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) Barry Rubin - The assumption on which the 1990s Oslo peace process was based is precisely the same as President Obama's premise as outlined in his May 19 State Department speech: The Palestinians are eager to get a state of their own; consequently they are willing to make concessions, they will live up to their commitments, and international security guarantees can be relied upon as a fail-safe. Palestinians eager? They aren't eager. Many Palestinian leaders frequently say that it is worth decades of not getting a state and continuing to fight in order to get everything in the end. They also say the current generation has no right to close the door to total victory and Israel's destruction by future generations. They mistakenly believe time is on their side. Consequently are they willing to make concessions? Neither Palestinian public opinion nor the political balance of forces allows for the more moderate sector of the leadership (which is very small) to make the needed concessions and compromises. They will live up to their commitments? Systematically stopping and punishing terrorism? No. Preparing their people for peace? No. Ending incitement against Israel? No. Refraining from violence? No. International guarantees? Worthless. There is a long list of examples, including most recently the failure to stop Hizbullah's return to southern Lebanon and the end to Syrian-Iranian arms smuggling to the group, as pledged by the U.S. and UN after 2006. The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center at IDC Herzliya. 2011-07-06 00:00:00Full Article
A U.S. Peace Plan?
(Jerusalem Post) Barry Rubin - The assumption on which the 1990s Oslo peace process was based is precisely the same as President Obama's premise as outlined in his May 19 State Department speech: The Palestinians are eager to get a state of their own; consequently they are willing to make concessions, they will live up to their commitments, and international security guarantees can be relied upon as a fail-safe. Palestinians eager? They aren't eager. Many Palestinian leaders frequently say that it is worth decades of not getting a state and continuing to fight in order to get everything in the end. They also say the current generation has no right to close the door to total victory and Israel's destruction by future generations. They mistakenly believe time is on their side. Consequently are they willing to make concessions? Neither Palestinian public opinion nor the political balance of forces allows for the more moderate sector of the leadership (which is very small) to make the needed concessions and compromises. They will live up to their commitments? Systematically stopping and punishing terrorism? No. Preparing their people for peace? No. Ending incitement against Israel? No. Refraining from violence? No. International guarantees? Worthless. There is a long list of examples, including most recently the failure to stop Hizbullah's return to southern Lebanon and the end to Syrian-Iranian arms smuggling to the group, as pledged by the U.S. and UN after 2006. The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center at IDC Herzliya. 2011-07-06 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|