Tribalism in the Jerusalem speech

Israel/Palestine
on 65 Comments

Obama after his speech to people of Israel White House photo Pete Souza
Obama after his “speech to the people of Israel,” March 21 (White House photo Pete Souza)

Compare what Barack Obama said in Jerusalem on March 21 with what he said in Cairo on June 4, 2009 and you find many similarities. Both were greetings by a recently-elected American president to a people who had come to doubt the worth of such a communication. In both cities, the improbable event was made credible by words expressing the most generous good intentions, and concluding with a proclamation of large hopes.

The Cairo speech carried two announcements with practical implications. First, “the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” Second, the president assured his Muslim audience that they would soon see evidence of his determination not to be at war with Islam.  The first promise he failed to keep. On the second, the returns are not all in: the Iraq war is over but drone assassinations, favored by this president, have built up a new kind of war by the U.S. in the Arab world, and Obama’s presidency has done more to increase the likelihood of war than to improve the chances of negotiation with Iran.

Obama’s Middle East speeches of 2009 and 2013 were equally flattering to his audience on the chosen occasion. The ground of his respect for Muslims in Cairo was the authenticity of their religious faith and tribal roots. The ground of his respect for Israeli Jews was their religious and tribal roots and their national success. In the past, American presidents would have made this a secondary concern. The usual point of such a visiting speech is to admire the presence of liberty and basic political rights in the host nation (to the extent that these exist) and to ask the leaders and the people to advance the cause. Obama, in a cultural emphasis that was new, admired the Muslims in Cairo for being Muslim. Four years later, he admired the Israeli Jews in Jerusalem for being Jewish.

In fact, Obama went further in the case of Israel. He said in his speech of March 21: “while Jews achieved extraordinary success in many parts of the world, the dream of true freedom finally found its full expression in the Zionist idea.” Many  apparently free but—-as our president has now judged—-actually not truly free American Jews will wonder what could have been in his mind when he committed himself to this straightforward endorsement of the Zionist idea. Can we imagine the president of the secular United States saying anything comparable about an Islamic nation? Pragmatic considerations aside, what prevents him from saying that “Shiite Islam found extraordinary success in many parts of the world but its dream of national realization has attained its full expression in Iran”?

When you look back, the strain of blood-and-belonging tribalism is strong in both the Cairo and the Jerusalem speech. In Cairo, Obama freely scattered such locutions as “The Holy Koran teaches that” and “As the Holy Koran tells us.” Liberal Muslims in his audience must have wondered why the president of a free country without a state religion was regarding with such careful deference the priestly authorities who oppress them. But the tribal and religious lures of the earlier speech could be treated as adventitious details. In Cairo, Obama envisaged the future of Israel and Palestine as a peaceful multicultural entity with political borders. The “Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own,” he said in 2009, was “legitimate,” just as the Israeli settlements in occupied territories were not legitimate. The president pledged himself “to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims.”

By the time Obama arrived in Jerusalem in 2013, this dream of the city had almost been cancelled. New housing units are evicting Palestinians from the neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. His subject, however, in this speech to young people—-a welcome change of subject from the Israeli point of view—-was not the obstacles to Palestinian justice but the magnificent success of the Israeli aspiration. And here came the interesting new emphasis; new, that is, in Obama’s rhetoric but new also in the approach of the United States to cultural identity as a basis for national integrity.

Benjamin Netanyahu has long wanted to hear other countries acknowledge that Israel is “the Jewish state.” In his Jerusalem speech, President Obama granted those terms of identification. The land of Israel, he said in other words, belongs to the Jewish people, and to Israelis as the most essentially Jewish people; it is a land to which they own the title by faith, suffering, long habitation, and the history recounted in the Bible. By contrast, in Cairo, Obama had mentioned suffering but placed in the background claims of original and historical connection and tribal loyalty. But here is his formulation now, in words chosen with care: “Israel is rooted not just in history and tradition, but also in a simple and profound idea: the idea that people deserve to be free in a land of their own.”

His words say “people deserve” but what Obama’s audience will have heard is “a people deserve,” and in truth “a land of their own” more than splits the difference. Everybody needs a homeland, this speech affirms, and what is true for the Israelis must hold for the Palestinians also. Accordingly, Obama in Jerusalem also said: “Just as Israelis built a state in their homeland, Palestinians have a right to be a free people in their own land.” So the Palestinians too will be a people with their own land, some day.  In both halves of the formulation, the president has put the imperative of political rights in the background. Yet it was the lack of such rights for stateless persons that made the most irrefutable protest in the Palestinian cause, in the days before an Islamist sect took control of Gaza. Now the language of secular statehood and political rights has been replaced by the language of peoplehood, exclusive land, and tribal belonging.

Broadly speaking, Obama in Jerusalem revived his appeal for negotiation while paying the deepest respect to the blood-and-soil ideology of the right-wing Israeli government that makes negotiation impossible. (The next moves toward peace Obama says he now expects to come from civil associations, commercial partnerships, and other technocratic substitutes for politics.) But it may turn out that the pliability of Obama’s rhetoric has weakened the hand not only of secular Jews but of liberal Palestinians, who care more about political rights and the equal treatment of persons than about the land in which those rights are observed, or whether it happens by the change of Israel toward one large state or two smaller ones.

Politics once seemed a ground of possible conciliation between liberal Zionists and liberal Muslims. They were united, it could be said, by a common belief in the natural equality of mankind at large. If credence is given to President Obama’s explanations of the title to statehood in the Jerusalem speech, unity of that sort will lose much of its warrant. The title to statehood itself on this view is established by cultural identity and affiliation. You are free, and you deserve eventually to have political rights, by virtue of your membership in a tribe which can claim lands of its own.

Whether such a “dream” of belonging will fare better than compacts based on non-tribal constitutions, it may be too early to tell, but the history of the Balkan conflicts in the 1990s, of Iraq after the U.S. assault of 2003, and of the Arab Spring in its second phase, might have tempered even the gentle enthusiasm of Obama’s Jerusalem speech. But we are dealing here with the peculiarities of a person as well as the strangeness of a non-political basis for politics. President Obama’s species of endorsement may only be possible to an educated modern, of an abstract turn of mind, who longs for a faith the character of which he can only surmise from a distance. The dream of identity always had a special incandescence for the author of Dreams from My Father.

