The following is an article I wrote for the American Foreign Policy
Council. It was originally published by The American Spectator.
When President Obama delivers his long-awaited speech in Egypt on Thursday, he will be fulfilling his inaugural pledge to "seek a new way forward" with the Muslim world. But finding areas of mutual interest may prove far more difficult than the president imagines. That is because, in recent years, the Middle East has seen the crystallization of regional politics around two distinct ideologies. Call it the new bipolarity.
For years Qatar has energetically sought to pursue autonomous regional policies, balancing their friendly relations with Iran while hosting America’s regional headquarters and cooperating with other Gulf states. In 1995, they opened low-level diplomatic relations with Israel during the Oslo peace process, becoming one of the first Arab states to do so without a peace agreement with Israel.Qatar’s renewed quest for a stronger regional role began to take shape in 2006 during the summer war between Israel and Hezbollah. The war served to highlight the differences between the moderate and radical camps led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and Iran and Syria respectively. Following the crisis, Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Hamad bin Jasim made camp with the moderates and even called on Lebanon to negotiate a peace agreement with Israel. This move, needless to say, did not sit well with Iran and Syria.
Reviewed Book: Barry Rubin, The Truth About Syria (NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 304 pp. $14.95.Forty years ago, in assessing the foreign policy direction of the regime of Hafiz al-Asad in Damascus, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency concluded that “[t]he question in regard to Syria’s future… is not whether it will be moderate or radical, but what will be the kind and intensity of its radicalism.” Four decades later, the new U.S. administration finds itself struggling with the same question as it works to craft a new policy toward Syria.
Several myths lie at the core of the arguments in favor of resuming the Syrian-Israeli peace process. The first is that the two parties were close to completing a peace deal in 2000, but diplomacy faltered over final borders—and that it would be relatively simple to solve this territorial dispute. The second is that the return of the Golan Heights is a priority for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is not only capable of making peace with Israel, but could deliver the warm relations that Jerusalem seeks in return. Lastly, there is the myth that if the West sufficiently sweetened a Syrian-Israeli peace deal, Damascus could undergo a strategic shift and even reorient itself toward the West.The following is an article I wrote for the American Foreign Policy Council. It was originally published here at the Washington Times.
The Obama administration appears to have set its sights on Syria as part of its efforts to turn over a new leaf on Middle East policy. Recent days have seen a spate of diplomatic overtures by Washington to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Asad.
These initiatives have ranged from an administration authorization of spare parts for Syrian aircraft to the very public visit to Damascus of Sen. John Kerry, the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Few places can stir such deep emotions as the New Jersey-sized state of Israel. Whether or not one has visited the Jewish homeland, all have strong opinions on how it should behave. For many in the West, Israel is a country that exists in either dreams or nightmares so the state is either above rapprochement or is evil. Many Jews come from abroad to visit the land they read about in the Torah; the city of Jerusalem to which they face in prayer; where for centuries the Passover meal concludes with the phrase, “Next year in Jerusalem.” They stay in fancy West Jerusalem hotels, tour the Old City, kiss the Wailing Wall, and walk through Mea Sharim and marvel at the near replica of a nineteenth century Polish shtetl recreated in a Jerusalem suburb. They return home with hundreds of pictures testifying to their visits, secure that Israel and the Jewish people are thriving and need think no further.
The following is an article I wrote for the American Foreign Policy Council. The original is available here on their website.
Israel’s nearly three week-long offensive against the Hamas terrorist organization in the Gaza Strip ended days before the inauguration of Barack Obama as president in Washington. Now, attention in the U.S. and Israeli governments turns to the thorny questions of how to create a durable ceasefire, keep Hamas isolated, and ensure that it cannot rearm. And, as policymakers in Washington are beginning to find out, doing so requires solving the issue of the smuggling tunnels that run from Egypt to Gaza.
By: Michael Sharnoff
This article by Middle East Opinion contributor, Michael Sharnoff was first published at the Palestine-Israel Journal. The writer is a Research Associate at the Jewish Policy Center in Washington, DC.
For seven years, Israel has endured thousands of indiscriminate rocket attacks against its civilian population by Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip. Until now, Israel had demonstrated uncommon restraint. Yet, many professors of Middle East Studies ignore these realities. In recent days, three prominent professors have demonstrated why their field is now viewed as politicized and in decline.
Recalling the steadfast commitment of the United States to Israel's security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel's capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats;
Reaffirming that such commitment is reflected in the security, military and intelligence cooperation between the United States and Israel, the Strategic Dialogue between them, and the level and kind of assistance provided by the United States to Israel;
Over the years, the game in Gaza has had a familiar ring to it: Hamas launches rockets toward Israeli population centers and Israel responds with a pinpoint strike of its own. Every so often, civilians are killed on both sides. The outside world, meanwhile, yawns with indifference. No longer. The expiration of its six-month ceasefire with Israel earlier in December prompted Hamas to resume large-scale hostilities, launching hundreds of rockets against Israeli civilian population centers. However, over the past week, Israel’s government has demonstrated unequivocally that it is no longer prepared to simply implement piecemeal responses, as it has done for years against the de facto Islamist government in Gaza. Instead, it has launched a major offensive, Operation Cast Lead, that Defense Minister Ehud Barak has announced could last weeks if not months. So, what can Israel now hope to achieve politically by using its military?
