Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
The Heinrich Böll Foundation in cooperation with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace hosted a one-day workshop at Carnegie to explore the potential and the limits of engaging groups and movements with an Islamist platform and ideology.
Many observers believe that Israel is pushing the U.S. to take military action against Iran's nuclear program. We asked Israel's senior defense journalist, Ze'ev Schiff, a man with outstanding contacts, to describe Israeli establishment thinking today on the Iran challenge.
When in Washington, I was amazed to hear on a number of occasions that Israel was urging the United States to go to war with Iran and that its strategic objective was to induce the United States to attack Iran, thus putting an end to that country's nuclear program. To the best of my knowledge and understanding this claim is totally false. It is an error based on ignorance or on disregard for important details in Israeli strategic thinking. It may even be founded on a deliberate lie.
To the best of my knowledge, Israel does not believe war against Iran to be the best way to eliminate the Iranian nuclear project. There is a common tendency to forget that Israel lies on the frontline of such a war. Israel stands to suffer more than anyone else, including the United States, should such a war break out. It would certainly be the prime target of Iranian retaliation should the United States decide to use force against Iran. It is a known fact that the attack on the Israeli consulate in Buenos Aires some years ago was the work of Iranian agents. Also in Buenos Aires, Iranian agents were responsible for the destruction of the Jewish community offices, causing many casualties. In fact, the Iranian government aims its violence against Jewish institutions in countries outside the Middle East. (Read More)
Nathan Brown, a leading expert on Palestinian politics and Islamic law at the Carnegie Endowment, says that since neither Israel nor Hamas has much experience dealing with the other, what is needed is a period of "quiet diplomacy."
May 18, 2006 - Nathan Brown presented his Policy Brief "Living with Palestinian Democracy." Larry Garber, the New Israel Fund, and Ori Nir, The Forward, served as discussants and Julia Choucair served as moderator.
By isolating the new Hamas government diplomatically and financially, the US and its allies have succeeded in bringing the Palestinian Authority to the brink of collapse. In addition, government and opposition leaders in the Middle East regard the West's reaction to Hamas as a test of its sincerity in the push for regional political reform.
In 1958, an American U-2 spy plane flying over Israel spotted an unusual construction site near the small Negev Desert town of Dimona. The facility featured a long perimeter fence, building activity and several roads. Israeli officials initially called the facility a textile plant; they later changed their minds and described it as a "metallurgical research installation."
Three speakers, all of whom were in Palestine to observe the recent elections there, discussed this dramatic turning point. Having demanded clean elections, the international commumity is now forced to deal with the consequences. As the experts discussed, Hamas' new position of power will have a range of implications for Palestine's domestic and foreign affairs.
The victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections has given rise to much soul searching in Washington about who lost Palestine. The main problem, however, is not U.S. policy but the underlying conditions in the last few months that have led to the victory of Hamas and to the impressive showing by both Shia and Sunni religious parties elsewhere in the region.