By Barry Rubin

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles have been written on President George Bush’s visit to the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian issue. And not a single one that I’ve seen has mentioned the ridiculously obvious point that goes so far in explaining everything.

To paraphrase the nursery rhyme about circling endlessly, Bush is merely taking us around the mulberry bush once more. Namely, this is an exact replay of Bill Clinton’s presidency. Eight years ago, in his last twelve months in office, Clinton, too, decided that the conflict must be resolved right away. Result: total, humiliating failure and a five-year-long bloody Palestinian war on Israel.

As if this were not enough, whether or not even more violence will follow, Bush, through no fault of his own, is in a far worse position to play this game than was his predecessor.

(more…)

By Phyllis Chesler

Some people insist that America has lost all moral credibility. In my view, those who judge America (and Israel) by higher and different standards are the ones whose credibility and perhaps sanity remain highly questionable. Yes, I am talking about the western intelligentsia, international human rights organizations, Islamic world despots, Islamist terrorists, the United Nations, and the non-governmental organizations which have attached themselves to the allegedly crumbling edifice on the East River of Manhattan known as the United Nations. All these groups view “the international community,” as a sacred deity whose wisdom and benevolence is merciful and all-encompassing.

I kid you not. Yes, the same “international community” which refuses to stop the genocide and mass gang-rapes in Sudan is still viewed as humanity’s Savior. Only America and Israel are singled out for condemnation. PRESS HERE.

(more…)

By Ted Belman, Israpundit

“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” Pres Bush said after 9/11. He went on to identify N. Korea, Iran and Iraq, the “axis of evil” and to declare the “war on terror”. The last thing he wanted to do was to identify the enemy. N. Korea was included in the list for fear that someone might think, G-d forbid, that Moslems were the enemy or that Islam was the enemy just as Communists and Communism were during the cold war.

It’s not that he didn’t know who the enemy was. After all, 15 of the 19 highjackers were Saudis who were inspired by Saudi supported Wahabbism. Its not that he viewed the use of terror as the enemy because the US had created al Qaeda to use terror to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan. It is not that this was the first time that the US was attacked by Arabs or Muslims starting with the Islamic revolution in Iran and the hostage taking of US diplomats.

Angelo Codeville, a professor of international relations at Boston University, wondered and wrote a startling article in the Fall of ‘02, Post Mortem to a Phony War. If you missed this article, don’t miss it now. It’s a classic. Read it here.

(more…)

By Phyllis Chesler

This year, summer eerily, languorously, lingered on. We enjoyed balmy days in New York City clear through November. Even now, the trees outside my window remain in full, green leaf. But winter is also here and the days are becoming bitterly cold and windy.

This is the first time in seven years that I have remained silent about so-called “peace” initiatives in the Middle East. What can I possibly add to what has already been said about the meeting in Annapolis? Or, for that matter, about the witch-hunt against AIPAC and the continued, ghastly imprisonment of Jonathan Pollard?

(more…)

by Daniel Pipes*

Some thoughts on the eve of the Annapolis meeting:

Called the best friend Israel ever had in the White House, George W. Bush is, in my view, worrisomely over-confident. He believes he has discovered the solution to a highly complex and subtle century-old conflict. But I expect major problems.

The cover of the Nov. 24 Economist shows a picture of Bush under a bold headline that reads “Mr Palestine.” The subtitle deems him “The only man who could make it happen” – with “it,” of course, being a Palestinian state. The title is especially provocative when one recalls that for many years Yasir Arafat was the one known as “Mr. Palestine.”

(more…)

By Barry Rubin

What would you do if your foreign policy agenda had these priorities:

• Get Arab and European support for solving the Iraq crisis.
• Mobilize Arab and European forces against a threat led by Iran and its allies, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah.
• Get Iran to stop its campaign to get nuclear weapons.
• Reestablish American credibility toward friends and deterrence toward enemies.
• Reduce the level of Israel-Palestinian conflict.

That pretty much describes the U.S. framework for dealing with the Middle East nowadays. The Annapolis conference is not going to contribute to these goals. The most likely outcome is either failure or a non-event portrayed as a victory because it took place at all. No one is going to say: We are so grateful at the United States becoming more active on Arab-Israeli issues that we are going to back its policy on other issues.

(more…)

By Barry Rubin

Quick! Tell me. Who’s desperate to make a deal? Who acts as if they are the weaker party, eager to negotiate solutions in order to end their people’s suffering and the costs of conflict?

