The upcoming election will be crucial for defining Israel's future.
From Yugoslavia to Ukraine, Berlin has often opened crises that the United States must step in to resolve. It might be foolishness. It might also be Machiavellian brilliance.
They said they wouldn't get tied down. They did.
A complicated minority.
Why do Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others clamor for an intervention they could carry out themselves?
From Rabin to Livni, Israeli hawks have a history of mellowing with age. Some think Bibi has, too.
A more hands-off Middle East policy—like Great Britain's approach to the Confederacy—is worth weighing.
Obama's advisers are selling his Syria move as ice-cold realpolitik.
Weariness of fighting the wrong wars isn't an ailment. It's common sense.
Today's Europe is learning now what she knew decades ago.
The United States ought consider a smaller role as a balancer of last resort.
Obama needs to resurrect LBJ's famous question when he meets with Netanyahu.
Perfect the open society at home—don't try to force it on the world.
Though the right didn't do as well as expected in last week's election, it's still palpably stronger than in the old days.
Secular Zionists and Arab nationalists are being overtaken by their more religious rivals.
The Israeli opposition bides its time, hoping an Obama-Netanyahu battle will let it swoop in to save the day.
The argument for "constructive disengagement" from the Middle East.
The GOP candidate should stand behind his caught-on-tape approach of benign neglect.
Access all of our articles all of the time. Subscribe today: 6 issues for $29.95