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
[Wall Street Journal] Dore Gold - The U.S. and other Western powers are pushing for a new Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough to help contain Iran and undercut the appeal of al-Qaeda and radical Islam. The underlying assumption is that radical Islam has something do to with Israel-related political grievances. But is this really the case? In August 2005, the U.S. and its Western allies thought that Israel's Gaza pullout would establish the foundations of a Palestinian state and thus reduce the flames of radical Islamic rage. Instead they got an al-Qaeda sanctuary on the shores of the Mediterranean. What the Gaza pullout showed was that mishandling the Israeli-Palestinian issue can exacerbate the threat of radical Islam, especially if it deepens the sense in radical Islamic circles that their military efforts have paid off. The gasoline fueling al-Qaeda has been its sense of victory, not political grievances. In the 1990s, the Clinton administration devoted more time to Arab-Israeli diplomacy than most of its predecessors, arranging numerous diplomatic agreements. But al-Qaeda only grew in strength. In other words, there was no correlation between U.S.-led diplomatic efforts to ameliorate the grievances voiced by radical Islamic groups and the appeal of al-Qaeda. Today, leading Western diplomats have been praising the Arab League Peace Initiative - based on the 2002 Saudi Plan - which calls on Israel to fully withdraw to the pre-1967 lines (i.e., leave the Golan Heights and entire West Bank) in exchange for "normal relations" with the Arab world. The Saudi Plan re-divides Jerusalem. Pushing Israel back to the pre-1967 lines will not satisfy al-Qaeda, nor will it bring peace. Right now, what the Palestinians need is help to build a stable civil society with governing institutions that work, not a return to the ceremonial diplomacy of the 1990s. The writer, Israel's ambassador to the UN in 1997-99, is President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and author of The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the Holy City (Regnery, 2007). 2007-08-13 01:00:00Full Article
America's Latest Efforts Merely Entrenched Al-Qaeda in Gaza
[Wall Street Journal] Dore Gold - The U.S. and other Western powers are pushing for a new Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough to help contain Iran and undercut the appeal of al-Qaeda and radical Islam. The underlying assumption is that radical Islam has something do to with Israel-related political grievances. But is this really the case? In August 2005, the U.S. and its Western allies thought that Israel's Gaza pullout would establish the foundations of a Palestinian state and thus reduce the flames of radical Islamic rage. Instead they got an al-Qaeda sanctuary on the shores of the Mediterranean. What the Gaza pullout showed was that mishandling the Israeli-Palestinian issue can exacerbate the threat of radical Islam, especially if it deepens the sense in radical Islamic circles that their military efforts have paid off. The gasoline fueling al-Qaeda has been its sense of victory, not political grievances. In the 1990s, the Clinton administration devoted more time to Arab-Israeli diplomacy than most of its predecessors, arranging numerous diplomatic agreements. But al-Qaeda only grew in strength. In other words, there was no correlation between U.S.-led diplomatic efforts to ameliorate the grievances voiced by radical Islamic groups and the appeal of al-Qaeda. Today, leading Western diplomats have been praising the Arab League Peace Initiative - based on the 2002 Saudi Plan - which calls on Israel to fully withdraw to the pre-1967 lines (i.e., leave the Golan Heights and entire West Bank) in exchange for "normal relations" with the Arab world. The Saudi Plan re-divides Jerusalem. Pushing Israel back to the pre-1967 lines will not satisfy al-Qaeda, nor will it bring peace. Right now, what the Palestinians need is help to build a stable civil society with governing institutions that work, not a return to the ceremonial diplomacy of the 1990s. The writer, Israel's ambassador to the UN in 1997-99, is President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and author of The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the Holy City (Regnery, 2007). 2007-08-13 01:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|