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
(Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs) Joel Fishman - Incitement to hatred and violence is a weapon of political warfare. It is not the result of a misunderstanding, nor does it happen randomly. States and insurgent movements that are waging war openly or engaging in low-intensity conflict use it to advance their ends. Persistent reports based primarily on information from Palestine Media Watch describe the pervasiveness and intensity of Palestinian incitement against Israel. The public discourse and the media of popular culture convey a message of hatred. The destructive effects of incitement are not immediately apparent because they are cumulative. At present, the continuation of incitement indicates that fundamentally there is no real prospect of reaching a stable, long-term arrangement through the political process. The PA, which after the Oslo Accords many hoped would be committed to democracy and become a good neighbor, has turned into a corrupt, authoritarian Middle Eastern regime that plunged its own population into war and has taken a high toll of innocent Israeli civilians. The Palestinians discovered that they could derive considerable advantage by pursuing a policy of fomenting incitement, domestically and abroad, making capital from a festering sore. Using this method, they have driven their maximalist demands to the top of the world's agenda. At Durban, they hijacked the agenda of a conference ostensibly devoted to human rights and prevented other groups with grievances from being heard. Likewise, by going through the motions of negotiating, creating crises and impasses, and at the same time refusing to agree to much, they have succeeded in pocketing valuable unreciprocated concessions. Those who foment incitement hope that the Palestinian problem will assume larger proportions. What will happen, for example, when Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Hizbullah decide to support such grievances with military force while America and Europe choose to look the other way? Dr. Joel Fishman is a historian and a fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. 2011-03-16 00:00:00Full Article
Palestinian Incitement: The Real "Deal Breaker"
(Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs) Joel Fishman - Incitement to hatred and violence is a weapon of political warfare. It is not the result of a misunderstanding, nor does it happen randomly. States and insurgent movements that are waging war openly or engaging in low-intensity conflict use it to advance their ends. Persistent reports based primarily on information from Palestine Media Watch describe the pervasiveness and intensity of Palestinian incitement against Israel. The public discourse and the media of popular culture convey a message of hatred. The destructive effects of incitement are not immediately apparent because they are cumulative. At present, the continuation of incitement indicates that fundamentally there is no real prospect of reaching a stable, long-term arrangement through the political process. The PA, which after the Oslo Accords many hoped would be committed to democracy and become a good neighbor, has turned into a corrupt, authoritarian Middle Eastern regime that plunged its own population into war and has taken a high toll of innocent Israeli civilians. The Palestinians discovered that they could derive considerable advantage by pursuing a policy of fomenting incitement, domestically and abroad, making capital from a festering sore. Using this method, they have driven their maximalist demands to the top of the world's agenda. At Durban, they hijacked the agenda of a conference ostensibly devoted to human rights and prevented other groups with grievances from being heard. Likewise, by going through the motions of negotiating, creating crises and impasses, and at the same time refusing to agree to much, they have succeeded in pocketing valuable unreciprocated concessions. Those who foment incitement hope that the Palestinian problem will assume larger proportions. What will happen, for example, when Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Hizbullah decide to support such grievances with military force while America and Europe choose to look the other way? Dr. Joel Fishman is a historian and a fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. 2011-03-16 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|