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
[Power Line] John Hinderaker - George Bisharat is a Palestinian-American law professor who has made a career out of defaming Israel. On April 4 the New York Times donated space on its op-ed page for his latest screed, titled "Israel On Trial." It begins: "Chilling testimony by Israeli soldiers substantiates charges that Israel's Gaza Strip assault entailed grave violations of international law." He fails to mention that the "chilling testimony" turned out to be untrue. Bisharat states: "Despite Israel's 2005 'disengagement' from Gaza, the territory remains occupied." The statement is simply false. It is because Israel withdrew from Gaza that Hamas was able to take control and launch thousands of rockets and mortars into Israel over a period of years. He accuses Israel of "imposing collective punishment in the form of a blockade, in violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention." Israel had a perfect right to prevent military supplies from being shipped or smuggled into Gaza so that more rockets could be launched. He accuses Israel of "willfully killing civilians without military justification." Hamas' principal military strategy is the employment of human shields. Those who want to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza should stop firing rockets from there. There is no evidence, however, that Israel's military killed any civilians in Gaza otherwise than by accident in the course of operations undertaken for self-defense. He accuses Israel of "deliberately employing disproportionate force." The "proportionate force" theory is beloved by Israel-bashers. In fact, however, no such principle exists in international law. It was invented for the occasion and has never been used as a club against any nation except Israel. No sane country, when attacked, responds "proportionally." Nazi Germany never did attack the United States. Was the fire-bombing of Dresden proportionate? A sane country, when attacked, reacts with all of the force at its command in order to win the war that was started by its enemy. Has anyone ever questioned this fundamental right of self-defense, except as applied to Israel? 2009-04-08 06:00:00Full Article
Verdict: Israel Not Guilty
[Power Line] John Hinderaker - George Bisharat is a Palestinian-American law professor who has made a career out of defaming Israel. On April 4 the New York Times donated space on its op-ed page for his latest screed, titled "Israel On Trial." It begins: "Chilling testimony by Israeli soldiers substantiates charges that Israel's Gaza Strip assault entailed grave violations of international law." He fails to mention that the "chilling testimony" turned out to be untrue. Bisharat states: "Despite Israel's 2005 'disengagement' from Gaza, the territory remains occupied." The statement is simply false. It is because Israel withdrew from Gaza that Hamas was able to take control and launch thousands of rockets and mortars into Israel over a period of years. He accuses Israel of "imposing collective punishment in the form of a blockade, in violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention." Israel had a perfect right to prevent military supplies from being shipped or smuggled into Gaza so that more rockets could be launched. He accuses Israel of "willfully killing civilians without military justification." Hamas' principal military strategy is the employment of human shields. Those who want to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza should stop firing rockets from there. There is no evidence, however, that Israel's military killed any civilians in Gaza otherwise than by accident in the course of operations undertaken for self-defense. He accuses Israel of "deliberately employing disproportionate force." The "proportionate force" theory is beloved by Israel-bashers. In fact, however, no such principle exists in international law. It was invented for the occasion and has never been used as a club against any nation except Israel. No sane country, when attacked, responds "proportionally." Nazi Germany never did attack the United States. Was the fire-bombing of Dresden proportionate? A sane country, when attacked, reacts with all of the force at its command in order to win the war that was started by its enemy. Has anyone ever questioned this fundamental right of self-defense, except as applied to Israel? 2009-04-08 06:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|