About David Bromwich

David Bromwich teaches literature at Yale. He is a frequent contributor to the Huffington Post and has written on politics and culture for The New Republic, The Nation, The New York Review of Books, and other magazines. He is editor of Edmund Burke's selected writings On Empire, Liberty, and Reform and co-editor of the Yale University Press edition of On Liberty.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

65 Responses

  1. seafoid
    March 23, 2013, 10:17 am

    Maybe the speech will appeal to educated moderns but there are not so many of those in the region, even in Israel. The feeling the neighbours have for the palestinian claim to their land and their rights is more visceral than academic. For all the intellectual structuring of the speech, Jewish hegemony in Erez Israel is based on brute force and plain old main st style hypocrisy. Not even Obama can polish the turd of Zionism .

  2. Scott
    March 23, 2013, 10:42 am

    Exceptionally insightful, deserves a wide reading. I had noted the oddness of the “true freedom” locution, but it really is better understood alongside “the Koran teaches” and “Dreams from My Father.” But then I wonder if this blood and soilness is deeply felt by Obama (the way earlier generations might have felt it, and Zionism adopted) or a casual –”this would sound persuasive and deep” borrowing of multiculti ideals which float around modern American academia.

  3. Justpassingby
    March 23, 2013, 10:57 am

    Why was Apartheid wrong in Africa but not in Israel Obama?
    A black man, the most powerful there is, support segregation… Have obama already forgotten the hardships of black people in American history?

  4. chinese box
    March 23, 2013, 11:08 am

    Well now we know what Israeli style “centrism” means. The Israeli polity seems even more torpid and bereft of new ideas than the one in the US. That’s saying a lot.

    • K Renner
      March 23, 2013, 1:57 pm

      The only Israeli jews who can be taken seriously are the ones most vilified by the “state” and by the majority of the population as “traitors” or “Arab lovers”.

  5. seafoid
    March 23, 2013, 11:32 am

    Even if Barry O says isr is the Jewish state, what does it matter? It is a state of jews and Palestinians. If Barry O said Netanyahu was better on the piano than Glenn Gould would anyone pay to see him in concert?

    • tear-stained uzi
      March 23, 2013, 12:19 pm

      Um, actually, yeah! If he did it all Liberace-style, and wore his diamond-encrusted kippah, I’d buy tickets for all Mondoweiss readers and writers.

  6. Donald
    March 23, 2013, 11:33 am

    This was brilliant. There’s too much tribalism everywhere, ethnic and religious, and not enough focus on individual human rights. I wouldn’t have thought to connect what was wrong with his recent speeches with his Cairo speech, but this all rings true to me.

    And maybe we should be questioning that phrase “self-determination” just a little bit. It seems to mean ethnic group determination, not individual self-determination. I know it’s a battle cry for people fighting against colonial domination, but it too easily morphs into a justification for repression of the rights of people who aren’t part of the “right” ethnic group.

    • Citizen
      March 23, 2013, 12:22 pm

      Obama is all about being of the right ethnic group to claim fairness in view of history. Problem that will come after him is that there’s no longer enough white males in USA or the world to pay through the nose for their ancestors’ crimes against the other. He’s running out of easy targets to change the world for the better.

      • MK_Ultra
        March 23, 2013, 2:23 pm

        Was/is Obama trying to change the world for the better? Wow…could have fooled me!

    • RoHa
      March 23, 2013, 9:34 pm

      “And maybe we should be questioning that phrase “self-determination” just a little bit.”

      Gee, you think?

    • RoHa
      March 23, 2013, 9:57 pm

      Sorry, Donald. That was a bit rude. I don’t know how long you have been reading this site. If you haven’t been reading for long, or if you actually have a life, you could well have missed the discussions on just this topic.

      I’m banging on about it again in this thread.

      link to mondoweiss.net

    • Sumud
      March 24, 2013, 9:31 am

      The simple rule, with individual human rights and equally with ethnic self-determination, is that person A cannot abrogate the equivalent rights of person B, while person A exercises his or her rights.

      Zionists are free to identify as a group and ‘self-determine’, but not at the expense of the self-determination of Palestinians – individually, or as a group. Clearly, Israeli is in breech of this principle.

      I have encountered this a lot lately on MW: zionists justifying atrocities under the banner “self-determination”. Just ask if they therefore approve of the shoah because it was merely nazis exercising self-determination. Do not hold your breath waiting for a response…

      • American
        March 24, 2013, 1:08 pm

        Someone explain to me what the hell ‘ethnic determination’ in the US is please.
        Is it the right eat ethnic Mexican food, practice British tea time every day at 4:00, dress up in a kilt and play Scottish bagpipes, take a day off work for Spanish nationalholidays, cook Arab goat in the backyard, the right of one Alaskan tribe to hunt whales once a year?
        What exactly is the ethnic self determination? And exactly how are US Jews who claim to be ‘ethnic Jews’ being deprived of their ethnic self determination by not having an Israel when they won’t even go live in Israel? Why are the goldmarxs, etc. here in the US screeching about their ethnic self determination rights when they could be in their self determination state of Israel?
        Hey all of you US Jews who claim Jews need a Jewish State to ‘self determine’ in —–what are you doing hanging around in the US?
        Why aren’t you over in Israel self determining? Explain it to us.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 24, 2013, 4:31 pm

        Why aren’t you over in Israel self determining? Explain it to us.

        maybe they just want to know they could self determine if they wanted to. but right now they are self determining to stay in the US. maybe some of them have split self determination disorder personalities. someone should write a country song about it.

      • American
        March 24, 2013, 4:54 pm

        “maybe some of them have split self determination disorder personalities. someone should write a country song about it.””………’annie

        rotflmao!…split personality disorder, that ‘s it!

      • Ecru
        March 24, 2013, 5:44 pm

        @ Annie

        “someone should write a country song about it.”

        Something like..

        “And The Jew on the Left was making Aliyah
        While the Jew on the Right was all for Israel in the USA
        And the Jew in the Middle…..had a cheeseburger”?

        OK the scansion is off but come on, first attempt here.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 24, 2013, 10:24 pm

        i wrote one ecru, but then i deleted it. too chicken. let’s just say it was more ‘homegrown’ than yours…which does not sound like country music..dude (or dudette) gotta loosen up to go country.

      • RoHa
        March 24, 2013, 10:47 pm

        I liked it. Put it back.

        I want to check it again to see that it is (a) depressing, and (b) mentions pick-up trucks, whisky, prison, mama, and guns.

