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
(Commentary) Rick Richman - In response to the Israeli settlement freeze, Secretary of State Clinton issued a statement outlining U.S. policy on Nov. 25: "We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements." In his address to AIPAC in 2008, Barack Obama stated that "any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders." The absence of any reference to "defensible borders" in Secretary Clinton's statement is thus both conspicuous and troubling, particularly because the administration has repeatedly refused to answer whether it considers itself bound by the 2004 Bush letter reassuring Israel of the "steadfast commitment" of the U.S. to defensible borders. Even Clinton's reference to "secure and recognized" borders is expressed simply as an Israeli "goal" rather than as a U.S. commitment. The Palestinians have already rejected offers of a state (after land swaps) on 92% of the West Bank (at Camp David), 97% (in the Clinton Parameters), and 100% (in Olmert's Annapolis Process offer). The borders they have in mind are not defensible ones, and the Obama administration appears to have deleted "defensible borders" as one of the guarantees of the process.2009-12-30 08:42:59Full Article
What Happened to "Defensible Borders"?
(Commentary) Rick Richman - In response to the Israeli settlement freeze, Secretary of State Clinton issued a statement outlining U.S. policy on Nov. 25: "We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements." In his address to AIPAC in 2008, Barack Obama stated that "any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders." The absence of any reference to "defensible borders" in Secretary Clinton's statement is thus both conspicuous and troubling, particularly because the administration has repeatedly refused to answer whether it considers itself bound by the 2004 Bush letter reassuring Israel of the "steadfast commitment" of the U.S. to defensible borders. Even Clinton's reference to "secure and recognized" borders is expressed simply as an Israeli "goal" rather than as a U.S. commitment. The Palestinians have already rejected offers of a state (after land swaps) on 92% of the West Bank (at Camp David), 97% (in the Clinton Parameters), and 100% (in Olmert's Annapolis Process offer). The borders they have in mind are not defensible ones, and the Obama administration appears to have deleted "defensible borders" as one of the guarantees of the process.2009-12-30 08:42:59Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|