The Middle East can be a region of extraordinary violence... but it is also a region of extraordinary generosity and good will. One story last year particularly impressed me... It seems that last summer, two Israeli brothers were killed in a Hezbollah rocket attack in northern Israel. Their other brother donated their eyes to surgeons - to help others see. One recipient turned out to be an Arab. So even in the turmoil of the Middle East the Old Testament philosophy of “an eye for an eye” can take on a new meaning.

The author seeks to present his analysis of how the United States and other Western states might best address their military cooperation and basing needs within the Middle East, while still respecting and working with an understanding of regional and especially Arab history and concerns. He also provides policy recommendations based upon his analysis.

As they lay siege to one of the last bastions of democracy in Beirut, agents of the Syrian and Iranian governments and their principle cohort, Hezbollah, are assiduously moving forward joint strategic designs that intend to kill as many Americans as possible while smothering much of the region in a darker hue of repression.

The age of U.S. dominance in the Middle East has ended and a new era in the modern history of the region has begun. It will be shaped by new actors and new forces competing for influence, and to master it, Washington will have to rely more on diplomacy than on military might.

The effects of this summer’s Israel-Hizballah war, which began with the killing and abduction of Israeli soldiers, are still being discussed. Militarily, Israel dealt Hizballah a severe blow: the group lost its grip on the Lebanon-Israel border, lost its arsenal of long-range missiles, and suffered serious causalities. Yet, despite displaying vulnerability in the later stages of the war, Hizballah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah quickly recovered from his losses when it became apparent that the group had survived and could continue its resistance.

The recent series of interviews with Syrian President Bashar Asad in Arab and Western media reveals the extent of changes in the Middle East, in general, and Syria, in particular, in the wake of the confrontation between Israel and Hizbullah in the summer of 2006. Before that conflict, Asad hardly ever mentioned “Israeli aggression against Syria that can end in war” or the “state of alert” in the Syrian army, but since then, Asad has repeatedly stressed the readiness of his military forces.

Our search for compatibility and cooperation in U.S. and German/European policies should heed leaders’ declarations that actions in the international arena are driven by both values and interests. The identification of twin motives, however, begs the question of whose values and whose interests propel American and German/European policies toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The following essays refer to both governmental and non-governmental actors, to both regional and third-party players. The purpose of this essay is to augment their findings by highlighting the values and interests that operate at multiple levels. Understanding both differences and similarities as to motive is crucial to the exercise of projecting the likelihood of transatlantic alliance-building on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Since the formation of the contemporary Middle East in the wake of World War I, its political life has been bedevilled by the doctrine of “Arab Nationalism,” which postulates the existence of “a single [Arab] nation bound by the common ties of language, religion and history… behind the facade of a multiplicity of sovereign states.” The territorial expanse of this supposed nation varies according to different exponents of the ideology, ranging from “merely” the Fertile Crescent to the entire territory “from the Zagros Mountains in the east to the Atlantic Ocean in the west, and from the Mediterranean shores and the Anatolian hills in the north to the Indian Ocean, the sources of the Nile, and the Great Desert in the south.”

It took the United States four years after September 11 to develop a useful working definition of the gravest danger to world peace. Last October President Bush finally identified our enemies: "Islamic Radicals... empowered by helpers and enablers... strengthened by front operations who aggressively fund the[m]." Making no distinction between Sunni or Shi'ite radicals, he concluded that defeating "the murderous ideology of the Islamic Radicals," is the "great challenge of our century."

We live at a time of unprecedented promise. Freer and more open economic and political systems of governance are gaining ground, and the evidence is clear that these developments lead to more prosperous and more hopeful lives.

The extension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the Lebanese arena has created a multifaceted crisis in the Middle East, a crisis where the protagonist is unmistakable -- Hezbollah.

In its 2005 White Paper "China's Peaceful Development Road," Beijing proclaims: "The international community should oppose unilateralism, advocate and promote multilateralism, and make the U.N. and its Security Council play a more active role in international affairs."

Melodramatic images of war are now televised all day long. The images out of Israel this week have produced something new for war-soaked living-room audiences. One might call it Katyusha World.

Neither the mainstream media nor Kofi Annan have mentioned it, but Hizballah has attacked UNIFIL observers twice this week. (Hat tip: Larry.) From the UN’s own press releases.

Why has Iran decided to play its Lebanese card now? That is a question asked by Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri in the July 23 London Sunday Times. Part of the answer, he writes, "lies in Washington's decision last May to reverse its policy towards Iran by offering large concessions on its nuclear programme. Tehran interpreted that as a sign of weakness."

La France est appelée à composer avec une force politique qu’elle voulait voir sortir affaiblie du conflit avec Israël. La guerre du Liban qui a consacré la victoire morale, politique et militaire du Hezbollah, est mal vue par certains régimes arabes qui ont cautionné l’agression israélienne et joué un rôle actif dans la neutralisation de la Ligue arabe durant le conflit.

