The sad thing about the countries that are undermining the international diplomatic embargo against Hamas is that they are harming the cause they claim to be trying to advance -- the cause of peace.

Continue »

The first thing Tony Blair should do is rethink the whole concept of a "Mideast envoy." What the job needs most now is not a mediator but a truth-teller.

Continue »

Jerusalem - The idea that Jews are too powerful is, of course, a staple of anti-Semites throughout history. Regarding this tinge in the question and the recent book that inspired it, there is really nothing to add to Jeffrey Goldberg's devastating review in the New Republic. As he puts it, "[The Israel Lobby authors John] Mearsheimer and [Stephen] Walt are the sort of scholars who think that if you wish to understand racism, study blacks, and if you wish to understand anti-Semitism, study Jews. They are chillingly unaware that such views are complicit with the prejudice that they claim to abhor."

For those who do want to study Jews, I will save them the trouble by mentioning that my wife works for AIPAC. Yes, I am pro-Israel. I even live here and write for the Jerusalem Post!

But let us set aside conspiracy theories for the moment, rephrase the original question slightly, and address its substance. The legitimate underlying question is: Is U.S. policy too pro-Israel? The fact that the U.S. is significantly more pro-Israel than other major democracies only accentuates this suspicion.

The surprising truth, however, is that from the point of view of both the peace process and even more fundamental American interests, the U.S. should be more "pro-Israel," not less. The basic reason for this is that the Arab war to destroy Israel is a subset of Islamo-fascist jihad against the West. It makes little sense for the U.S. to be neutral in such a struggle, just as the U.S. could not be neutral as Nazi Germany proceeded to gobble up Europe.

Continue »

The Current Discussion: Vice President Dick Cheney said last week that Hamas is doing all it can to torpedo the Mideast peace process -- but Ephraim Halevy, former head of Mossad, thinks it's time to include the Islamist group in peace talks. Who's right?

The debate over talking to Hamas tends to miss the point: why talk to someone who says outright that they are committed to your destruction? No one suggests that the US negotiate with al-Qaeda, for instance. It is not just that the latter are terrorists. The more fundamental question is, what is the purpose of talking?

Talking is for when there is room to split the difference, such as in a border conflict. In fact, the whole Arab-Israeli peace process is built on pretending that it is a border conflict -- that is, that two states, Israel and Palestine, are a given so what remains is working out the details.

The problem is that the Arab-Israeli conflict remains what it always was, one over existence -- Israel’s existence -- not borders, or refugees, or Jerusalem. At the moment that the leaders of the Arab world, including the Palestinian leadership, decides that it is time to give up the “struggle” to destroy Israel, then it will be a matter of negotiating the details.

Continue »