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
(Jerusalem Post) Barry Rubin - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu couldn't continue the freeze because there isn't enough support in his coalition for doing so. Minor U.S. offers won't change that fact. Moreover, the main underlying problem is lack of confidence that the Palestinian Authority wants peace, is willing to compromise or will implement future commitments. Consider: Why ask for a two-month extension on the freeze? Why not three or four? What is happening within two months? The U.S. election. According to the draft letter, the U.S. agrees to support measures to prevent the smuggling of weapons and terrorists into Israel after a Palestinian state is established. This is interpreted as allowing Israeli forces to stay in the Jordan Valley for several years. But Israel knows that the PA would never agree. Moreover, this would set up a situation in which an isolated Israeli force would be subject to attack by terrorists, and international condemnation when it had to intercept or kill them. The letter promises the U.S. government would veto any UN Security Council resolution against Israel for the next year. This is insulting and signals to Israeli leaders that the current administration isn't exactly reliable. It suggests that after the year is over Washington will not veto such resolutions. Finally, the U.S. pledges to sell more weapons to Israel after a peace agreement and the creation of a Palestinian state. Suggesting that this would happen if construction is frozen for two months simultaneously suggests that it won't happen otherwise, withdrawing something Israel was previously expecting. According to the media, Netanyahu politely pointed out that when the U.S. originally demanded the freeze, it promised that it would secure concessions from Arab states. This didn't happen. It also promised that the Palestinians would be responsive and fulfill their commitments. That didn't happen either. The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and editor of Middle East Review of International Affairs and Turkish Studies. 2010-10-04 10:37:09Full Article
U.S. Assurances and the Settlement Freeze
(Jerusalem Post) Barry Rubin - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu couldn't continue the freeze because there isn't enough support in his coalition for doing so. Minor U.S. offers won't change that fact. Moreover, the main underlying problem is lack of confidence that the Palestinian Authority wants peace, is willing to compromise or will implement future commitments. Consider: Why ask for a two-month extension on the freeze? Why not three or four? What is happening within two months? The U.S. election. According to the draft letter, the U.S. agrees to support measures to prevent the smuggling of weapons and terrorists into Israel after a Palestinian state is established. This is interpreted as allowing Israeli forces to stay in the Jordan Valley for several years. But Israel knows that the PA would never agree. Moreover, this would set up a situation in which an isolated Israeli force would be subject to attack by terrorists, and international condemnation when it had to intercept or kill them. The letter promises the U.S. government would veto any UN Security Council resolution against Israel for the next year. This is insulting and signals to Israeli leaders that the current administration isn't exactly reliable. It suggests that after the year is over Washington will not veto such resolutions. Finally, the U.S. pledges to sell more weapons to Israel after a peace agreement and the creation of a Palestinian state. Suggesting that this would happen if construction is frozen for two months simultaneously suggests that it won't happen otherwise, withdrawing something Israel was previously expecting. According to the media, Netanyahu politely pointed out that when the U.S. originally demanded the freeze, it promised that it would secure concessions from Arab states. This didn't happen. It also promised that the Palestinians would be responsive and fulfill their commitments. That didn't happen either. The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and editor of Middle East Review of International Affairs and Turkish Studies. 2010-10-04 10:37:09Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|