web analytics
April 19, 2014 / 19 Nisan, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Israeli Palestinian’

Theory of Palestinian Centrality no Longer Viable

Monday, September 24th, 2012

While the entire Middle East explodes around us and the states which traditionally waged open war on us, such as Egypt, are in the process of returning to their aggressive postures (with a little help from an Obama-led bailout in Egypt’s case), there may be a silver lining for Israel: The theory of Palestinian centrality is no longer viable.

According to the theory, the main Arab/Muslim/Middle Eastern claim against the United States and the reason for violence in the region is the lack of justice for the Palestinians. If a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinian Authority can be reached and a Palestinian state established all of the hatred will melt away and the region will be at peace.

In an interview I conducted with Elliot Abrams for the Jerusalem Post, for example, Abrams recounted how immediately after the 9-11 attacks, officials in the State Department proposed to President Bush that he pursue an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord, on the grounds that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the main source of Arab hatred for the United States.

(Abrams said Bush rejected this argument, but not that long after 9-11, Bush adopted the Road Map for Peace).

Another example is the Iraq Study Group report, which was commissioned by President Bush to find solutions to the violence in Iraq. One of the report’s key recommendations was pursuing Israeli-Arab peace.

The theory of Palestinian centrality has been put forward by many in the diplomatic field, probably because  this is what their Arab counterparts are telling them.

For example, in July 2008 then-Senator-and-candidate Barack Obama explained to NBC’s Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press why Jordan’s King Abdullah was correct in asserting that Iran was not the number one threat to peace but that “the lack of peace [between Israel and the Palestinians] is the major threat.”

Obama said as follows:

[O]ne thing I want to pick up on, because I think King, King Abdullah is as savvy a analyst of the region and player in the region as, as there is, one of the points that he made and I think a lot of people made, is that we’ve got to have an overarching strategy recognizing that all these issues are connected.  If we can solve the Israeli/Palestinian process, then that will make it easier for Arab states and the Gulf states to support us when it comes to issues like Iraq and Afghanistan.

It will also weaken Iran, which has been using Hamas and Hezbollah as a way to stir up mischief in the region.  If we’ve gotten an Israeli/Palestinian peace deal, maybe at the same time peeling Syria out of the Iranian orbit, that makes it easier to isolate Iran so that they have a tougher time developing a nuclear weapon.

In other words, because of Palestinian centrality an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is the silver bullet to all the problems of the Middle East.

(Side note: Brokaw asked Obama if he told Abudulla that as president he “would appoint a presidential envoy who would report only to you to work exclusively on the issues of peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.” Obama said “ I told him something approximating that.” Obama also told former President JimmyCarter that he wouldn’t wait a month to make a peace agreement a top priority. Two days after being sworn in as President, Obama appointed George Mitchell as a special envoy and pressured Israel for the next two years).

But as Barry Rubin noted in his article today on the JewishPress.com:

Remember the old argument that the Arab-Israel or Israel-Palestinian conflict was the centerpiece of the region; all the Arabs cared about, and what they judged the West by? Now there are a dozen other issues more important to the extent that this cannot even be hidden by the Western mass media and “experts.”

With Muslims attacking American U.S. embassies in the Middle East and rioting all over the world over an obscure youtube video, and various Muslim factions vying for power, the State Department, the E.U., etc., can no longer seriously contend that regional volatility and violence is related to Israel – either Western support Israel or the fact that a Palestinian state has not been established or that Israeli-Palestinian/Arab peace accords have not been signed.

Ron Prosor to UN Security Council on Eve of Yom Hazikaron: ‘Proud of My Extraordinary Nation’

Tuesday, April 24th, 2012

In a sharply-worded and wide-ranging speech before the UN Security Council on Monday, Israeli Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor said that the time has come “to sweep out the cobwebs of old illusions – and plant the seeds for a truly ‘open’ debate on the Middle East.”

Speaking at the ‘Open Debate on the Situation in the Middle East,’ Prosor began by taking the UN body to task for losing ” any sense of proportion. Thousands are being killed in Syria, hundreds in Yemen, dozens in Iraq — and yet, this debate again repeatedly is focusing on the legitimate actions of the government of the only democracy in the Middle East.”

