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

    The Bush Administration’s Budget and Democracy in the Arab World

    Stephen McInerney, director of advocacy, Project on Middle East Democracy, Arab Reform Bulletin, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
    April 4, 2008

    Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Syrian President Bashar Assad (AP)

    Throughout his two terms, President Bush has rhetorically stressed the importance of supporting democracy and human rights abroad, particularly in the Middle East. But policy has not always matched rhetoric, and his administration has come under fire for focusing too heavily on changing the region through military force in Iraq rather than utilizing the nonviolent policy tools available for supporting democracy. In last year’s budget, many were disappointed to see small decreases in funding for democracy-related programs in Middle Eastern countries.

    But Bush’s latest and final budget request—unlike the one that preceded it—goes a long way toward living up to promises of prioritizing support for democracy abroad. Requested funds for programs in the Arab world that fall under the State Department heading of “Governing Justly and Democratically” were tripled to $390 million from last year’s appropriated level of $132 million. While much of the increase ($193 million) will go to programs in Iraq, the new request still increases funding to programs for the remaining Arab countries by more than 50 percent. The request includes significant increases for such programs in Mauritania, Morocco, the West Bank and Gaza, Yemen and Algeria, and for all four programmatic areas: rule of law and human rights, good governance, political competition and consensus building and civil society. …

    So, why the widespread increases? After peaking with the so-called “Arab spring” of 2005, President Bush’s “freedom agenda” is widely perceived to have faltered and taken a back seat to other policy goals. This budget may be viewed as a final attempt to revive what was formerly seen as a cornerstone of Bush administration policy, to cement the freedom agenda as a key part of Bush’s legacy. Additionally, as the administration has encountered increasing resistance from autocratic allies, the budget may represent a deliberate shift toward supporting democracy using less confrontational means. Finally, Bush administration officials have expressed concern that the next administration may reverse course on democracy promotion; funding increases may be an attempt to institutionalize programs before leaving office. Access the full article>>