Matthew Duss

Matthew Duss is a foreign policy analyst and a contributing writer for the Prospect. You can follow him on Twitter @mattduss.

Recent Articles


The news that Sam Brownback will drop out of the presidential campaign takes some of the punch out of my linking to this, The Jerusalem Summit , a group that advocates the transfer of Palestinians ("voluntarily", of course, just like the 700,000 Palestinians who "voluntarily" transferred themselves from their homes in 1948) from Israel proper and from lands conquered by Israel in 1967. What does this have to do with Brownback? He's on the group's executive committee . And to think, this man almost came within not a thousand miles of being president! Chilling. But look who else is on that committee: Rudy Giuliani 's Middle East adviser Daniel Pipes . I wish I could say I was more surprised that Pipes is associated with a group that believes that the key to peace between Israelis and Palestinians is moving the Palestinians out of Palestine . Maybe somebody should ask Rudy about that. --Matthew Duss


Yesterday, Jonah Goldberg defended his anti-abortion stance by explaining that his “uncertainty” about when life really begins has led him to err on the side of empowering the state to force women to bear children. Treating this opinion, which was stated in a political column in a major newspaper, as if it were an actual argument, our editor Ann explained why it was dumb. Today, Jonah replies to his “confused” critics: “Here's what I was trying to do: I was trying to show, not tell. The conventional wisdom is that being pro-life requires dogmatism and certainty. I don't think that's the case. At least not any more than being pro-choice requires dogmatism and certainty. Rather than analyze and dissect this point -- i.e. tell -- I thought it would be more honest to simply explain where I'm coming from, i.e. show.” Isn’t that precious? I guess this was another one of those “impressionistic, travelogue-esque pieces” that tend to be categorized as such by Jonah after they’ve been...


And the award for "Most Transparently Ridiculous and Astonishingly Vulgar Attempt to Commandeer the Armenian Genocide Resolution Controversy for Their Own Pet Issue" goes to … National Review's Dave Kopel , Paul Gallant , and Joanne D. Eisen : "Whatever may be said about the U.S. House of Representatives committee vote concerning the use of the term “genocide” in reference to Turkey’s atrocities against the Armenians during World War I, two facts are indisputable: It was gun confiscation that made the atrocities possible. And it was the possession of firearms that saved many Armenians." I suppose one of the rhetorical benefits of being a Second Amendment zealot is that there isn't an atrocity in history that you can’t at least somewhat plausibly argue could’ve been averted if only all of the victims had been armed to the teeth. For example, look at post-Saddam Iraq: Everybody was allowed to keep their guns, and it’s one of the safest, freest, and happiest places on earth! --Matthew...


How insane is Rudy Giuliani's Middle East adviser Daniel Pipes ? He considers the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, which has held for almost thirty years, to be a trick : "No significant peace process exists now, nor has it ever. Israel's signing of a diplomatic agreements with Egypt (1979), Lebanon (1983), the PLO (1993), and Jordan (1994) all proved ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst. Preliminary skirmishes suggest that the usual pattern will hold in Annapolis. The Israeli side makes "painful concessions," the Arab interlocutor imperiously disdains these even as terrorism and other forms of violence continue. Jerusalem responds with several more rounds of ever-more painful concessions until finally the Arab side grudgingly accepts them, offering airy promises of "peace" that promptly turn into just the opposite – greater levels of hostility and violence." This is typical of Pipes. The idea that any Arab might have a legitimate grievance against Israel simply does not exist...


Michelle Malkin responds to Ezra’s health care debate challenge by taking several thousand spittle-flecked words to essentially say that while she'd love to give Ezra the whupping he so richly deserves, she thinks she hears her mother calling her for dinner, and she has to run home right now. At the risk of creating a slight breach of etiquette , I would like to take this opportunity to triple-dog dare Michelle to debate Ezra. Malkin has very few options here. The rules of the blogosphere are clear. --Matthew Duss