      • Ecru
        March 25, 2013, 8:01 am

        Uhm, Annie, you might want to check this link out and reconsider your musical education because if this guy isn’t country I don’t know who is.

        link to youtube.com

        Loosen up and go country indeed. How very dare you madam!
        :-D

      • MRW
        March 27, 2013, 3:17 pm

        ;-)

      • Annie Robbins
        March 27, 2013, 7:11 pm

        ecru, i have to defer to your superior knowledge of country! so very sorry.

  7. Citizen
    March 23, 2013, 11:55 am

    So, what’s new?
    Obama, the scholar and teacher of the rights given to all Americans under the US Constitution, told the Arabs it was wonderful to see the world tribally, and to move forward with their tribal self-determination, and now, he’s told the world’s Jews to do the same in Israel, which is the biggest beneficiary of US foreign aid tax dollars. His message is the same in the USA–except when it comes to white America. They should only be glad he’s giving them the opportunity to pay for their ancestors’ sins by charging them for those sins now. He reminds me of Family Guy writers, and so many stand-up comedians, like Lisa Lampenalli, who all attack every sacred cultural cow except Jews anywhere–except by a feigned attack that actually extolls their expertise in areas Nazis use to find a problem, e.g., “business skills.”

    There seems no generic evil-doer left in the world but the white male. I admit, given history, that’s justly deserved–problem is that I don’t buy that white males born and bred in, say, the last half century, have earned such a negative privilege as the evil-doing class by birth.

    • Donald
      March 23, 2013, 11:59 pm

      Obama is not a radical on race or any other subject. Here he is in his famous and widely (over)praised speech on race during the 2008 campaign–

      “But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

      As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.”

      Note how careful he is to defend both America and Israel from criticism. Everything he has been as President in the Middle East is prefigured in that speech.

      • American
        March 24, 2013, 2:15 pm

        @ Donald

        Do you see Obama asking for Israel to also apologize to America for the American citizen killed on the Free Gaza flotilla as well as Turkey?…No you don’t see that.
        Just like he didn’t demand an apology for Rachel Corrie or Tristan Anderson.
        Obama holds the ‘American’ people in complete contempt….deserving of no respect or acknowledgement.
        His ‘speeches?…just speeches.

        With Obama as Broker, Israelis and Turkey End Dispute
        New York Times-Mar 22, 2013
        JERUSALEM — Under persistent prodding from President Obama, Israel and Turkey resolved a bitter three-year dispute on Friday with a
        Israel PM apologises for flotilla deaths
        Aljazeera.com-Mar 22, 2013
        Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has said he “expressed apology” to Turkey for any error that led to the death of nine Turkish …

  8. tokyobk
    March 23, 2013, 12:09 pm

    Thank you professor. Very measured words in an area where it is nearly impossible to say anything balanced.

    (I also thought your words at Yale at the Barghouti event about taking a moral stand without endorsing excesses were very careful and brave).

    With Obama, imo its not the dream of identity in general which is particularly appealing, but specifically the allure of belonging to a place naturally.

    It makes sense that he would want to heap legitimacy on essential identities since his own has been constructed. Over the course of his life he had to learn how to present hims self as legitimate both to the black and white community, or rather various black and white communities.

    But, as you point out, his words in Cairo and Jerusalem mark a step backwards in the development of how we consider and appeal for rights.

    I would also say, without endorsing equal narratives, that it is impossible to have One State until a sufficient number of Israelis and (more importantly) Palestinians abandon the idea that there is such a thing as someone who does not belong naturally to the place they are living. In fact, One State (based in rights and democracy) is the ultimate form of normalization.

    You find reflexive essentialism among the Israeli right but also among the Palestinians across the spectrum and prominent in the international left. Which is why even here people who normally reject race and ethnocentrism rant about DNA, Khazars, are offended that Obama looked at the Dead Sea Scrolls, and argue usually for the assumed rights of a Palestinian people, not the individual ones of the citizen (or future citizen) whose parentage is irrelevant.

    • chinese box
      March 23, 2013, 5:22 pm

      I see you’ve taken this opportunity to make your own speech…bravo.

      I don’t see tribalism in the Palestinian movement, I see all types of people, including Jews, coming together for a common cause, one that they (as individuals) often have no ancestral or cultural ties to. If anything it transcends tribalism. On the other hand, the adherents of Zionism seem to be overwhelmingly Jews, along with some anti-Islam/Christian Zionist types who’ve glommed on to the cause, and powerful people who profit by it politically and/or financially. That doesn’t seem too diverse to me.

      “Reflexive essentialism” is limited to the “right” in Israel (and anyway, what is that, 80% of the population?), but it’s “across the spectrum” among Palestinians? Really?

      Unfortunately you seem to have gotten the idea that your putative support for 1ss gives you carte blanche to sh*t all over the BDS and solidarity movements, which I’m sure was your main goal anyway.

      • tokyobk
        March 24, 2013, 10:09 am

        Yes, I think BDS and much of the One State impetus relies on non-normalization and yet normalization is the first principle of a just One State.

      • chinese box
        March 24, 2013, 6:55 pm

        “Yes, I think BDS and much of the One State impetus relies on non-normalization and yet normalization is the first principle of a just One State.”

        Huh?

        Was South Africa “normalized” by the international community before it became a “just state”?

        Israel has been given everything it could have dreamed of by the US for decades now. The economy is good there, and yet the settlements continue.What level of normalization is going to change things at this point? If you’re hoping he the UN is just going to overlook what’s going on, you’re dreaming.

      • tokyobk
        March 24, 2013, 10:24 am

        If you don’t see tribalism in the Palestinian movement you are not following the one here on planet earth. I understand why Palestinians would feel the call to group identity. I don’t understand or feel a pass should be given to people who otherwise reject ethnic politics. This is another way to be PEP; progressive except Palestine.

        Though two things that have to be admitted about BDS even by someone who rejects it on principle, as I do. (academic and cultural boycotts of Pakistan, Saudi, North Korea and Iran are or would be wrong too)

        1) It is non-violent. For years people said if the Palestinians were non-violent they would be admired by the whole world, including Israelis. If they only had a Gandhi… Well, now here is a non-violent movement.

        2) I don’t know how Israel will be convinced to stop the settlements and support a Palestinian State. I cannot understand why on (frankly Zionist) tactics alone Israel is not the first to endorse a Palestinian state. There is a reason why so many active in this issue hate the idea of 2 States. It would be a victory for the dreams of 48.