Still, he wanted to use opportunity to “address just a few of the myths that have become a permanent hindrance” to the discussion. Myths that “[i]n the barren deserts of the Middle East…find fertile ground to grow wild. Facts often remain buried in the sand. The myths forged in our region travel abroad – and can surprisingly find their way into these halls.”

He started by addressing the myth of ‘linkage’: that if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved, than so will all the other conflicts in the region. “The truth is that conflicts in Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Bahrain, and many other parts of the Middle East have absolutely nothing to do with Israel.” Resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he added, “won’t stop the persecution of minorities across the region, end the subjugation of women, or heal the sectarian divides. Obsessing over Israel has not stopped Assad’s tanks from flattening entire communities…has not stopped the Iranian regime’s centrifuges from spinning.”

He then moved on to the myth of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, quoting the Deputy Head of the Red Cross Office in the area to dispute it as an outright falsehood. “There is not a single civilian good that cannot enter Gaza today,” Prosor said. “Yet, as aid flows into the area, missiles fly out. This is the crisis in Gaza.” Yet, he said, “The Security Council has not condemned a single rocket attack from Gaza.

“History’s lessons are clear,” he warned ominously, “today’s silence is tomorrow’s tragedy.”

Prosor then addressed the myth that has purportedly kept the Palestinians from the negotiating table – that settlements are the main obstacle to peace. He refuted this by citing Gaza, where all Israeli settlements had been uprooted, but which has become an anti-Israel terrorist mini-state. He then went on the attack, saying that the real obstacle to peace was the Palestinian ‘claim of return’, which is tantamount to denying Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. “You will never hear Palestinian leaders say ‘two states for two peoples’…the Palestinian leadership has never, ever said publicly that they will give up the so-called ‘claim of return’ – neither to the Palestinian people, nor to the Arab World, nor to the international community, or to anyone else.”

As to the myth being perpetuated in the Islamic Middle East that Israel is “judaizing Jerusalem”, he said that “[t]hese accusations come about 3,000 years too late. It’s like accusing the NBA of Americanizing basketball.”

True to Deputy Foreign Minister’s Danny Ayalon’s new stated policy, Prosor devoted some time to the issue of Jewish refugees:

“In all of the pages that the UN has written about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, in all of its reports and fact-finding commissions, and in all of the hours dedicated to debate about the Middle East, there is one great untold story. Or – to be more specific – there are more than 850,000 untold stories….

The pages that the UN has written about the Palestinian refugees could fill up soccer stadiums, but not a drop of ink has been spilled about the Jewish refugees. Out of over 1088 UN resolutions on the Middle East, you will not find a single syllable regarding the displacement of Jewish refugees. There have been more than 172 resolutions exclusively devoted to Palestinian refugees, but not one dedicated to Jewish refugees. The Palestinian refugees have their own UN agency, their own information program, and their own department within the United Nations. None exist for the Jewish refugees. The word ‘double-standard’ does not even begin to describe this gap….The time has come for the UN to end its complicity in trying to erase the stories of 850,000 people from history.”

He dismissed out of hand the final myth – “that peace can somehow be achieved between Israelis and Palestinians by bypassing direct negotiations,” saying that “History has shown that peace and negotiations are inseparable.”

Calling attention to the upcoming Yom HaZikaron and Yom Haatzma’ut holidays in Israel, he said, “We intentionally commemorate these two days one after another. As the Israeli people celebrate our independence, we carry the heavy weight of great suffering and sacrifice.”

New Focus On Obama And Israel

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

A new book by foreign policy pundit Peter Beinart, The Crisis of Zionism, seems certain to reignite the debate over President Obama’s feelings toward Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But the focus will be a little different this time around. It will be not on his exposure to the likes of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayres or Rashid Khalidi but rather on the prominent members of the Chicago Jewish community who took him under their wing.

