Despite Pundits, Netanyahu Wants Peace

Efraim Inbar
Perspectives Papers No. 101, March 11, 2010

Israelis, as well as the current Netanyahu government, deeply desire peace. Netanyahu expressed a willingness to reach a territorial compromise through a two-state solution. Netanyahu's readiness to compromise has been met by continued resistance from the Palestinians, who have displayed a lack of political pragmatism that is a prerequisite for reaching a compromise. It is wrong to blame Netanyahu for the current political impasse, as it is the Palestinians who have displayed inflexibility in their approach to peace.

The Prerequisite for Peace in the Middle East:
Arab Recognition of the Legitimacy of Israel

Kenneth J. Bialkin
Perspectives Papers No. 100, March 4, 2010

Middle East peace diplomacy aimed at ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict is bound to fail yet again unless the process is reconfigured to emphasize, as its centerpiece, Arab recognition of the Jewish People’s ancient claims to their ancestral homeland and the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Waiting for this necessary change of heart among Palestinians and other Arabs concerning Israel’s legitimate Jewish character and national future is the wisest route to peace.

Flaws in General Eiland's Alternatives

Stuart A. Cohen
Perspectives Papers No. 99, February 7, 2010

In his recent BESA monograph on "Regional Alternatives to the Two-State Solution," General Giora Eiland faults all the currently conventional approaches to Israeli-Palestinian relations – a spectrum that is not restricted to the two-state solution but also extends to the belief in the efficacy of "interim" arrangements as well as the notion that Israel might somehow "manage" the current conflict indefinitely. Instead, he proposes two "regional" solutions. The present article argues that Eiland's suggestions suffer from several fundamental flaws and that there in fact exists no alternative to an option that Eiland did not examine in any depth: a unilateral Israeli dismantlement of the civilian settlements established since 1967 in Judea and Samaria.

Understanding the Settlement Moratorium

Max Singer
Perspectives Papers No. 98, December 29, 2009

Does the tactical political value of the Netanyahu government’s ten-month moratorium on new building in the West Bank justify its diplomatic and security costs? It seems to be so because limited costs are better than risks of disaster. Analysis suggests that postponing and possibly avoiding a fight with the Obama administration was the main reason for Israel’s decision, and that ten months from now the Israeli prime minister will be in a better position to resist US pressures.

Islamic Imperialism: The Ongoing Tragedy of the Middle East

Thomas O. Hecht
Perspectives Papers No. 97, November 25, 2009

Samuel Huntington predicted that only the Islamic civilization would re-emerge as the nemesis to the West. Recently, there is a rebirth of the Islamic struggle to reassert control over parts of the world, with jihad, or its modern manifestation – international terrorism – as its tool. The US is losing its dominance in the Middle East and is gradually being replaced by Iran. The Western world is in urgent need of a leader who will powerfully defend Western values against the growing influence of radical Islam.

J Street Expands the Pro-Israel Tent

Dov Waxman
Perspectives Papers No. 96, November 11, 2009

Let me confess. I attended the recent J Street conference, its first ever, held with much fanfare in Washington DC at the end of October. This must surely make me in David Weinberg’s eyes, one of those Buddhist Seder attending, intermarrying, Ayatollah-loving, and Israel-bashing Jews – the kind he mocks in his article, “J Street’s Spiritual Conceit” (BESA Perspectives 94, October 25, 2009). But this is a grossly inaccurate caricature of J Street’s supporters. The reality is that J Street draws its support from growing numbers of American Jews who are deeply committed to the existence of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state; but they also recognize that the biggest threat to this is the continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and believe that strong American leadership is necessary to bring about a two-state solution before it is too late. Until J Street came along, many of these Jews felt politically marginalized within the American Jewish community. By mobilizing them, giving them a political voice in Washington, and a place in the pro-Israel community, J Street should be welcomed, not ridiculed.

Is Mahmoud Abbas Becoming Chairman Arafat?

Hillel Frisch
Perspectives Papers No. 95, November 8, 2009

For years, Mahmoud Abbas has been viewed both as a weak political figure and as a moderate state-builder. However, recent statements and actions suggest that Abbas is becoming a more effective politician and, unfortunately, also a radical one. This raises the question of whether Mr. Abbas is turning into Mr. Arafat – dominating Palestinian Authority politics and posing an adversarial challenge for Israel. Recent signs of Abbas' radicalization include indications of support for violence against Israel which suggest that Abbas, in the event he indeed resigns, may not have been the address for negotiation of a stable, two-state solution.

J Street's Spiritual Conceit

David M. Weinberg
Perspectives Papers No. 94, October 25, 2009

The pious spiritual claptrap that characterizes J Street's conference in Washington this week is both a conceit and a new form of Jewish apostasy. Conference speakers earnestly broadcast their "profound" Jewish and "spiritual" identities in order to besmirch the mainstream Jewish community and engender a distancing in US-Israel relations. This certainly does not fool the American Muslim leaders who are speaking at the conference. They know and appreciate exactly what J Street is up to.

Mitchell's Mission Impossible

Efraim Inbar
Perspectives Papers No. 93, October 22, 2009

Senator George Mitchell, US Special Envoy to the Middle East, has an impossible task. American clout in the region has waned over the years, and Mitchell faces a situation where a US president advocates a quick end to the conflict, an Israeli prime minister insists on negotiations without preconditions, and a Palestinian society lacks a united leadership – fragmented by Abbas' rule in the West Bank and Hamas' rule in Gaza. Mitchell, and with him a large part of the international community, fail to understand that the ethnic conflict being waged in the Holy Land will end only when the parties tire. So far, Israelis and Palestinians still have energy to fight for what is important to them.

An Open Letter To My Turkish Friends

Efraim Inbar
Perspectives Papers No. 92, October 11, 2009

After a long run of arguing the benefits of AKP rule in Turkey, the author fears his critics might have been right. Worrying trends by the current leadership, such as invitations to radical leaders and defense of Hamas, show a possible "loss" of Turkey to Islamism. The author appeals to his Turkish friends and colleagues to stop Turkey's slip towards the Middle East and maintain its alignment with "secure" Western powers.

Obama and the Middle East

Efraim Inbar
Perspectives Papers No. 91, September 24, 2009

US President Barack Obama has adopted an activist foreign policy, attempting to engage the Muslim world and signaling his expectation that an end the Israel-Palestinian conflict can be negotiated within two years. This ambitious agenda has so far produced meager results. Many regional players are primarily concerned about Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons, and are not easily amenable to American overtures.

The Fatah Conference: Finally an Abbas Victory

Hillel Frisch
Perspectives Papers No. 90, August 25, 2009

After a 20-year hiatus, the Fatah conference was held in August 2009. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas finally appears to have gained some power in his party, Fatah. Due to persisting Palestinian internal divisions, he will still need the help of Israel and the US for controlling the West Bank.

Apprehensive Allies:
India and Israel in the Obama Era

S. Samuel C. Rajiv
Perspectives Papers No. 89, August 10, 2009

India and Israel seem to be up against a "pragmatic," non-ideological American administration under President Obama whose policy initiatives and proclivities have the potential to cause friction in their respective bilateral interactions, despite the best of intentions. Each of the two countries is suffering from a bout of "Bush Blues" since Obama took over in Washington. The issues in contention range from strategic concerns like Pakistan and Iran, to nuclear non-proliferation and economic factors like outsourcing of jobs. Given the huge stakes involved in the interactions among these three vibrant democracies, concerted efforts must be made to minimize the negative fallout of any differences they might have, while striving towards mutually acceptable solutions.