| Home | Articles | Blog | Reviews | Spoken | Books | Biographical | Middle East Forum | About this site | Mailing List |
Articles and Blog Posts by Daniel Pipes
|
 Comment (46) |
Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy sadly fits the classic description of insanity: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." The identical assumptions – land-for-peace and the two-state solution, with the burden primarily on Israel – stay permanently in place, no matter how often they fail. Decades of what insiders call "peace processing" has left matters worse than when they started, yet the great powers persist, sending diplomat after diplomat to Jerusalem and Ramallah, ever hoping that the next round of negotiations will lead to the elusive breakthrough.
The time is ripe for a new approach, a basic re-thinking of the problem. It draws on Israel's successful strategy as carried out through its first 45 years. The failure of Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy since 1993 suggests this alternative approach – with a stress on Israeli toughness in pursuit of victory. This would, paradoxically perhaps, be of benefit to Palestinians and bolster American support.
I. The Near Impossibility of Compromise
Since the Balfour Declaration of 1917, Palestinians and Israelis have pursued static and opposite goals.
Continue Readingreview of Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World
by Daniel Pipes • Winter 2017 • Middle East Quarterly
Comment (5) |
If Jews in Muslim-majority countries have shrunk to a miniscule 50,000 souls, nearly all of them in Morocco, Turkey, and Iran, things were once different.
Indeed, until the seventeenth century Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews outnumbered the Jews of Europe. More than that, as Stillman writes in his introduction, it was in the medieval Muslim world that "many aspects of Judaism as a religious civilization were formulated, codified, and disseminated, and this includes the domains of liturgy, law, and theology."
But if the Mizrahi/Sephardi population has great importance for Judaism and for the Middle East, scholars have slighted it. Again, quoting Stillman:
Until the 1970s, there was very little academic work on the Jews of the Islamic world, and most of that was dedicated to the medieval period, and within that period to intellectual history and literature.
This Is the Moment for an Israeli Victory
by Daniel Pipes • December 31, 2016 • National Review Online
Comment |
The U.S.-sponsored Israeli–Palestinian "peace process" began in December 1988, when Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasir Arafat met American conditions and "accepted United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, recognized Israel's right to exist and renounced terrorism" (actually, given Arafat's heavily accented English, it sounded like he "renounced tourism").
That peace process screeched to an end in December 2016, when the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 2334. Khaled Abu Toameh, perhaps the best-informed analyst of Palestinian politics, interprets the resolution as telling the Palestinians: "Forget about negotiating with Israel. Just pressure the international community to force Israel to comply with the resolution and surrender up all that you demand."
As 28 years of frustration and futility clang to a sullen close, the time is nigh to ask, "What comes next?"
Obama, Kerry and Netanyahu Go Visceral
by Daniel Pipes • December 30, 2016
Comment (9) |
How to explain the recent uproar in U.S.-Israel relations? I refer to President Barack Obama's decision to abstain at the U.N. Security Council, precisely contradicting his own views of just a few years earlier; Secretary of State John Kerry's 75-minute rant against Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu; and Netanyahu's intemperate responses, such as warning the New Zealand government that its support for the UNSC resolution amounts to a "declaration of war."
High politics of this sort is usually viewed through the lens of ideas and principles. But at times, it's better to leave all that behind and look at psychology - in other words, the basic human emotions and relations we all experience.
This level of explanation works better in this instance with all of Obama, Kerry and Netanyahu. The threesome is fed up. During his nearly ten years in office, Netanyahu has always faced a Democratic president out of sync with him. Obama is fed up with an Israeli leader who's annoyed him for eight years; ditto Kerry for 4 years.
Trump's Middle East Policy Revealed?
by Daniel Pipes • December 29, 2016 • Israel Hayom
Comment (4) |
During one of his "thank-you" tour stops, Donald Trump announced on Dec. 1 (at 1:28:13-1:29:15):
We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past. We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments, folks. Remember – $6 trillion, 6 trillion [spent] in the Middle East, 6 trillion. Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States]. It's time, it's time. We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism – okay, we have to say the term, have to say the term. In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will.
The key passages are "We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments," "We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism," and "We will seek shared interests wherever possible."
A Palestinian Defeat is Good for All
by Daniel Pipes • December 28, 2016 • JNS.org
Comment (2) |
Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was photographed on Dec. 21 carrying a copy of Nothing Less than Victory: Decisive Wars and the Lessons of History by John David Lewis (Princeton University Press, 2010). In that book, Lewis looks at six case studies and argues that in them all "the tide of war turned when one side tasted defeat and its will to continue, rather than stiffening, collapsed."
