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
(Guardian-UK) Adam Ingram - A year after the Gaza operation, Hamas still refuses to reconcile with Fatah, recognize Israel, renounce violence, accept previous Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements or release Cpl. Gilad Shalit, kidnapped from Israeli soil in June 2006. I have spent the last six months chairing a Labour Friends of Israel project that has sought answers to how Hamas' hold over Gaza can be loosened; how the humanitarian situation can be improved in a way that protects Israeli security; and ultimately, how we can move closer to a two-state solution. First, change in the right direction can only be brought about if we take a realistic view of what Hamas stands for. If it is to be engaged with and be part of the future - and it seems to me that we are a long way from that possibility - it is important that it is not allowed to hide behind a false profile. There are those across the political spectrum who consistently call for diplomatic engagement with Hamas, comparing it to the IRA, the South African ANC or even the Palestinian Fatah movement. However, all those movements had their roots in deep-seated nationalism. Crucially, Hamas has a strong religious and specifically political Islamist dimension, prohibiting it from making deals over the land it regards as holy and tasking it with imposing theocratic rule over the people of that land. We must therefore ask ourselves whether Hamas is capable of reform that is compatible with a negotiated peace. If not, we should be paying attention to any emerging factions that do recognize that peaceful engagement is the only way forward. In this context, the demand that a full renunciation of violence precede any political engagement over a two-state solution is essential for ensuring that Hamas does not reap the benefits of international recognition without abandoning its goal of destroying Israel. The writer is chair of the Labour Friends of Israel "Handling Hamas" project.2010-03-05 08:16:51Full Article
How to Handle Hamas
(Guardian-UK) Adam Ingram - A year after the Gaza operation, Hamas still refuses to reconcile with Fatah, recognize Israel, renounce violence, accept previous Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements or release Cpl. Gilad Shalit, kidnapped from Israeli soil in June 2006. I have spent the last six months chairing a Labour Friends of Israel project that has sought answers to how Hamas' hold over Gaza can be loosened; how the humanitarian situation can be improved in a way that protects Israeli security; and ultimately, how we can move closer to a two-state solution. First, change in the right direction can only be brought about if we take a realistic view of what Hamas stands for. If it is to be engaged with and be part of the future - and it seems to me that we are a long way from that possibility - it is important that it is not allowed to hide behind a false profile. There are those across the political spectrum who consistently call for diplomatic engagement with Hamas, comparing it to the IRA, the South African ANC or even the Palestinian Fatah movement. However, all those movements had their roots in deep-seated nationalism. Crucially, Hamas has a strong religious and specifically political Islamist dimension, prohibiting it from making deals over the land it regards as holy and tasking it with imposing theocratic rule over the people of that land. We must therefore ask ourselves whether Hamas is capable of reform that is compatible with a negotiated peace. If not, we should be paying attention to any emerging factions that do recognize that peaceful engagement is the only way forward. In this context, the demand that a full renunciation of violence precede any political engagement over a two-state solution is essential for ensuring that Hamas does not reap the benefits of international recognition without abandoning its goal of destroying Israel. The writer is chair of the Labour Friends of Israel "Handling Hamas" project.2010-03-05 08:16:51Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|