Home
Archives
Jerusalem Center Homepage
View the current issue
Jerusalem Center Videos
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
[JTA] Uriel Heilman - In a Monday op-ed in the New York Times, Paul McGeough wrote: "Over the long term, Hamas accepts the concept of two states in the Levant, which arguably puts [Hamas leader Khalid] Meshaal's terrorist movement closer to Washington than Netanyahu is - he now proposes only 'economic peace' between Jews and Palestinians." I'm mystified as to what led McGeough to conclude that Hamas accepts the two-state solution over the long term, or what led the Times' editors to let this factually incorrect line run. Hamas has indicated support for a long-term cease-fire with Israel, but at every turn has made clear that its ultimate goal is conquest of all of historic Palestine, even if it takes 100 years. Netanyahu didn't try to kill Meshaal in the 1990s because he didn't like Meshaal; he did so because Meshaal was the leader of a terrorist group carrying out suicide bombings in Israeli malls, buses and hotels. Meshaal's main objection to Netanyahu isn't personal; it's because he's the leader of an entity, Israel, that he's sworn to destroy. 2009-04-14 06:00:00Full Article
Hamas Never Accepted a Two-State Solution
[JTA] Uriel Heilman - In a Monday op-ed in the New York Times, Paul McGeough wrote: "Over the long term, Hamas accepts the concept of two states in the Levant, which arguably puts [Hamas leader Khalid] Meshaal's terrorist movement closer to Washington than Netanyahu is - he now proposes only 'economic peace' between Jews and Palestinians." I'm mystified as to what led McGeough to conclude that Hamas accepts the two-state solution over the long term, or what led the Times' editors to let this factually incorrect line run. Hamas has indicated support for a long-term cease-fire with Israel, but at every turn has made clear that its ultimate goal is conquest of all of historic Palestine, even if it takes 100 years. Netanyahu didn't try to kill Meshaal in the 1990s because he didn't like Meshaal; he did so because Meshaal was the leader of a terrorist group carrying out suicide bombings in Israeli malls, buses and hotels. Meshaal's main objection to Netanyahu isn't personal; it's because he's the leader of an entity, Israel, that he's sworn to destroy. 2009-04-14 06:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
|
Search:
|