That Netanyahu should in any way be thinking along these lines is particularly encouraging at this moment of flux, when Sunni Arab states focus as never before on a non-Israeli threat (namely the Iranian), Obama's leaving Israel in the lurch at the U.N. Security Council, and insurgent politics disrupt across the West. In other words, the timing's exactly right to apply Lewis' argument to the Palestinians. Actually, Israel successfully pursued a strategy of forcing the taste of defeat on its enemies through its first 45 years, so this would be a return to old ways.
Two Bullies, Putin and Erdoğan, Try Friendship
by Daniel Pipes • December 23, 2016 • Australian
Comment (7) |
The assassination on Dec. 19 in Ankara of the Russian ambassador to Turkey, Andrey Karlov, raises some major geopolitical issues: Will this act of violence break relations between the two countries, isolate Turkey, or – counterintuitively – improve their ties? And does this murder affect the Middle East and the world beyond?
Turks and Russians have a long and complex history that starts with the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453 and the Russian dream to win it back for Orthodox Christianity. The two states fought twelve major wars in the 3½ centuries between 1568 and 1918, had a flurry of good relations under Atatürk and Lenin which went south with Stalin, improved substantially in 1991 upon the Soviet Union's dissolution, then subsequently plummeted (2015) and revived (2016).
Generally, Russians have enjoyed the whip hand. They won most wars, occupied most land, and came away with better terms in treaties. Turks long ago realized their need of Western support to fend off Russia: thus, they won support from a 4-power coalition in mid-nineteenth century, the Central Powers in World War I, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) during and after the Cold War.
by Daniel Pipes • December 8, 2016 • Boston Globe
Comment (36) |
All 177 foreign embassies located in Washington, D.C. are no doubt attempting to read the tea leaves and figure out what President-elect Donald Trump's foreign policy will look like. But his inconsistencies and contradictions render this nearly impossible.
Therefore, rather than speculate, I'll focus on what U.S. policy in one region, the Middle East, should be, starting with some general guidelines and then turning to specifics.
Given that this is perennially the most volatile area of the world, the goal is modest: to minimize problems and avoid disasters. The prior two presidents failed to achieve even this, and did so in opposite ways. George W. Bush tried to do too much in the Middle East: recall his goals of nation-building in Afghanistan, bringing freedom and prosperity to Iraq, establishing democracy in Egypt, and resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict – every one of which spectacularly flamed out. Reacting against Bush's "imperial overstretch," Barack Obama did the reverse, withdrawing prematurely from conflicts, drawing red lines he later abandoned, declaring a fantasy "pivot to Asia," and granting nearly free reign to Kremlin ambitions.
by Daniel Pipes • December 7, 2016 • Washington Times
Comment (7) |
"The novelty and magnitude of Europe's predicament make it difficult to understand, tempting to overlook, and nearly impossible to predict. Europe marches us all into terra incognita." That's how I closed an article ten years ago on the topic of Islam's future in Europe. Now, thanks to elections in France and Austria, an answer is emerging; Europeans appear not ready to "go gentle into that good night" but will "rage, rage against the dying of the light."
True, the elites, as symbolized by Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel, remain in deep denial about the issues of immigration, Islamism, and identity. What I call the 6 Ps (politicians, press, police, prosecutors, professors and priests) refuse to acknowledge the fundamental societal changes and enormous tensions their policies are creating. But – and this is the news to report – the masses are starting to make their views heard not just in futile protest but dramatically to change their countries' direction.
The French center-right political party, the Republicans, just held its first-ever U.S.-style primary for the position of president of the country. In the first of two rounds, seven candidates, including a former president (Nicholas Sarkozy) and two former prime ministers (Alain Juppé and François Fillon), vied to place in the top two slots.
UK Internet Provider O2 Blocks Me
by Daniel Pipes • November 13, 2016
Comment (34) |
O2, the second-largest mobile telecommunications provider in the United Kingdom, has banned my website, ostensibly only to those under 18 years of age but in fact to everyone using O2. Here's what you find when you land on DanielPipes.org:
The fine print reads: "To prove your age you'll need to have your credit card handy. Click Continue below or call our free automated service on 61018." In other words, you have to go to immense trouble to read or see my work, something presumably few internet surfers will bother to do. (This is particularly odd when one recalls that O2 already has the credit card of nearly every one of its customers.)
In contrast, O2 makes available without having to prove anything no end of Islamist and related websites, including such anti-Zionist delights as Al-Muntada Trust, the Palestinian Forum in Britain, and Friends of Al-Aqsa.
O2 is a subsidiary of Telefónica, the giant Spanish multinational with annual revenues of over €50 billion and assets worth about €125 billion. So far as I can tell, no other division of Telefónica has banned me in this way.