This report analyzes the current conflict between Israel and two U.S. State Department-designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), the Lebanese Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah and the radical Palestinian Hamas organization. On July 12, 2006, what had been a localized conflict between Israel and Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip instantly became a regional conflagration after Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in a surprise attack along the Israeli-Lebanese border. Israel has responded by carrying out air strikes against suspected Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, and Hezbollah has countered with rocket attacks against cities and towns in northern Israel. Fighting on the ground has also started. Meanwhile, Israeli clashes with Hamas and other Palestinian militants have continued unabated in the Gaza Strip.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has embarked on a mission to the Middle East to reinforce the U.S. position on the recent surge of violence. Secretary Rice was right to announce that pressing for a ceasefire is not necessarily the best way to further the cause of peace—particularly if it rewards Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, which have done much to instigate the current conflict. Rice should make the case that the United States remains anxious to promote solutions that will bring stability and security to all nations in the region. She must be clear to all sides that there are three unchanging messages from Washington.

We've been pretty comfortable and carefree in the West for some time now. Until 9/11 we had the luxury of ignoring the age-old madness of Arab/Islamic terror, even though the holy warriors were already killing us in Beirut, in the Palestinian territories, on hijacked jetliners, and at the WTC in 1993. Most of us kept ignoring it, and few of us gave much thought to the hell that our friends in Israel have lived with on a daily basis for all these years.

Dr. Walid Phares, a perspicacious expert on modern jihad terrorism, has elucidated the practical, short-term considerations that likely motivated Hizbollah’s aggressive actions across Israel’s internationally recognized northern border with Lebanon (kidnapping of Israeli soldiers; katyusha rocket attacks on Israeli civilian populations), which precipitated the ongoing conflagration.

Before things can turn a corner in the Middle East, we need the diplomatic equivalent of electric-shock therapy. We may need $100 oil to jolt the Europeans and the Chinese. We may need the Russians to be told that they can forget joining the World Trade Organization. And we're going to need something dramatic to reward India, whose response to terrorism last week was exemplary.

In recent years, the weakness of Arab states vis-à-vis non-Arab regional powers and the international community has reached unprecedented levels. Their utter powerlessness in March 2003 to block American efforts to achieve regime change in Iraq and, indeed, the quiet cooperation of Arab Gulf states in that effort starkly highlighted this state of affairs.

La ola democratizadora que se inició en Irak se forjó en la idea de que las sociedades libres no florecen bajo regímenes de miedo. La administración Bush inició su escalada democrática en Oriente Medio sabiendo que la gente se expresa libremente cuando se es libre: eso es la democracia y el pluralismo, a riesgo de resumir demasiado. Además, reforzó las sociedades civiles sojuzgadas realizando inversiones cruciales para el establecimiento de instituciones democráticas.

Since the September 11 attacks, a number of U.S. and European strategists have stepped forward to call for a fundamental paradigm shift in how the United States and Europe engage the broader Middle East—thatwide swath of the globe, predominantly Muslim and overwhelmingly authoritarian,stretching from Morocco to Afghanistan.

The Arab Human Development Report 2004 delves into the constitutional, legal, political, and social flaws and constraints on freedom that impede good governance in the Arab region, and presents a strategic vision for promoting good governance as a means of encouraging different Arab societies to explore and define their own specific paths towards achieving an Arab renaissance.

Managing policy differences on a range of issues emanating from the Middle East poses serious challenges for the United States and its European allies and friends.

Is there an end to bin Ladenism? The wars on terrorism and in Iraq and Afghanistan could become futile endeavors if holy warriors endlessly regenerate themselves, drawing strength and new recruits from an ever-vibrant Muslim jihadist culture.

Quiero también expresar que Naciones Unidas quiere decir, para los españoles, legalidad internacional, quiere decir paz, quiere decir lucha contra el hambre y contra la miseria.

Hace un año Madrid sufrió el peor ataque terrorista de su historia. Con su dolor se rompió la vida en toda España.

Redactores árabes han publicado recientemente artículos críticos exponiendo que la principal motivación del terrorismo es la pobreza o la desesperación. Citan en cambio el papel de los factores culturales y religiosos a la hora de motivar el terrorismo, y particularmente la incitación de los jeques que animan a los jóvenes a perpetrar operaciones de terror.

En un artículo titulado "Adolf Hitler en el proceso de creación de una mentira con éxito", Abú Khawla, activista de derechos humanos y ex presidente de la sección tunecina de Amnistía Internacional, afirma que el islamismo es "una mentira muy exitosa", y no "una fuerza política y social a destacar".

Neoconservatives hope that a democratic Iraq and Afghanistan can usher in a new age of Middle Eastern consensual government that will cool down a century-old cauldron of hatred.