Additional Resources
Top Commentators:
- Elliott Abrams
- Fouad Ajami
- Shlomo Avineri
- Benny Avni
- Alan Dershowitz
- Jackson Diehl
- Dore Gold
- Daniel Gordis
- Tom Gross
- Jonathan Halevy
- David Ignatius
- Pinchas Inbari
- Jeff Jacoby
- Efraim Karsh
- Mordechai Kedar
- Charles Krauthammer
- Emily Landau
- David Makovsky
- Aaron David Miller
- Benny Morris
- Jacques Neriah
- Marty Peretz
- Melanie Phillips
- Daniel Pipes
- Harold Rhode
- Gary Rosenblatt
- Jennifer Rubin
- David Schenkar
- Shimon Shapira
- Jonathan Spyer
- Gerald Steinberg
- Bret Stephens
- Amir Taheri
- Josh Teitelbaum
- Khaled Abu Toameh
- Jonathan Tobin
- Michael Totten
- Michael Young
- Mort Zuckerman
Think Tanks:
- American Enterprise Institute
- Brookings Institution
- Center for Security Policy
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Heritage Foundation
- Hudson Institute
- Institute for Contemporary Affairs
- Institute for Counter-Terrorism
- Institute for Global Jewish Affairs
- Institute for National Security Studies
- Institute for Science and Intl. Security
- Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
- Investigative Project
- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
- RAND Corporation
- Saban Center for Middle East Policy
- Shalem Center
- Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Media:
- CAMERA
- Daily Alert
- Jewish Political Studies Review
- MEMRI
- NGO Monitor
- Palestinian Media Watch
- The Israel Project
- YouTube
Government:
Back
[Ha'aretz] Shlomo Avineri - There are good reasons to worry that the current round of peace talks between Israel and the PA will yield no real results, especially because the two sides are so far apart in their basic positions on borders, settlements, Jerusalem and refugees. In other prominent conflicts in Cyprus, Kosovo, Bosnia and Kashmir, the international community understood, reluctantly but out of a realism based on both theory and practice, that there was no immediate chance of resolving the crisis. And so it turned to other channels - what is known as "conflict management." The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is far more complex, but for some reason the international community believes it can offer a swift and immediate solution for it. Those who ask European leaders why they think they can succeed in the Middle East after having so clearly failed in Cyprus and Kosovo will see that they begin to think anew. Changing the paradigm from "conflict resolution" to "conflict management" does not mean accepting the status quo. In our context, this means continuing to seek ways of minimizing the friction between the two sides. Historic disputes are not resolved with a wave of the hand, much less by external directives (the U.S. has yet to "resolve" any one of them). It takes lengthy internal processes, which alone can lead to the formation of a joint political desire to reach an agreement. The writer is professor emeritus at Hebrew University and former director general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2008-07-04 01:00:00Full Article
From "Conflict Resolution" to "Conflict Management"
[Ha'aretz] Shlomo Avineri - There are good reasons to worry that the current round of peace talks between Israel and the PA will yield no real results, especially because the two sides are so far apart in their basic positions on borders, settlements, Jerusalem and refugees. In other prominent conflicts in Cyprus, Kosovo, Bosnia and Kashmir, the international community understood, reluctantly but out of a realism based on both theory and practice, that there was no immediate chance of resolving the crisis. And so it turned to other channels - what is known as "conflict management." The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is far more complex, but for some reason the international community believes it can offer a swift and immediate solution for it. Those who ask European leaders why they think they can succeed in the Middle East after having so clearly failed in Cyprus and Kosovo will see that they begin to think anew. Changing the paradigm from "conflict resolution" to "conflict management" does not mean accepting the status quo. In our context, this means continuing to seek ways of minimizing the friction between the two sides. Historic disputes are not resolved with a wave of the hand, much less by external directives (the U.S. has yet to "resolve" any one of them). It takes lengthy internal processes, which alone can lead to the formation of a joint political desire to reach an agreement. The writer is professor emeritus at Hebrew University and former director general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2008-07-04 01:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|