    • gamal
      March 23, 2013, 9:04 pm

      “With Obama, imo its not the dream of identity in general which is particularly appealing, but specifically the allure of belonging to a place naturally.” its irrelevant but i really want to ask what the “identity in general” means, but no.

      Why does the “allure of belonging naturally” particularly appeal to Obama? is there something he is lacking, that you might have? how does one belong to a place naturally?

      “It makes sense that he would want to heap legitimacy on essential identities since his own has been constructed.” ok so why does Obama have a constructed identity rather than some other kind? is there any other kind of identity?

      “Over the course of his life he had to learn how to present hims self as legitimate both to the black and white community, or rather various black and white communities.”

      ok he has an ersatz identity, Why? which means he needs to seek legitimacy from “the black and white community” who are all cosmically authentic? do people with real uncompounded identities not have to consider how to present themselves or do they rely on something natural only available to them and self evident to everyone else?

      “But, as you point out, his words in Cairo and Jerusalem mark a step backwards in the development of how we consider and appeal for rights.” no “we” aint bound by ersatz Obama’s limitations, thats just an assertion, i thought i was owed one by now.

      “I would also say, without endorsing equal narratives,” meaning if i flesh out the nature of the I/P conflict my next substantive statement which will place the onus on Palestinians will look insane, racist and unjust so i will content myself with “without endorsing equal narratives” coward, you should come clean.

      “that it is impossible to have One State until a sufficient number of Israelis and (more importantly) Palestinians abandon the idea that there is such a thing as someone who does not belong naturally to the place they are living.” oh sorry you do come clean, its the Palestinians and their attitudes, why more importantly and everyone has a natural place except Obama?

      “reflexive essentialism” how does this differ from the non-reflexive variety? and only the Israeli right but Palestinians, “across the spectrum” and the “international left”, its that bad! could be that ersatz identity, could be.

      your grievance against the “left” is their reflexive essentialism,
      as “even here people who normally reject race…..rant about DNA and Khazars” what is your argument about naturally belonging and unconstructed identites based on?

      Its individual rights or Palestinian rights, parentage being irrelevant, except for Obama, who in some way has no natural place and a constructed identity, he could be a made up person, one would assume.

      • tokyobk
        March 24, 2013, 10:16 am

        Gamal, I think the onus is largely on the Israelis.

    • Inanna
      March 24, 2013, 1:57 am

      You attempt to label is a total fail. You clearly misrepresent so many of us who work for human rights and equality rather than privilege for their own group/tribe. I guess you don’t see just how paradoxical your position is – bashing your opponents for tribalism while your own lies glaringly exposed and naked. Stop projecting and start owning your bullshit.

      • tokyobk
        March 24, 2013, 10:09 am

        I reject all nationalism and tribalism including Jewish. I believe political Zionism is incompatible with democracy. There are those here and elsewhere who claim to work in the name of human rights but in fact accept tribalism and essentialism when it favors their (perceived) side.

      • Inanna
        March 24, 2013, 9:04 pm

        Riiiiight. I’d find that a lot more believable if I didn’t see evidence of your own tribalism and essentialism. You make vague and weasely accusations when your own comment history is replete with tribalism but you obviously can’t see it.

    • Ecru
      March 24, 2013, 5:56 pm

      Uhm the only reason I’ve seen people “rant” about Khazars and DNA is that Zionists keep claiming silly things like “there were Jews here 2000 years ago, we’re descended from them, so we have more right to be here than the Palestinians (who also descend from that Levantive population of 2000 years back but we just ignore or deny that).” Zionists INVITE the refutation of their claims by making such silly ones.

      For example :

      ….until a sufficient number of Israelis and (more importantly) Palestinians abandon the idea that there is such a thing as someone who does not belong naturally to the place they are living…

      Why “more importantly Palestinians?” Are they the ones kicking people out of their homes so new immigrants of the “right” ethnicity can take them over? Are they they ones writing dross like “From Time Immemorial?” Are they the ones re-birthing the Ahnenerbe method of archaeology in Jerusalem? No – that would be the Zionists doing all that. It is Jewish Zionists claiming Palestinians “don’t belong” and the ones who, backed by force and their own moral vacuum that are ethnically cleansing those who “don’t belong” in the “JEWISH state” – a formulation that SCREAMS “only Jews belong here.”

      Who the hell do you think you’re kidding here?

  9. simonsj
    March 23, 2013, 12:33 pm

    The speech does indeed appeal to the principle of self-determination of nations rather than individual political rights, but is there much doubt that an independent state (whther in the context of a two state solution or not) is a deeply held desire among Palestinians? I think it’s important to pay attention to the structure of the whole speech to se that it fails by pulling in different directions – and yet succeeds as part of the charm offensive. Here’s my 2 cents:
    link to israelipeaceimages.com

  10. tear-stained uzi
    March 23, 2013, 12:34 pm

    This essay puts into clear language some of my own ambivalent reaction to the Cairo speech, in spite of being half blinded by misty clouds of hopey-ness at the time.

    Blood and soil may be central to the Zionists’ worldview, but by joining them, Obama ensures his personal legacy will be both bloody and soiled.

  11. Stephen Shenfield
    March 23, 2013, 12:37 pm

    What are the implications for Afro-Americans? Will President Obama now put forward a plan to carve out a “land of their own” for “his own people” in the United States? Or will he revive Garvey’s philosophy of a return to Africa?

  12. seafoid
    March 23, 2013, 12:58 pm

    Perhaps this speech should be filed alongside the Bush administration’s efforts to trash the geneva conventions, the laws of war and the universal declaration of human rights. “We make our own reality”.

    How wonderfully ironic that this speech rolling back the Palestinian right to self determination in favour of the status quo of
    apartheid should be presented by an African American on behalf of a lobby of Jews. What a mess, dude.

  13. piotr
    March 23, 2013, 1:56 pm

    The right of self-determination is quite strange. It is a privilege bestowed on some.

    USA did not approve it for the Southern states. In the case of Kosovo it did approve it for Albanians there (but not the Serbs). In the case of South Ossetia and Abkhazia USA talks about “Georgia’s right to territorial integrity”, another privilege that in this case cannot be bestowed by USA.