Certainly not Iran. It has been pushing ahead with its nuclear program for more than three years during a period of intense Western diplomatic effort, lots of talk about sanctions, and even the implementation of some. Iran is indifferent to threats of attack or warnings of isolation. To a large extent — but not completely — the regime thinks the West is bluffing. But if Tehran really sought nuclear energy, not bombs, it could easily cooperate and have power stations in operation far faster. And if Iran was really acting out of fear of being surrounded by American power, it could help resolve the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq — instead of inflaming them — in exchange for U.S. forces withdrawing more quickly.

(more…)

by William Bache*

The President of the United States expressed his desire to build a democratic Iraq that could serve as an example to the rest of the Arab and Islamic nations. The American military was the instrument chosen to build an Iraqi security structure that could fight terrorism and still promote ethical leaders and democratic values. However, efforts to transfer American military values to Iraq have been a failure. The leaders of the Iraqi Joint Security Forces have politely listened to what the Americans have determined is best for them and then have gone back to doing what they feel is best for them—namely situational leadership, corruption, and human rights violations.

(more…)

by Daniel Pipes*

“Everything” did not change on 9/11, as some expected, but one thing certainly did: the U.S. government’s willingness to preempt enemies before they act. This new policy has outraged so many, it may be discontinued.

In foreign affairs, preemption replaced the long-established policy of deterrence. A series of speeches established the new policy, culminating in George W. Bush’s June 2002 declaration that “our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.” Nine months later, preemption justified the invasion of Iraq before Iraqis had attacked the United States, to the fury of many.

(more…)

By Jeffrey Imm*

Three weeks after the arrest of suspected Jihadists in Austria, today the U.S. Embassy in Vienna foiled an apparent nail bomb attack by a 42 year old Bosnian man. The Bosnian man, who lives in Austria, was stopped with a backpack with hand grenades, nails, and Islamic literature as he tried to enter the U.S. Embassy in Vienna today. The Daily Telegraph reports that Doris Edelbacher, of Austria’s counterterrorism office stated “There were a lot of nails in that bag. Had it exploded, it would have had an enormous shrapnel effect”. The Bosnian man was detained after the metal detector stopped him and he attempted to flee, and the man is now being questioned.

(more…)

by Joseph Puder*

Alireza Jafarzadeh, president of Washington-based Strategic Policy Consulting and spokesperson for the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), was the guest of the Middle East Forum at Philadelphia’s Cozen O’Connor law offices last Wednesday over lunch. Bob Guzzardi, chairman of the Middle East Forum, introduced Jafarzadeh, who used his visit with the Middle East Forum to promote his new book, The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis.

(more…)

by Phyllis Chesler

Let me state what is painfully obvious. Despite our most hopeful illusions, people are not really “good” nor do they really practice “peace”. While power corrupts, absolute powerlessness corrupts absolutely and there is no safe place, neither high nor low, for the most vulnerable of our citizens.

The world is always at war. People fight, it’s what we do. We quarrel, often in deadly ways with other family members and we fight bitter, brutal battles with anyone who is “different” in terms of gender, class, race, ethnicity, tribe, religion, and ideology. The planet is perpetually plagued by civil and national wars. Not to be outdone, persecuted peoples internalize the prejudice and hatred leveled against them and unleash it against others like themselves.

(more…)

By Barry Rubin

The big picture can be found in the little details. Here’s a great example. Iran recently held a summit meeting bringing together Palestinian leaders. Hamas was there, of course, and Islamic Jihad, too. No surprise that. But there was someone else participating in the gathering: Farouq Qaddumi.

Qaddumi is a veteran Fatah and PLO bureaucrat who now heads the former group. He is one of three men–the other two were Yasir Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas–who represented Fatah on the PLO Executive Committee. He has never accepted even the 1993 Oslo agreement. In most ways, he is more representative of Fatah leadership than the Palestinian Authority’s relatively moderate two heads, Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad.

(more…)

By Barry Rubin

Everybody in Washington has been waiting for General David H. Petraeaus to give his report on the Iraq war. Expectations became most inflated, as if he would deliver America of this seemingly unsolvable problem in a messianic manner.

Now Petraeaus has spoken and he has done a pretty good job. There are some major paradoxes in his analysis and prescription but given the nature of the issue that was certainly inevitable.

For Democrats, eager to have an American withdrawal from Iraq, Petraeaus became something of a trap. To show they were patriotic and supported the troops, congressional Democrats praised Petraeaus. Now, however, disliking some of the things he said, they look rather craven trying to find ways to criticize him.

(more…)

By Mark Krikorian*

(Click here to read “Fixing Immigration”)

I was delighted to see Yuval Levin engage the issue of immigration, particularly its most basic element — the shape of our policy for legal immigration — rather than the conceptually simpler matter of enforcement. I also welcome some of Mr. Levin’s specific recommendations, especially that family-based immigration should extend only to the nuclear family and that assimilation into American society should be given a higher priority.

(more…)