Stay Informed

Sign up to receive the Middle East Bulletin!

Support Middle East Progress

In-Depth Coverage

Original Commentaries

08/07/08
How to Deal with Jerusalem  —Lt. Col. (Res.) Ron Shatzberg, Project Director, Economic Cooperation Foundation. Interview with Middle East Bulletin.
08/07/08
How to Deal with Jerusalem  —
08/05/08
Why Did Maliki Call for a Timeline?  —by Christopher Kojm who teaches at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University and is a former senior advisor to the Iraq Study Group. Original Commentary for Middle East Bulletin.

Setting the Record Straight

Already Divided

“Even the Arab minority in the city has shown its preference for living under Israeli rule, as many have moved to the Israeli side of the security barrier being built around Jerusalem. Their choice is reasonable, as Jerusalem offers the quality of life of a modern western city while only a few kilometers away the norm is a third world standard of living, chaos and religious intolerance. An undivided Jerusalem is the best guarantee of a better life for all Jerusalemites.”
—Nathan Diament, Director of Public Policy, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, July 23, 2008 versus
  • “Those who believe that Jerusalem should not be divided, and mean by that that the Arab neighborhoods should not be separated from the city, should be the first to insist that an active policy be adopted by the government and the municipality to improve the lot of local Arab residents. Barring that, Jerusalem will continue to remain a divided city.”
    —Moshe Arens, former Israeli defense and foreign minister (Likud), “A Story of Neglect,” Haaretz, July 28, 2008

    • Middle East Analysis

    Real Summit Disputes

    Hazem Saghieh (Dar Al-Hayat)
    March 31, 2008

    [E]very Arab summit since the 1946 Anshas one and then the 1964 Cairo one has been tied to the Paletinian-Israeli issue, as if the Arabs and their summits—supposedly the culmination of their political lives—are unequivocally reduced to this issue. Yet, the question is slightly more complicated and twisted. This link between the summits and the Israeli issue happens to be the primary element responsible for voiding all summits of any meaning and turning them into purposeless ceremonial rituals. This is attributed to the fact that as a result of this link, the supposed joint Arab action has been based on the very issue on which joint action has no influence whatsoever. …

    On the other hand, shifting the focus of the summits to live and effective issues where intervention and influence are possible represents an opportunity to revive these summits, resurrect them from their state of death, and pull them out of the loud ideological screaming where accountability is impossible, and turn them into real political tools for real states and societies. Based on our numerous experiences, our absolute unity over Palestine and against Israel literally means doing nothing. In contrast, disagreement over Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Egypt, or Morocco means setting foot into the realm of politics—by definition is a realm of disunity—in pursuit of influence and efficacy.

    Needless to mention, the Syrian regime’s enthusiasm over linking the Palestinian-Syrian issue to the summits goes without saying. This has nothing to do with the ideologically stated "nationalism" of the regime or to any exceptional love for the Palestinian people or unique sympathy for its suffering. Rather, it is driven in this direction by its hostility toward politics at home where it has been exercising military domination since 1963, and by its animosity to the regional equations and balances which it attempted to escape via an alliance with Iran that bypasses the Arab world. Once all these contradictions are intensified in Lebanon, seeking refuge in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict became a requirement for the survival of the regime. Access the full article>>