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
[Ynet News] Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland - Assumption: "Establishing a Palestinian state in line with the 1967 borders is the essence of the Palestinians' national aspiration." The Palestinians could have secured such a state many times in the past, including at the Camp David talks in 2000. What is the basis for assuming that the Palestinian ethos, which is premised on a "desire for justice," "need for revenge," recognition of their "victimhood," and mostly the "right of return," has changed all of a sudden? Assumption: "The gap between the Israeli and Palestinian positions is bridgeable." Reality is different. The maximum any Israeli government can offer the Palestinians is far from the minimum that any Palestinian government would be able to accept. Assumption: "Egypt and Jordan want to see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolved." Reality is different. As long as the conflict exists, Egypt has the ultimate excuse for all domestic troubles. For the Jordanians, a neighboring Palestinian state - likely under Hamas' rule - would mark the end of the Hashemite Kingdom. Assumption: "A final-status agreement would bring stability and security to the region." The exact opposite is true. There is no chance that the small and divided Palestinian state would be viable. The frustration created by such a situation, and with Israel being stripped of "defensible borders," is an obvious foundation for instability. Assumption: "We have an opportunity that must not be missed." The chance of securing an agreement back in 2000 was much greater than it is currently, yet it didn't happen. Is it more possible now to reach an agreement when Hamas is the dominant Palestinian movement? Assumption: "Progress on the Palestinian front is vital in order to enlist the support of Arab states against Iran." Arab states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia have a supreme interest in curbing Iran, irrespective of the Palestinian issue. Assumption: "There's only one solution to the conflict - the two-state formula." There are alternate solutions whereby the Palestinian are no longer under Israel's control. The writer chaired Israel's National Security Council from 2004 to 2006. 2009-05-26 06:00:00Full Article
Seven Mistaken American Assumptions
[Ynet News] Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland - Assumption: "Establishing a Palestinian state in line with the 1967 borders is the essence of the Palestinians' national aspiration." The Palestinians could have secured such a state many times in the past, including at the Camp David talks in 2000. What is the basis for assuming that the Palestinian ethos, which is premised on a "desire for justice," "need for revenge," recognition of their "victimhood," and mostly the "right of return," has changed all of a sudden? Assumption: "The gap between the Israeli and Palestinian positions is bridgeable." Reality is different. The maximum any Israeli government can offer the Palestinians is far from the minimum that any Palestinian government would be able to accept. Assumption: "Egypt and Jordan want to see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolved." Reality is different. As long as the conflict exists, Egypt has the ultimate excuse for all domestic troubles. For the Jordanians, a neighboring Palestinian state - likely under Hamas' rule - would mark the end of the Hashemite Kingdom. Assumption: "A final-status agreement would bring stability and security to the region." The exact opposite is true. There is no chance that the small and divided Palestinian state would be viable. The frustration created by such a situation, and with Israel being stripped of "defensible borders," is an obvious foundation for instability. Assumption: "We have an opportunity that must not be missed." The chance of securing an agreement back in 2000 was much greater than it is currently, yet it didn't happen. Is it more possible now to reach an agreement when Hamas is the dominant Palestinian movement? Assumption: "Progress on the Palestinian front is vital in order to enlist the support of Arab states against Iran." Arab states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia have a supreme interest in curbing Iran, irrespective of the Palestinian issue. Assumption: "There's only one solution to the conflict - the two-state formula." There are alternate solutions whereby the Palestinian are no longer under Israel's control. The writer chaired Israel's National Security Council from 2004 to 2006. 2009-05-26 06:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|