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
(National Review) Dore Gold - The head Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, refused to accept the call coming out of the Washington meeting for direct negotiations between the parties. Instead, he demanded that, as a precondition, Israel accept the idea that it must start any talks with the Palestinians from the point where the previous Israeli government of Ehud Olmert left off. Certainly, Israel is legally bound by past agreements signed by earlier governments. But it cannot be obligated to abide by past negotiations that simply led nowhere. Imagine a Soviet negotiator trying to force Ronald Reagan to take Jimmy Carter's positions on arms control. It is a problem when U.S. officials say, "We all know what the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will look like," because they base this claim on Israeli concessions at the Camp David and Taba negotiations at the end of the Clinton administration, which never produced a signed agreement. If leaders come to be bound by their predecessors' proposals, then, in the future, everyone will fear engaging in diplomacy and putting proposals on the table. Israel had democratic elections in 2009 that put in a new government with different ideas about how Israel must advance any future peace talks. It is putting security first, insisting on "defensible borders." Perhaps some Palestinians might want to pocket concessions offered in the past and hem in the current Israeli government, but that is no way to conduct international negotiations. 2010-07-08 08:10:12Full Article
After the Obama-Netanyahu Summit
(National Review) Dore Gold - The head Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, refused to accept the call coming out of the Washington meeting for direct negotiations between the parties. Instead, he demanded that, as a precondition, Israel accept the idea that it must start any talks with the Palestinians from the point where the previous Israeli government of Ehud Olmert left off. Certainly, Israel is legally bound by past agreements signed by earlier governments. But it cannot be obligated to abide by past negotiations that simply led nowhere. Imagine a Soviet negotiator trying to force Ronald Reagan to take Jimmy Carter's positions on arms control. It is a problem when U.S. officials say, "We all know what the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will look like," because they base this claim on Israeli concessions at the Camp David and Taba negotiations at the end of the Clinton administration, which never produced a signed agreement. If leaders come to be bound by their predecessors' proposals, then, in the future, everyone will fear engaging in diplomacy and putting proposals on the table. Israel had democratic elections in 2009 that put in a new government with different ideas about how Israel must advance any future peace talks. It is putting security first, insisting on "defensible borders." Perhaps some Palestinians might want to pocket concessions offered in the past and hem in the current Israeli government, but that is no way to conduct international negotiations. 2010-07-08 08:10:12Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|