    “the dream of true freedom finally found its full expression in the Zionist idea” — what are the ingredients in THIS sausage? In my limited experience, to get “true freedom” we have to separate it from “so-called freedom”. For example, the working people have “so-called freedom” in Capitalist countries and “true freedom” in socialist (a.k.a. Communist) countries. Can I have “so-called freedom” please? One can visit Arutz Sheva to see what proponents of “true freedom” think about “so-called human rights”.

    • American
      March 24, 2013, 6:32 pm

      piotr says:
      March 23, 2013 at 1:56 pm
      + Show content
      The right of self-determination is quite strange. It is a privilege bestowed on some.

      USA did not approve it for the Southern states.>>>>>>

      Actually it did. To hold the colonies together for the American Revolution. During that period several states like Virginia and Maryland demanded ‘States Rights’ recognition or they wouldn’t sign onto the constitution –and they got it. Unfortunately in states like Virginia the States Rights included the right to own slaves. So then we had to correct that immorality later by having a Civil War and killing 500,000 of each other.
      Amazing isn’t it…..how our domestic morality standards seems to have improved while our foreign morality standards have declined.

      • Hostage
        March 24, 2013, 7:08 pm

        Amazing isn’t it…..how our domestic morality standards seems to have improved while our foreign morality standards have declined.

        Actually there have always been factions inside the United States government who championed universal human rights and international law. At one and the same time, there have always been opposing factions who have employed resevations, based upon the US Constitution, to deprive the citizens any private right of action to enforce human rights or international law.

  14. MK_Ultra
    March 23, 2013, 2:16 pm

    “… Compare what Barack Obama said in Jerusalem on March 21 with what he said in Cairo on June 4, 2009 and you find many similarities. …”

    Therein the beauty of political speeches made for gain; they’re devoid of heart and mind and without any real goal, they’re just empty rhetoric and lies for the sole purpose of fooling the many into believing and agreeing with the few. That line quoted at the beginning of my comment can be applied to each and every single one of Obama’s speeches (and not just Obama either but any politician, particularly, American ones). He is not a brilliant orator but his speech writers are. Here’s one example:

    Here in [insert city/town name], I come to offer the love and prayers of a nation. I am very mindful that mere words cannot match the depths of your sorrow, nor can they heal your wounded hearts. I can only hope it helps for you to know that you’re not alone in your grief; that our world too has been torn apart; that all across this land of ours, we have wept with you, we’ve pulled our children tight. And you must know that whatever measure of comfort we can provide, we will provide; whatever portion of sadness that we can share with you to ease this heavy load, we will gladly bear it. [Country/city/town] — you are not alone.

    He could have just as well have said it to the people of Gaza after the 2008-2009 massacre. Or he could have said that to the people of Iraq. Or he could have said it to the people of any of the villages in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen, etc. where the drones have razed the entire population including scores of children. Or to the village in Afghanistan where Bales went postal slaughtering 19 innocent civilians, 11 of them children from the same family. It doesn’t take genius to do this, it simply takes no heart and no soul and a great deal of callousness and cynism.

  15. Avi_G.
    March 23, 2013, 2:45 pm

    Second, the president assured his Muslim audience that they would soon see evidence of his determination not to be at war with Islam. The first promise he failed to keep. On the second, the returns are not all in: the Iraq war is over but drone assassinations, favored by this president, have built up a new kind of war by the U.S. in the Arab world, and Obama’s presidency has done more to increase the likelihood of war than to improve the chances of negotiation with Iran.

    A thorough evaluation of America’s treatment of Moslems should include US Moslems, as well. There are, after all, about 1,650,000,000 Moslems in the world.

    From Salon:

    link to salon.com

    2. Relentlessly Expanding Their Global Presence

    The [NYPD] operates in 11 foreign cities, including London, Lyons, Hamburg, Tel Aviv and Toronto. This year they added Kfar Saba, Israel, to their list of conquests — there, the NYPD has its own office complete with a department insignia and a banner inside which reads, “The New York Police Department. The Greatest Police Department in the World.”

    NYPD officers have flown to Afghanistan, Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, and Guantanamo, where they have been known to conduct “special interrogations,” according to New York Magazine. Domestically, the NYPD collaborates with the FBI in Washington. Under Commissioner Kelly’s watch, and with the blessing of the CIA, the force has also built a hidden counterterrorism bureau, complete with a Global Intelligence Room and a security area protected by ballistic Sheetrock.

    3. Spying on Muslims and Fabricating the Results

    In a Pulitzer prize-winning investigative series the AP revealed a NYPD surveillance program that makes the FBI and CIA look like civil liberties crusaders. To recap: for years, the department has been monitoring mosques, restaurants where Muslims eat, Muslim student organizations, and combing through the electronic communications of Muslim students at more than 13 colleges. Their investigations revealed such insightful observations as the fact that adherents to Islam pray 5 times a day.

    The department insisted that their blanket surveillance of whole communities based entirely on their religion was perfectly legal. Apparently even members of the FBI disagreed. A new book by journalist Ronald Kessler (reported in the Daily News) reveals:

    “What never came out is that the FBI considers the NYPD’s intelligence gathering practices since 9/11 not only a waste of money but a violation of Americans’ rights,” wrote Kessler [...] “We will not be a party to it,” an FBI source told Kessler.

    The Mayor’s response was so glib that 10 House Democrats called it “underhanded and unprofessional,” reported the AP. When asked about criticisms by College Presidents about department surveillance of Muslim student websites, Bloomberg said, among other dismissive things, “I don’t know why keeping the country safe is antithetical to the values of Yale.”

    Any time that the department is criticized for their civil liberties abuses, the mayor and police commissioner solemnly point to the number of terror attacks they’ve foiled since 9/11 — 14, a number trustingly repeated in the media. But ProPublica investigative reporter Justin Elliot went through the trouble of looking into the administration’s claim and found that of the 14 successes cited, only two could be credited to the NYPD. In the other instances, the plots were stopped by other agencies, or weren’t serious threats at all, or were instigated by NYPD informants providing alleged terrorists with money and bomb-making materials.

    Meanwhile, a deposition on the Muslim surveillance program revealed that in six years of spying, the NYPD’s demographics unit had not come up with a single lead.

    • sardelapasti
      March 23, 2013, 3:23 pm

      Please everybody, stop calling anyone “Moslem” before you haven’t stood in prayer next to the individual. This is so incredibly demeaning! Imprisoning free spirits in a religious identity is not Kosher, if you get that.