Mr. Beinart writes (in an excerpt of the book that appeared in Newsweek):

The story of Obama’s relationship to Netanyahu and his American Jewish allies is, fundamentally, a story of acquiescence. Obama took office with a distinctly progressive vision of Jewish identity and state, one shaped by the Chicago Jewish community that helped launch his political career. Three years later – after a bitter struggle with the Israeli government and the American Jewish establishment – that vision is all but gone.Obama entered the White House after an adulthood spent – more than any predecessor – in the company of Jews. Most of his key legal mentors were Jews (Abner Mikva, for example); many of his biggest donors were Jews; his chief political consultant, David Axelrod, was a Jew; he lived across the street from a synagogue. And for the most part, the Jews Obama knew best were progressives, shaped by the civil-rights movement and alienated from mainstream American Jewish organizations over Israel.

Mr. Beinart goes on to say that this all accounted for the fact that

Obama’s initial statements about Israel often mirrored the liberal Zionism of his Jewish friends. Like them, he embraced the progressive aspects of Israeli society and Jewish tradition while critiquing Israel’s occupation of the West Bank…. In the words of Rabbi Arnold Wolf, an earlier supporter who ran the synagogue across the street from Obama’s house, Obama “was on the line of [the dovish Israeli group] Peace Now.”

Indeed, during his 2008 run for the White House, candidate Obama said that being pro-Israel does not mean hewing the Likud line.

According to Mr. Beinart, political reality eventually set in and President Obama abandoned his push for a settlement freeze and no longer stated publicly that any Israeli-Palestinian agreement would have to be based on 1967 lines with land swaps. Of course, Mr. Obama’s new, more restrained approach ignores the issue of Israeli retention of the major settlements in any final agreement – something that had been recognized by President George W. Bush – and thus preserves his fealty to the vision of his early supporters.

And that is precisely why many of us will continue to wonder whether Mr. Obama will revert to form should he win in November and venture into a second term unconcerned with having to face the voters again.

PM Netanyahu: ‘Palestinian refusal to accept Jewish state’ the Root Cause of Conflict

Thursday, January 19th, 2012

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, in the midst of a two-day trip to the Netherlands, reiterated his government’s stance that the root cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is “the persistent refusal to accept a Jewish state within any boundaries.”

The Myth Of Israel’s Rightward Turn

Wednesday, November 16th, 2011

With Israel just having observed a memorial day for slain prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, this is a good time to debunk a myth that has recently gained great currency: that Israel’s population has become increasingly right-wing, constituting a major obstacle to peace.

This myth was most famously propounded by former president Bill Clinton but it also crops up frequently in academic discourse. A study published by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies in September, for instance, declared that “Today Israel’s Jewish population is more nationalistic, religiously conservative, and hawkish on foreign policy and security affairs than that of even a generation ago, and it would be unrecognizable to Israel’s founders.”

Yet Rabin himself, the idol of those who propagate this myth, provides the best possible refutation of it. All you have to do is read his final speech to the Knesset, given one month before his death, to realize how far to the left Israel has traveled since then.

For instance, Rabin envisioned a final-status solution in which Israel lived alongside a Palestinian “entity which is less than a state.” Today, even the “right-wing” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly advocates a Palestinian state.

Rabin envisioned “united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma’ale Adumim and Givat Ze’ev [two nearby settlements],” as “the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty.” Since then, two Israeli prime ministers have offered to give the Palestinians East Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount and most of the Old City.

Rabin declared that Israel’s “security border…will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.” Since then, two Israeli premiers have offered to give the Palestinians almost all the West Bank, including the Jordan Valley; even the “right-wing” Netanyahu reportedly agreed to negotiate borders based on the 1967 lines.

Rabin listed Gaza’s Gush Katif as one of the settlement blocs Israel would retain. Since then, Israel has withdrawn from every inch of Gaza.

Rabin pledged “not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.” Since then, Israel has uprooted 25 settlements (21 in Gaza and four in the West Bank) without a final-status agreement, while the “right-wing” Netanyahu instituted Israel’s first-ever moratorium on settlement construction (for 10 months), including “building for natural growth.”

