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
(Foreign Policy) Elliott Abrams and Michael Singh - The proposed U.S. offer for a 90-day extension of the construction freeze in West Bank settlements masks an unwelcome shift in U.S. mediation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The troubling precedents set by this package will serve to dim rather than enhance prospects for a breakthrough in peace negotiations. The most worrying aspect is the linkages it establishes between Israeli concessions on settlements (and apparently on the pace of construction in Jerusalem as well) and other unrelated policy matters. Washington has long opposed, and frequently vetoed, UN Security Council initiatives targeting Israel, not out of a sense of charity, but because they were unconstructive, unhelpful, and unprincipled. The suggestion that unless there is a construction freeze America will no longer do so will make it far harder for U.S. negotiators to defeat or soften such drafts in future years. Leaving Israel undefended in the UN will make successful negotiations less, not more, likely, for an Israel that is under constant attack will batten down the hatches, not "take risks for peace." More disturbing still is the explicit connection between U.S. security assistance to Israel and the settlement freeze. As much as Israeli officials may desire the additional hardware, particularly in light of the growing threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, they will no doubt think long and hard before setting this precedent. A stand-alone border agreement is a mirage. For Israelis, more important than where the border lies is what lies beyond it - what security arrangements will be put in place to prevent a barrage of rockets originating from the West Bank, as they now do from Gaza? Elliott Abrams is senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Michael Singh is a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Both worked on Middle East affairs at the National Security Council during the George W. Bush administration. 2010-11-23 08:10:33Full Article
Peace Process to Nowhere
(Foreign Policy) Elliott Abrams and Michael Singh - The proposed U.S. offer for a 90-day extension of the construction freeze in West Bank settlements masks an unwelcome shift in U.S. mediation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The troubling precedents set by this package will serve to dim rather than enhance prospects for a breakthrough in peace negotiations. The most worrying aspect is the linkages it establishes between Israeli concessions on settlements (and apparently on the pace of construction in Jerusalem as well) and other unrelated policy matters. Washington has long opposed, and frequently vetoed, UN Security Council initiatives targeting Israel, not out of a sense of charity, but because they were unconstructive, unhelpful, and unprincipled. The suggestion that unless there is a construction freeze America will no longer do so will make it far harder for U.S. negotiators to defeat or soften such drafts in future years. Leaving Israel undefended in the UN will make successful negotiations less, not more, likely, for an Israel that is under constant attack will batten down the hatches, not "take risks for peace." More disturbing still is the explicit connection between U.S. security assistance to Israel and the settlement freeze. As much as Israeli officials may desire the additional hardware, particularly in light of the growing threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, they will no doubt think long and hard before setting this precedent. A stand-alone border agreement is a mirage. For Israelis, more important than where the border lies is what lies beyond it - what security arrangements will be put in place to prevent a barrage of rockets originating from the West Bank, as they now do from Gaza? Elliott Abrams is senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Michael Singh is a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Both worked on Middle East affairs at the National Security Council during the George W. Bush administration. 2010-11-23 08:10:33Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|