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) Editorial - The U.S. president made it clear that his country would not cooperate with the Palestinian push for a UN General Assembly declaration recognizing a Palestinian state along the pre-1967 lines. Negotiation with Israel, not UN recognition, is the only route to Palestinian statehood, Obama said, reflecting consistent U.S. policy. However, while there were no signs that he was threatening or pressuring Israel, Obama did say that a two-state solution should be based on the 1967 lines, a clear endorsement of Palestinian demands. Obama claimed that the Arab Spring offered a unique opportunity to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In contrast, Netanyahu has presented what is in our opinion a more sober, realistic assessment. The instability running rampant in the region illustrates how easily regimes, including a newly founded Palestinian state, can suddenly be toppled and potentially taken over by Islamic extremists like Hamas. Problematic, too, was Obama's declaration that the sides should relaunch talks focusing initially on borders and security, leaving the "emotional" issues of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees for later. Israel's position has long been that such an order of business could enable the Palestinians to "pocket" the Israeli territorial concessions involved in border agreements without withdrawing their demand for a "right of return" for millions of Palestinians - which is the destruction of the Jewish state by demographic means. 2011-05-20 00:00:00Full Article
At Odds with Washington
(Jerusalem Post) Editorial - The U.S. president made it clear that his country would not cooperate with the Palestinian push for a UN General Assembly declaration recognizing a Palestinian state along the pre-1967 lines. Negotiation with Israel, not UN recognition, is the only route to Palestinian statehood, Obama said, reflecting consistent U.S. policy. However, while there were no signs that he was threatening or pressuring Israel, Obama did say that a two-state solution should be based on the 1967 lines, a clear endorsement of Palestinian demands. Obama claimed that the Arab Spring offered a unique opportunity to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In contrast, Netanyahu has presented what is in our opinion a more sober, realistic assessment. The instability running rampant in the region illustrates how easily regimes, including a newly founded Palestinian state, can suddenly be toppled and potentially taken over by Islamic extremists like Hamas. Problematic, too, was Obama's declaration that the sides should relaunch talks focusing initially on borders and security, leaving the "emotional" issues of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees for later. Israel's position has long been that such an order of business could enable the Palestinians to "pocket" the Israeli territorial concessions involved in border agreements without withdrawing their demand for a "right of return" for millions of Palestinians - which is the destruction of the Jewish state by demographic means. 2011-05-20 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|