Israeli public opinion has also moved dramatically leftward. Two decades ago, for instance, a Palestinian state was anathema to most Israelis; the idea was entertained only on the far-left fringe. Today, polls consistently show overwhelming support for a Palestinian state on almost all the West Bank and Gaza.

On only one issue have Israelis actually moved rightward: Far fewer now believe the “peace process” will ever produce peace. In April 1996, for instance, 47 percent expected Israeli-Palestinian peace to be achieved “in the coming years,” while 32 percent did not. In October 2011, only 32 percent foresaw peace being achieved anytime soon, while 66 percent did not. The latter results have been roughly consistent for years now.

That, however, has nothing to do with Israelis becoming more “nationalistic” or “religiously conservative” and everything to do with hard experience: Since 1993, Israel has evacuated Lebanon, Gaza and large chunks of the West Bank only to see all three become bases for murderous anti-Israel terror, while its Palestinian “peace partner” has steadfastly refused to recognize a Jewish state or cease demanding to destroy it through an influx of millions of Palestinian “refugees.”

If the world truly wants to see an Israeli-Palestinian peace, it must start addressing these very real problems. Blaming the impasse instead on a nonexistent Israeli turn rightward merely ensures that peace will remain an unachievable dream.

A Shameful Spin On The Shalit Deal

Wednesday, October 26th, 2011

We have come to expect The New York Times to seize almost any opportunity to peddle its view that Israel is the real impediment to peace in the Middle East. This time the Times outdid itself with a bizarre spin on the Gilad Shalit release. This from an editorial last week.

 

We share the joy of Israelis over the release of Sgt. First Class Gilad Shalit, who was held by Hamas for five years. We will leave it to the Israeli people to debate whether the deal – which includes the release of more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners – will make their country safer or lead to more violence or more abductions of Israeli citizens.

We are already concerned that the deal will further thwart an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, the only real guarantee of lasting security for both sides.

Now that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has compromised with Hamas, we fear that to prove his toughness he will be even less willing to make the necessary compromises to restart negotiations. And we fear that the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and his Fatah faction, who were cut out of the swap altogether, will be further weakened….

One has to ask: If Mr. Netanyahu can negotiate with Hamas – which shoots rockets at Israel [and] refuses to recognize Israel’s existence…why won’t he negotiate seriously with the Palestinian Authority, which Israel relies on to keep the peace in the West Bank?….

The United States and its partners should keep trying to get negotiations going. Mr. Abbas should see the prisoner swap for what it is – a challenge to his authority and credibility. The best way to bolster his standing is by leading his people in the creation of a Palestinian state, through negotiations. As for Mr. Netanyahu, we saw on Tuesday that the problem is not that he can’t compromise and make tough choices. It’s that he won’t.

 

So Israel is to blame for not having negotiated a deal with Mr. Abbas that is the functional equivalent of the Shalit release? Can the Times really be suggesting Israel is at fault for not using a similar, grossly one-sided, calculus with the Palestinian Authority? Is this the kind of “tough choice” Prime Minister Netanyahu should be expected to make?

And what of the Times’s fear that the deal “will further thwart an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement”? The Times explains that Mr. Netanyahu may now try to be unusually tough to compensate for the lopsided deal and Mr. Abbas “will be further weakened” because of Hamas’s success in freeing its prisoners.

Actually, all Mr. Abbas had to do was negotiate seriously and realistically with Israel and he would have already won the Palestinians a state. Hamas can’t bring about a state, and the Palestinian people know that. But Mr. Abbas has weakened himself – perhaps irretrievably – by his pointless effort to secure UN recognition and abandoning negotiations. It is Mr. Abbas who has made his own position untenable by taking himself out of the only game where he can produce results.

It should be noted that a significant number of the Palestinians just released were jailed for crimes committed after the Oslo Accords, at which time the PLO renounced terrorism. So they are guilty even under Palestinian law. Yet Mr. Abbas has taken to referring to these killers of Israeli civilians as heroes: “You are freedom fighters and holy warriors for the sake of God and the homeland.”