In response to this censorship, I resorted to the O2 complaint page on Nov. 3, Nov. 8, and Nov. 9, asking each time that it "immediately unlock my website." Each time, I received back an acknowledgment form but then heard nothing further.
Post-Election Reflections of a #NeverTrumpNorHillary Conservative
by Daniel Pipes • November 12, 2016
Comment (10) |
- Trump supporters are in such a good mood, they tend to smile all day long.
- In this spirit, they are forgiving of & condescending to we holdouts.
- For them, the election washed away all Trump's sins. Criticism of him has become inconceivable. He is the hero.
- In contrast, they consider Hillary Clinton evil incarnate.
- But we and Trump enthusiasts do share one thing: delight at the liberals' outlandish orgy of misery.
- Supporters once pressured us to vote for Trump; now, they pressure us to help his forthcoming administration.
- They openly laugh (but good naturedly) when we claim to be the Remnant and the Conscience of the conservative movement.
- The expected battle over the direction of the Republican party has been delayed, but it will occur eventually.
(November 12, 2016)
CAIR Leader: Overthrow the U.S. Government
by Daniel Pipes • November 11, 2016
Comment (32) |
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) successfully presents itself to the media as a benign civil rights organization, comparable to the NAACP or the ADL, a description that conservatives ineffectively rail against. In this light, perhaps a tweet sent out just after midnight EST on Nov. 9 by Hussam Ayloush, long-time head of CAIR's Los Angeles office, will help awaken the press to CAIR's true Islamist identity. Ayloush wrote:
Ok, repeat after me:
Al-Shaab yureed isqat al-nizaam.
(Arab Spring chant)
That second line is Arabic ("الشعب يريد إسقاط النظام") for "The people wants to bring down the regime."
In other words, Ayloush unambiguously and directly called for the overthrow of the U.S. government.
Comments: (1) Ayloush may be the most vicious of the CAIR leaders. So far as I know, for example, he's the only one of them to bandy about the term "Zionazi," as evidenced in his e-mail below, dated March 18, 2002.
(2) Ayloush is not a marginal figure but someone with access to the heights of American power, including the White House. According to an Investigative Project on Terrorism analysis in 2012, he
America's Know-Nothing Diplomacy
by Daniel Pipes • November 9, 2016 • Washington Times
Comment (26) |
Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, recently said something astonishing in defense of his foreign policy ignorance: "The fact that somebody can dot the i's and cross the t's on a foreign leader or a geographic location then allows them to put our military in harm's way." In other words, not knowing where a place is is a good thing because, in Alice Ollstein's witty summary, "you can't get into a war with a country you can't find."
As a student of U.S. foreign policy this struck a chord – not because it's an outlandishly whacky statement but precisely because it is mainstream. Really. Here are three notable precedents from the last century:
The SPLC Finds Niqabs and Kippahs Equally Threatening
by Daniel Pipes • November 6, 2016
Comment (15) |
The Southern Poverty Law Center's Heidi Beirich has distributed a standardized reply to the avalanche of protests (including a particularly eloquent one by National Review) against its wretched Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists (of which I am allegedly one). Her apologia makes a quite remarkable claim in reference to me that calls for a response. She writes that
the calling for a ban of any religious dress is indeed extreme, regardless of the religious institution. Calling for a ban on the niqab is akin to banning a kippah. Daniel Pipes, another extremist on this list, has also called for a similar ban. These calls are contrary to religious freedom.
The kippah (aka the yarmulke); really? In response, two points addressed to Ms Beirich:
The Mundane Origins of Germany's Huge Turkish Population
by Daniel Pipes • October 30, 2016
Comment (35) |
In 1961, the German post-war "economic miracle" (Wirtschaftswunder) was in full bloom, with a seemingly insatiable thirst for unskilled workers. After signing government-to-government bilateral agreements with Italy (in 1955), Greece (1960), and Spain (1960), Bonn turned to Ankara and on this day, Oct. 30, in 1961 signed a "Recruitment Agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and Turkey" (Anwerbeabkommen zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Türkei). Little did either side realize the implications of this seemingly minor accord.
The German government set up a liaison office in Istanbul to urge unmarried male candidates to apply, which they enthusiastically did in large numbers. The agreement permitted Turks to go to work in Germany for two years, then return home. But German industry lobbied for longer residencies – the constant training to replace workers every two years took its toll – so this limitation was lifted already in 1964. Still, no one expected the Turks to stay long and their jobs did not require them to learn German, so the overwhelmingly male population lived in its own dormitories, quite isolated from the larger society. Of the 750,000 Turks who arrived under this program, about half did return to Turkey, half did not.
Updated Blog Posts
Most Viewed
Most Mailed
New Translations
New Reader Comments
Top Recent Reader Comments
 
|
All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2017 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes
Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes
