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) Herb Keinon - * One explanation for Prime Minister Sharon's about-face on the settlements is that in his mind as a statesman, a close strategic relationship with the U.S. will do more to protect Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Netanya 50 years down the line than a hilltop settlement. * When Sharon is asked what he is getting for disengagement from Gaza, he replies that he is not getting anything from the PA but is getting something very substantial from Washington: commitments that the U.S. will back Israel's position on the Palestinian refugee issue and on retaining the large settlement blocs. * Israelis may think the Americans are paranoid about the Chinese, but the U.S. does see China as a significant potential threat some 15, 20 years down the road. Israeli diplomatic officials say that pro-Israeli congressmen in America's heartland see red at the prospect that Israeli technology may some day be used by the Chinese in warfare against U.S. soldiers. * There is an infuriating asymmetry in the U.S. dictating to Israel what weapons it can and cannot sell to China, which may or may not threaten U.S. interests in the future, while at the same time Washington sells sophisticated planes and weapons systems to Arab countries that pose a threat to Israel here and now. But then again, this relationship is asymmetrical. * If you are asking yourself whether Israel should tolerate being treated this way, be honest and ask a follow-up question: The next time Israel finds itself facing an existential threat, where is it going to turn, to Washington or to Beijing? 2005-06-16 00:00:00Full Article
Dancing to Washington's China Tune
(Jerusalem Post) Herb Keinon - * One explanation for Prime Minister Sharon's about-face on the settlements is that in his mind as a statesman, a close strategic relationship with the U.S. will do more to protect Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Netanya 50 years down the line than a hilltop settlement. * When Sharon is asked what he is getting for disengagement from Gaza, he replies that he is not getting anything from the PA but is getting something very substantial from Washington: commitments that the U.S. will back Israel's position on the Palestinian refugee issue and on retaining the large settlement blocs. * Israelis may think the Americans are paranoid about the Chinese, but the U.S. does see China as a significant potential threat some 15, 20 years down the road. Israeli diplomatic officials say that pro-Israeli congressmen in America's heartland see red at the prospect that Israeli technology may some day be used by the Chinese in warfare against U.S. soldiers. * There is an infuriating asymmetry in the U.S. dictating to Israel what weapons it can and cannot sell to China, which may or may not threaten U.S. interests in the future, while at the same time Washington sells sophisticated planes and weapons systems to Arab countries that pose a threat to Israel here and now. But then again, this relationship is asymmetrical. * If you are asking yourself whether Israel should tolerate being treated this way, be honest and ask a follow-up question: The next time Israel finds itself facing an existential threat, where is it going to turn, to Washington or to Beijing? 2005-06-16 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|