The Times calls upon the United States “and its partners” to try to prod both Israel and the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table. Exactly what part of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s persistent call for unconditional negotiations – now falling on deaf Palestinian ears – doesn’t the Times get?

Corrupted Middle East Class At Brooklyn College

Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011

          Brooklyn College’s Middle East politics graduate course made headlines at the beginning of this semester. The newly hired adjunct professor, Kristofer Petersen-Overton, was fired and shortly thereafter rehired. Instead of employing responsible measures to ensure a balanced Middle East course, the college’s administration chose an extreme and spineless response – one that is overwhelmingly obsessed with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and specifies on the syllabus that it will “not include details about Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan or Pakistan.”


I am a student in that class. As we went around the room on the first day introducing ourselves and explaining our level of Middle East knowledge, many stated simply that they do not know much about the region at all. Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict specifically, the average student probably knows little about this issue, having spent very modest time reading and discussing this complex issue.


The Middle East is a controversial subject beset with polemics and disputed scholarship, and requires a professor with academic integrity and balance. Yet the hired professor has published his views in one of the most virulent anti-Israel polemical forums called Electronic Intifada, and there is little else in his online records and published works that display serious research or wider understanding of the scholarly debates about Israel and the Palestinians. He admitted, “I have very vocal views in favor of the Palestinian cause…” and at the beginning of the first class he said, “I’m not a Middle East expert – far from an expert – and this is my first experience teaching.”


Almost all of the readings are completely one-sided, and the professor does not encourage much critical thinking during class. A glaring flaw is the failure to include any major works on Israeli nationalism – of which there is no shortage. I am eager to explore the Palestinian perspective, but I am just as eager to explore the Israeli one. So far, we students have delved into the Palestinian narrative, but have been deprived of serious scholarly knowledge of the Israeli narrative. How could a professor intentionally slice a coin in half like that?


Thus far, the main points a student following the readings and conversations walks away with are: national myths promote nationalism; Palestinian identity exists; Pan-Arabism does not really exist; Zionism is totally secular and was not part of mainstream Jewry until recently; imperialist Brits made promises to both Israelis and Arabs as part of World War I for strategic interests (meaning the Balfour Declaration is meaningless); basically there was a Palestinian expulsion; and new historians had access to damning material (meaning “old-tradition” Zionist narrative is not credible or worthy of study). Each of these points used to undermine Israel has scholarly refutations. You get the idea, however, that the classes do not hold much diversity in thought.


Here’s a taste of some things the professor has said in class: “I find [Columbia University Professor Rashid] Khalidi’s argument compelling. No serious scholar disputes Palestinian nationalism today – not just as reactionary to Jews.” And while briefly reviewing historical highlights of the region (the time of Muhammad’s presence and the birth of Islam), the professor said, “If anyone is Muslim here and wants to add or correct something, feel free.” He didn’t offer this kind invitation when discussing ancient Jewish history or Zionism. This is indicative of an offensive double standard.


The take-home message for me is that we Jewish students need to take these classes, and respectfully challenge the bias so that fellow students see that there is a larger picture and that two sides of the coin exist.


To push the point in the class, this was the closing paragraph of my class presentation last week on the topics of World War II, the 1948 Middle East war, and the creation of Israel: “A critical point that these readings made me realize is that we must be mindful and alert readers, take nothing at face value, and do our own research. Just because someone published black on white, it doesn’t mean it’s the full picture. A big failing that I hope my presentation highlighted is that many simply ignore context – failing to pull back the lens and looking at the broader picture. Also as students of political science, we’re used to analysis of politics – but the question is, are we capable of analyzing and drawing intelligent, meaningful conclusions if many of us barely have rudimentary scholarly knowledge of the issues? Especially when we’re talking about the weighty and complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we need to carefully study the facts from all perspectives so it can be balanced and nuanced. Unfortunately, however, we were given to read Morris, Shlaim, and Masalha – but limited Zionist perspective. So can we fully weigh the points ourselves?”


While the burden of balance should not weigh on students, this is the situation in most academic institutions. If we don’t provide that balance, then who else will do it?

