 1986. ”.A Subversive Imperialist: Reappraising Freya Stark“ .ﺰﻴﻟﺎﻣﻦﭭﺛﺍﺭ Ruthven, Malise, and Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics, no. 26 (2006): 147–67. Sachar, Howard M. A History Of Israel Howard M. Sachar From The Rise Of Zionism To Our Time ~ 1st Edition. Alfred M. Knopf New York, 1976. ———. A History of the Jews in America. Reprint edition. New York: Vintage, 1993. Stark, Freya. A Winter in Arabia: A Journey Through Yemen. 1 edition. New York: The Overlook Press, 2011. ———. Dust In The Lion’s Paw: Autobiography, 1939-46. New Ed edition. London: Arrow Books Ltd, 1990. ———. East Is West. 2nd Printing edition. Transatlantic Arts, 1982.

62

———. “Letter to Mr. Blaxter, Miss Freya Stark Offer of Service,” March 22, 1939. E 79217, CO 732/85/7. The British National Archives. ———. Letters: Bridge of the Levant, 1940-1943, v. 4. Edited by Lucy Moorehead. Salisbury: Michael Russell Publishing Ltd, 1978. ———. Letters: New Worlds for Old, 1943-46 v. 5. Edited by Lucy Moorehead. Salisbury: Michael Russell Publishing Ltd, 1978. ———. Letters: The Open Door, 1930-1935. Edited by Lucy Moorehead. Vol. 3. 8 vols. Salisbury: Michael Russell Publishing Ltd, 1978. ———. “Storied Arab World Races For Modern Civilization.” The Chicago Sun. January 23, 1944. ———. The Arab Island; the Middle East, 1939-1943. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1945. ———. The Freya Stark Story. New York: Coward-McCann, 1953. ———. The Valleys of the Assassins: And Other Persian Travels. 1st edition. New York: Modern Library, 2001. Stark, Freya, and Jane Fletcher Geniesse. The Southern Gates of Arabia: A Journey in the Hadhramaut. First Edition Thus edition. London: Modern Library, 2001. Stark, Freya, and Barbara Kreiger. Baghdad Sketches. 1 edition. Evanston, Ill: Marlboro Press, 1996. “Telegram from the Ministry of Information to Baghdad, Survey of Jewish Opinion in the United States during the Last Six Months.,” August 21, 1942. E 4048/6/31. The British National Archives. “The League of Nations Mandate Provision.” Mid East Web. Accessed October 27, 2017. http://www.mideastweb.org/leaguemand.htm. “The Oriental Institute Museum | The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.” Accessed December 5, 2017. https://oi.uchicago.edu/about/oriental-institute- museum.

63