  16. Marco
    March 23, 2013, 3:54 pm

    This essay is less impressive than it first appears to be. Bromwich is drawing an analogy between Obama’s rhetoric regarding a major world religion, Islam, and an ethno-supremacist political ideology, namely Zionism.

    When Obama cites the Quran in appreciation and genuflects towards Islamic history, he may be compromising secular liberal scruples. But he is, after all, addressing a religion of almost a billion and a half people drawn from every race and ethnicity. Bromwich tries to elide the distinction here, but the truth is plain: Zionism is a blood and soil ideology and Islam, at least as it is practiced by the overwhelming majority of believers, is not.

    • Donald
      March 24, 2013, 12:12 am

      “When Obama cites the Quran in appreciation and genuflects towards Islamic history, he may be compromising secular liberal scruples. But he is, after all, addressing a religion of almost a billion and a half people drawn from every race and ethnicity. Bromwich tries to elide the distinction here, but the truth is plain: Zionism is a blood and soil ideology and Islam, at least as it is practiced by the overwhelming majority of believers, is not.”

      He was compromising secular liberal principles as you said. The world will be better off if people stop believing that a government should be Muslim or Jewish or Christian (except maybe in some purely token sense). This is a live issue in many places and Zionism isn’t the only ideology that can screw up how a nation is run.

      I don’t mind that Obama tried to convey that we aren’t at war with Islam, but he could probably convey that a little better if he’d stop supporting Israeli war crimes and also stop assuming we have the right to assassinate whoever we please, rather than with Quran quotations.

    • aiman
      March 24, 2013, 9:29 am

      Thank you Marco. When I read this piece I knew something was amiss. Anyway I was thinking further: that if we are to scrutinise, we shouldn’t leave out the myths, including the grand, self-important national myths Americans believe in about their own nation. To take these two examples is selective at best. I consider Obama a brand and am not his fan, but let me ask Bromwich and those who consider this article excellent: can you name one national leader who does not believe in the myth of the nation? Obama’s only problem here is echoing more myths than one. It’s not like he has ignored the myth of American exceptionalism which like all his predecessors he is sworn to repeat.

  17. Hostage
    March 23, 2013, 7:36 pm

    Benjamin Netanyahu has long wanted to hear other countries acknowledge that Israel is “the Jewish state.” In his Jerusalem speech, President Obama granted those terms of identification.

    The Congress has long-since enshrined that particular demand in its statutes regarding foreign assistance for the Palestinian government. They actually require the President to supply certifications on the subject.

    Even when the State Department pays lip service to PM Netanyahu’s demand that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as the state or homeland of “the Jewish people”, it does so in very equivocal terms which leave the impression that a secular democracy is out of the question, i.e. The U.S. spokesman said “We have recognized the special nature of the Israeli state. It is a state for the Jewish people. It is a state for other citizens of other faiths as well.”

    Obama undoubtedly hoped to deliberately pit Jewish religious nationalism against Arab nationalism in order to make its own continued interventions appear necessary. It’s the same ol’ same ol’ nonsensical US foreign policy.

  18. jimmy
    March 24, 2013, 4:26 am

    I wish i had a tribe…

    but being adopted in 1958,,,,,it is just me..

    i have a son and granddaughter….

    we are three generations strong

  19. giladg
    March 24, 2013, 7:11 am

    “Politics once seemed a ground of possible conciliation between liberal Zionists and liberal Muslims”. This is what happens when liberals take control of mainstream media (in the case of democracies) and pursue topics and thoughts that do not refect the majority of the people. They treat the masses like children, thinking that they know better. What makes matters even worse is that the liberals ignore the draconian nature by which Arab and Mulsim societies are usually run, and refer only to the liberal Israeli press for their political thermometer. Only that the liberals pursue narrow agendas and don’t represent a lot of people. Ultimately history is determined by those who are organized, who feel there is something worth fighting for, and who are prepared to put their lives on the line. The ease at which Arab societies can cut a life down makes the concept of liberal Palestinians a sad joke. Have you ever heard a liberal Muslim call to share Jerusalem? No, no, no and no. Did you hear how Israelis cheered Obama when he called for Palestinians to have their own state? The crowd went wild with approval. This is because the liberal media has been feeding them propaganda, ignoring any demands that need to be placed on the Palestinians to recognize why Jews are I this region and what would be essential for the future of the Jewish (not Israeli) people.

    • aiman
      March 24, 2013, 9:48 am

      “What makes matters even worse is that the liberals ignore the draconian nature by which Arab and Mulsim societies are usually run, and refer only to the liberal Israeli press for their political thermometer. Only that the liberals pursue narrow agendas and don’t represent a lot of people.”

      What balderdash! You make some astonishing, false claims about “liberals”. It must hurt you to know that the liberal establishment actually supports Israel and is largely PEP and supports colonialism without batting an eye: link to guardian.co.uk.

      Ordinary liberals, on the other hand, are much more informed. Most educated university students are liberal. They don’t support draconian anything.

    • aiman
      March 24, 2013, 9:58 am

      “Ultimately history is determined by those who are organized, who feel there is something worth fighting for, and who are prepared to put their lives on the line.”

      The fact that you think that’s gallant reveals a lot about your ideology. A tribal Zionist sounds a lot like a tribal Islamist (excuse the superlative “tribal”).

    • Ecru
      March 24, 2013, 6:00 pm

      Ultimately history is determined by those who are organized, who feel there is something worth fighting for, and who are prepared to put their lives on the line…

      Been reading Mein Kampf have we?

  20. Talkback
    March 24, 2013, 7:29 am

    It gets even better:
    “March 22 ‘recalls the memory of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, who taught generations of young men and women the importance of education and good character,’ [Obama] wrote.”
    link to haaretz.com

    And in 2011 Obama said: “[Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson's] legacy continues to inspire individuals to carry forward his effort to build a brighter future.”
    link to jta.org

    Quote from Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson: “Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness.”

    I wonder why Goldberg writes that Obama is the most Jewish president ever.

  21. Raanan Geberer
    March 24, 2013, 10:02 am

    What you call “tribalism,” I call Judaism. As far as I’m concerned, God forged a covenant with the Jewish people at Mount Sinai, and part of that includes the land of Israel. It may surprise you that within that context, I am very liberal–I would be the first to accept a Palestinian state with Israel as its capital and including all of Gaza and the West Bank–but for me, the re-emergence of a Jewish state after 2,000 years is the first step in a process that will end with the coming of the Moshiach, the resurrection of the dead and the rebuilding of God’s holy temple. And if you don’t believe in any of this, I feel sorry for you, because your lives are so much poorer and more prosaic for it.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 24, 2013, 3:00 pm

      raanan, i am sure there are quite few christians who feel sorry for me too, because i have not accepted christ into my life. there will always be a large chasm between believers and non believers (secular people like myself). many secular people think religious people who take scripture literally have more in common than not. personally, i think if the fundies of all religions could just live on and island somewhere with each other, it would be a better world for the rest of us.

    • Talkback
      March 24, 2013, 4:30 pm

      Raanan Geberer says: “And if you don’t believe in any of this, I feel sorry for you, because your lives are so much poorer and more prosaic for it.”

      So the lives of people who believe in other religions (even much older) than your Moshiachism “are so much poorer and more prosaic for it.” That’s the difference between us: I don’t feel sorry for you – I laugh at you and at the inherent arrogance in your infantile fake sorrow.

    • American
      March 24, 2013, 6:15 pm

      Actually Raanan people like me who aren’t fanatically religious feel sorry in a small way for those like you…even as we realize that the kind of religious based and hubristic delusions you hold often contribute to some of the world’s vexing problems.
      The question we most often ask of those like you is how you can really live a full life and experience the richness and intriguing differences of the world with such a tunnel type belief. Existing in that kind of belief is just that… existing in one small room……not living big.

  22. Betsy
    March 27, 2013, 2:20 pm

    the strain of blood-and-belonging tribalism

    Why not use “racist”, “ethnonationalist”, or “religious fundamentalism” instead of “tribal”?

    State sponsored racism or ethnonationalism (or religious fundamentalism based on Land) are very different from tribal culture. When you have the bureaucracy, military, police, plus economic expansionism & investment capital policies of a nation-state powering a blood & soil ideology of ‘in-groupness’ — it’s a totally different thing from tribal identity.

    In the US, it is in the context of American Jewish cultural identity that ‘tribalism’ is thrown around in this careless & demeaning sort of way (who talks about Latvian Americans or Irish Americans as ‘tribal’?).

    Internationally, it was, of course, standard imperialistic language of British Empire — see here for an excellent exploration of how that ‘framed’ non British subjects as primitives who should be dominated by the ‘moderns’ link to africaaction.org This word is not only deeply stained by racism, but it is just inaccurate — it doesn’t capture the complexities of African identities.

    It’s also, notoriously, used by some Western corporate media to offer simplistic & false explanations for conflict in Middle East. See Timothy Mitchell’s terrific book CARBON DEMOCRACY — for extended history of how the West was unable to ‘see’ the secularistic & democratic processes, because of a need to frame politics as ‘primitive’ conflicts — justifying the totalitarian regimes friendly & acceptable to Western oil companies. This is a process of fake tribalization in the service of corporate & imperial economic interests — which he calls “McJihad”.

    Finally, this usage is offensive to actual indigenous groups in US & elsewhere. Philip Weiss notes that the question of indigenous identities & rights comes up inevitably in I/P debates. link to mondoweiss.net I urge folks on Mondoweiss to consider whether ‘tribal’ is the best word to use.

  23. DICKERSON3870
    March 28, 2013, 12:59 pm

    RE: . . . Benjamin Netanyahu has long wanted to hear other countries acknowledge that Israel is ‘the Jewish state’. In his Jerusalem speech, President Obama granted those terms of identification. The land of Israel [SEE Land of Israel @ Wikipedia and the accompanying map - J.L.D.], he said in other words, belongs to the Jewish people, and to Israelis as the most essentially Jewish people; it is a land to which they own the title by faith, suffering, long habitation, and the history recounted in the Bible. . .” ~ David Bromwich

    MY COMMENT: The Likudnik Revisionist Zionists and the settlers desperately want everyone to acknowledge acknowledge that Israel is ‘the Jewish state’ and that the “land of Israel” (SEE: Land of Israel @ Wikipedia and the accompanying map), belongs to the Jewish people, and to Israelis as the most essentially Jewish people. I am convinced that he reason they are so insistent on having everyone recognize “the Jews’ 4,000-year connection” to their homeland* [Judea and Samaria (a/k/a the occupied West Bank)] is because they see it as legitimizing Israel’s continued colonization and ultimate annexation of the West Bank.
    Consequently, the Likudniks were very upset by Obama’s having referred to the Holocaust, etc. as justifying Israel’s existence in his June 2009 Cairo speech.
    While the Holocaust, etc. might well justify the existence of Israel, the Eretz Israel crowd fears that the international community might see pre-1967 Israel as adequate. The Likudniks, settlers, etc. fear that the international community will not see the Holocaust as necessarily justifying Israel’s absorption of “Judea and Samaria” [a/k/a the "disputed" West Bank (f/k/a the occupied West Bank)]. To remedy this, the Likudniks/settlers want the “Biblical narrative” used to justify Israel’s existence because they see it as being specific to “Judea and Samaria” (i.e. the occupied West Bank) as opposed to the coastal plain and other parts of pre-1967 Israel.
    By referring to Israel as the ‘historic homeland’ of ‘the Jewish people’ in his 2010 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama has – for the settlers in the West Bank and their supporters – acknowledged that “Judea and Samaria” (i.e. the occupied West Bank) is/are a legitimate part of Israel. That was probably the final nail in the coffin of the two-state solution. Of course, the two-state solution had long been in an advanced state of Rigor mortis, so a proper Christian burial was probably in order.
    Obama is a Christian, right? I can never keep that straight.

    * Here is a map showing an interpretation of the borders of the Land of Israel, based on scriptural verses found in Numbers 34 and Ezekiel 47 - link to en.wikipedia.org

    • DICKERSON3870
      March 28, 2013, 1:18 pm

      P.S. It should also be pointed out that Obama acknowledged that Israel is ‘the Jewish state’ and belongs to the Jewish people, and to Israelis as the most essentially Jewish people (to which they own the title by faith, suffering, long habitation, and the history recounted in the Bible) despite the fact that recent genetic (DNA) studies seem to indicate that most of today’s Jews are not even descended from the Jews of biblical Israel.
      Pardon my modernity, but how does being a descendant of the Khazars in central Asia (not the Middle East) who converted to Judaism around 600 CE (AD) entitle a person to displace the truly indigenous population of Palestine? Enquiring minds mimes want to know!”
      What’s next, will Obama soon be disavowing science altogether and begin claiming that the Earth is only 6000 years old and that Jesus and dinosaurs lived at the same time? Again, Enquiring minds mimes want to know!”

      SEE: “New Study Shows Yeshiva University Researcher, Others Appear To Have Cooked The Genetic Books To ‘Prove’ Middle Eastern Origin Of The Jewish People When One May Not Really Exist”, by Shmarya Rosenberg, FailedMessiah.com, 12/29/12

      “My research refutes 40 years of genetic studies, all of which have assumed that the Jews constitute a group that is genetically isolated from other nations,” Dr. Eran Elhaik says.
      That’s because Jews were never genetically isolated
      , making those other studies fatally flawed and very often contradictory.
      Now Elhaik, in a study that is being called more profound than all of those that came before his combined, has exposed that fatal flaw and is the first to propose a viable way resolve those contradictions, Ha’aretz reports.
      The answer to the origin of the Jewish people Elhaik found is startling – for most of us, our Jewish origins really do begin with the Khazars, the Medieval central Asian people whose ruling elite (and perhaps its merchant class, as well) converted to Judaism.
      The 32-year-old does his work at the School of Public Health of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. His study was published earlier this month as, “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses”, in the prestigious journal, ‘Genome Biology and Evolution’, which is published by Oxford University Press. This study is based on a complete analysis of the comprehensive genetic data published in preceding studies.
      But in the absence of genetic data for the long-lost Khazars themselves, Elhaik uses a procedure often used by researchers in his field – he used data from populations that are genetically similar to the Khazars, including Georgians, Armenians and Caucasians, populations that Elhaik says have all come from the same genetic soup.
      When doing so Elhaik discovered what he calls the Khazar component of European Jewry.
      According to his study’s findings, the dominant element in the genetic makeup of European Jews is Khazar. Among Central European Jews, this makes up the largest part of their genome, 38%. For East European Jews it does the same, at 30%.
      Elhaik found that European Jews genome is mostly Western European.
      “[They are] primarily of Western European origin, which is rooted in the Roman Empire, and Middle Eastern origin, whose source is probably Mesopotamia
      [a name for the area of the Tigris–Euphrates river system, corresponding to modern-day Iraq, the northeastern section of Syria and to a lesser extent southeastern Turkey and smaller parts of southwestern Iran - J.L.D.], although it is possible that part of that component can be attributed to Israeli Jews,” he told Ha’aretz by phone from Maryland.
      That possibility is important because, if it turns out to be true, it could connect European Jews to Israel. However, even if it is true, that connection is only a tiny part of the overall genome, a percentage so small that it would reportedly not be statistically significant enough to show that the origin of the Jews is the Kingdom of Judah in the biblical Land of Israel. . . . .

      SOURCE – link to failedmessiah.typepad.com

    • DICKERSON3870
      March 28, 2013, 1:40 pm

      P.P.S. RE: It should also be pointed out that Obama acknowledged that Israel is ‘the Jewish state’ and belongs to the Jewish people . . . despite the fact that recent genetic (DNA) studies seem to indicate that most of today’s Jews are not even descended from the Jews of biblical Israel. . . What’s next, will Obama soon be disavowing science altogether and begin claiming that the Earth is only 6000 years old and that Jesus and dinosaurs lived at the same time? ~ me (from above)

      MY COMMENT: This rejection of science in favor of mythology (to suit Likudnik Israel’s maximalist agenda of absorbing the West Bank and perhaps even more of “Eretz Yisrael”) is yet another reason I fear that Revisionist Zionism and Likudnik Israel (specifically by virtue of their inordinate sway over the U.S.) might very well be an “existential threat” to the values of The Enlightenment! ! !
      “Down, down, down we [the U.S.] go into the deep, dark abyss; hand in hand with Israel.”

      OTHER EXAMPLES OF ISRAEL’S VALUES TRUMPING (OVERRIDING) THE VALUES OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT HERE IN THE U.S.
      “How We Became Israel”, By Andrew J. Bacevich, The American Conservative, 9/10/12
      LINK – link to theamericanconservative.com
      “America Adopts the Israel Paradigm”, by Philip Ghiraldi, Antiwar.com, 7/05/12
      LINK – link to original.antiwar.com
      “Report: Israeli model underlies militarization of U.S. police”, By Muriel Kane, Raw Story, 12/04/11
      LINK – link to rawstory.com
      From Occupation to “Occupy”: The Israelification of American Domestic Security, By Max Blumenthal, Al-akhbar, 12/02/11
      LINK – link to english.al-akhbar.com OR link to informationclearinghouse.info
      “The Second Battle of Gaza: Israel’s Undermining Of International Law”, by Jeff Halper, mrzine.monthlyreview.org, 02/26/10
      LINK – link to mrzine.monthlyreview.org
      “The Trial of Israel’s Campus Critics”, by David Theo Goldberg & Saree Makdisi, Tikkun Magazine, September/October 2009
      LINK – link to tikkun.org
      “Brooklyn College’s academic freedom increasingly threatened over Israel event”, by Glenn Greenwald, guardian.co.uk, 2/02/13
      LINK – link to guardian.co.uk
      “Peter ‘Powder Keg’ Beinart is disinvited from gig at Atlanta Jewish book festival”, by Annie Robbins, Mondoweiss, 11/05/12
      LINK – link to mondoweiss.net
      ‘Israelis are helping write US laws, fund US campaigns, craft US war policy’, by Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss, 6/30/12
      LINK – link to mondoweiss.net
      “David Yerushalmi, Islam-Hating White Supremacist Inspires Anti-Sharia Bills Sweeping Tea Party Nation”, by Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam, 3/02/11
      LINK – link to richardsilverstein.com
      “Boston airport security program rife with racial profiling has Israeli links”, by Alex Kane, Mondoweiss, 8/14/12
      LINK – link to mondoweiss.net
      “Obama’s kill list policy compels US support for Israeli attacks on Gaza”, By Glenn Greenwald, guardian.co.uk, 11/15/12
      LINK – link to guardian.co.uk

      P.S. AND HERE’S ANOTHER THREAT TO THE VALUES OF “THE ENLIGHTENMENT” (THIS TIME IN AFRICA):
      “US Religious Right Propelling Homophobia in African Countries”
      , by Common Dreams, 7/24/12
      LINK – link to commondreams.org

Leave a Reply