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
(Washington Post-Christian Science Monitor) Glenn Kessler - When Israel agreed to a 10-month partial settlement freeze last year, U.S. officials said it was exactly what they needed to get talks with the Palestinians started. When the talks finally started in September - after the Palestinians balked at direct negotiations for nine months - U.S. officials again asserted that the sheer momentum of the talks would carry them past the end of the moratorium later that month. Yet the moratorium ended, and the talks flagged. Now, U.S. officials are taking another leap of faith - on a 90-day settlement freeze. The theory is that if the sides can establish the borders of a Palestinian state, and it is clear which settlements will become part of Israel, the issue of settlement expansion will fade in importance and the talks will keep going. But virtually no analyst believes an agreement on borders is possible in 90 days. Part of the problem is that Israel's main bargaining chip is land, and it would be required now to give up land without knowing precisely what it would get in return. "The question is whether Netanyahu and his coalition...are willing to sign an agreement that will effectively return Israel to the 1967 borders," Israeli political commentator Nahum Barnea wrote Monday in Yediot Ahronot. "Are they willing to do this even before the question of the right of return and the question of Jerusalem have been discussed?" Uzi Dayan, a former deputy chief of staff of the army, says a preliminary agreement on territorial concessions risks conceding Israel's territorial "strategic depth'' before reaching a full agreement. "It's like having a negotiation, and saying, 'First, give all your money, and then let's talk about the other issues.''' 2010-11-16 09:55:43Full Article
U.S. Pinning Its Mideast Hopes on 90-Day Settlement Freeze
(Washington Post-Christian Science Monitor) Glenn Kessler - When Israel agreed to a 10-month partial settlement freeze last year, U.S. officials said it was exactly what they needed to get talks with the Palestinians started. When the talks finally started in September - after the Palestinians balked at direct negotiations for nine months - U.S. officials again asserted that the sheer momentum of the talks would carry them past the end of the moratorium later that month. Yet the moratorium ended, and the talks flagged. Now, U.S. officials are taking another leap of faith - on a 90-day settlement freeze. The theory is that if the sides can establish the borders of a Palestinian state, and it is clear which settlements will become part of Israel, the issue of settlement expansion will fade in importance and the talks will keep going. But virtually no analyst believes an agreement on borders is possible in 90 days. Part of the problem is that Israel's main bargaining chip is land, and it would be required now to give up land without knowing precisely what it would get in return. "The question is whether Netanyahu and his coalition...are willing to sign an agreement that will effectively return Israel to the 1967 borders," Israeli political commentator Nahum Barnea wrote Monday in Yediot Ahronot. "Are they willing to do this even before the question of the right of return and the question of Jerusalem have been discussed?" Uzi Dayan, a former deputy chief of staff of the army, says a preliminary agreement on territorial concessions risks conceding Israel's territorial "strategic depth'' before reaching a full agreement. "It's like having a negotiation, and saying, 'First, give all your money, and then let's talk about the other issues.''' 2010-11-16 09:55:43Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|