The public discussion about the causes of violent extremism has focused mainly on the socioeconomic and political conditions that exist in Arab countries. But we must also carefully consider how the events in the wake of World Wars I and II have impacted the psychological disposition of the Arab population throughout the Middle East.
Telling the Exodus story without acknowledging the violence against the Caananites is similar to repeating the Zionist myth that Israel was a "land without a people for a people without land."
While I am not planning on transferring to Bard anytime soon, I hope our university will return to its commitment to dialogue and diversity of opinion, and finally restore the Brandeis University-Al-Quds University partnership.
It would be easy to chock up Hillary's maneuver as politics during the beginning of her presidential campaign and call it day. But there's something more to it than that.
Legal and diplomatic battles in United Nations organizations and international sport associations involving charges of war crimes and efforts to suspend membership of one or the other are likely to shape future Israeli-Palestinian relations in the wake of last month's electoral victory by Binyamin Netanyahu.
When both Barack Obama and James Baker take the same position on a critical foreign policy and national security issue, you know things have changed. When the bald call for automatic support for an Israeli government that has betrayed its own principles and people, and its agreements with the United States, finally turns away former supporters, you know things have changed.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Israel may be a troubled member of our family, but certainly not the only one. What about Texas? So what should the US do about Israeli?
Netanyahu's words create a golden opportunity for Barack Obama to radically transform his policy of uncritical support for Israel's ongoing violations of the law.
As someone who was critical of several steps by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the campaign leading up to his reelection, particularly his decision to address Congress and his statement seeming to reject a Palestinian state, I am even more troubled by statements now coming out of the White House calling for a reassessment of policy toward Israel.
Though "business as usual" is the path of least resistance on the Israeli-Arab and Israeli-Iranian axes, they are also risky enterprises as the old equilibriums shift.
No one is proposing anarchy -- the no-state solution. Mathematically, that leaves us with the one-state solution. More precisely, it leaves us with many possible one-state solutions, and plenty to discuss.
The damning consequences Netanyahu's new government will inflict on the country are as certain as night following day. Israel, which has been led astray by Netanyahu for so long, is fast approaching a new precipice unlike any other it has faced in years past.
Conservatives believe that Israel's Likud defeated the liberal Zionist Union. But the evidence shows that's not the case. Benjamin Netanyahu was able to pick up 12 more seats, almost entirely at the expense of other conservative parties, with a shift to the right.
The scorched earth tactics used by Netanyahu are reminiscent of the mongering we saw here in the 1960s from the likes of Richard Nixon and Alabama's George Wallace, stoking panic, dividing to conquer, consigning a whole people to the margin for his own survival.
The vulgarity and crudity of Netanyahu and his allies have successfully salvaged the prime minister's career for the time being. Likud's win, however, may turn into a Pyrrhic victory
If Israel's laws and policies existed in the U.S. today, many towns would be legally permitted to deny housing to African Americans because of the color of their skin; Arab and Muslim Americans would be forbidden from marrying and bringing their loved ones to the U.S. if they were born in the Middle East.