Corrupted Middle East Class At Brooklyn College

Wednesday, March 16th, 2011

Brooklyn College’s Middle East politics graduate course made headlines at the beginning of this semester. The newly hired adjunct professor, Kristofer Petersen-Overton, was fired and shortly thereafter rehired. Instead of employing responsible measures to ensure a balanced Middle East course, the college’s administration chose an extreme and spineless response – one that is overwhelmingly obsessed with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and specifies on the syllabus that it will “not include details about Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan or Pakistan.”


I am a student in that class. As we went around the room on the first day introducing ourselves and explaining our level of Middle East knowledge, many stated simply that they do not know much about the region at all. Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict specifically, the average student probably knows little about this issue, having spent very modest time reading and discussing this complex issue.


The Middle East is a controversial subject beset with polemics and disputed scholarship, and requires a professor with academic integrity and balance. Yet the hired professor has published his views in one of the most virulent anti-Israel polemical forums called Electronic Intifada, and there is little else in his online records and published works that display serious research or wider understanding of the scholarly debates about Israel and the Palestinians. He admitted, “I have very vocal views in favor of the Palestinian cause…” and at the beginning of the first class he said, “I’m not a Middle East expert – far from an expert – and this is my first experience teaching.”


Almost all of the readings are completely one-sided, and the professor does not encourage much critical thinking during class. A glaring flaw is the failure to include any major works on Israeli nationalism – of which there is no shortage. I am eager to explore the Palestinian perspective, but I am just as eager to explore the Israeli one. So far, we students have delved into the Palestinian narrative, but have been deprived of serious scholarly knowledge of the Israeli narrative. How could a professor intentionally slice a coin in half like that?


Thus far, the main points a student following the readings and conversations walks away with are: national myths promote nationalism; Palestinian identity exists; Pan-Arabism does not really exist; Zionism is totally secular and was not part of mainstream Jewry until recently; imperialist Brits made promises to both Israelis and Arabs as part of World War I for strategic interests (meaning the Balfour Declaration is meaningless); basically there was a Palestinian expulsion; and new historians had access to damning material (meaning “old-tradition” Zionist narrative is not credible or worthy of study). Each of these points used to undermine Israel has scholarly refutations. You get the idea, however, that the classes do not hold much diversity in thought.


Here’s a taste of some things the professor has said in class: “I find [Columbia University Professor Rashid] Khalidi’s argument compelling. No serious scholar disputes Palestinian nationalism today – not just as reactionary to Jews.” And while briefly reviewing historical highlights of the region (the time of Muhammad’s presence and the birth of Islam), the professor said, “If anyone is Muslim here and wants to add or correct something, feel free.” He didn’t offer this kind invitation when discussing ancient Jewish history or Zionism. This is indicative of an offensive double standard.


The take-home message for me is that we Jewish students need to take these classes, and respectfully challenge the bias so that fellow students see that there is a larger picture and that two sides of the coin exist.


To push the point in the class, this was the closing paragraph of my class presentation last week on the topics of World War II, the 1948 Middle East war, and the creation of Israel: “A critical point that these readings made me realize is that we must be mindful and alert readers, take nothing at face value, and do our own research. Just because someone published black on white, it doesn’t mean it’s the full picture. A big failing that I hope my presentation highlighted is that many simply ignore context – failing to pull back the lens and looking at the broader picture. Also as students of political science, we’re used to analysis of politics – but the question is, are we capable of analyzing and drawing intelligent, meaningful conclusions if many of us barely have rudimentary scholarly knowledge of the issues? Especially when we’re talking about the weighty and complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we need to carefully study the facts from all perspectives so it can be balanced and nuanced. Unfortunately, however, we were given to read Morris, Shlaim, and Masalha – but limited Zionist perspective. So can we fully weigh the points ourselves?”


While the burden of balance should not weigh on students, this is the situation in most academic institutions. If we don’t provide that balance, then who else will do it?

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/corrupted-middle-east-class-at-brooklyn-college-3/2011/03/16/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: