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
(Canadian Jewish News) Gerald M. Steinberg - The public proceedings at the International Court of Justice may provide an opportunity for Israel to demonstrate the core morality of its case. A high-profile presentation of the history of Palestinian and Arab rejectionism, beginning in 1947 and continuing to this day, could be an important opportunity. The Israeli team would need to demonstrate that unilateral separation is necessary to protect lives, and that there is no other realistic way of preventing terrorism. The alternative of maintaining the status quo would sentence hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of additional Israelis to death from terror attacks. The Israeli team will also need to show that the armistice line that was drawn in 1949, following the Arab invasion, and held until the 1967 war, lacks the status of an international boundary and is not, therefore, sacrosanct. In addition, the history of the 1967 war will need to be presented, including the fact that the Israeli capture of the "occupied territories" was an appropriate response to Arab preparations to drive the Jews into the sea. Under international law, territory gained in a defensive war has an entirely different status than the ill-gotten gains of an aggressive one. 2004-01-09 00:00:00Full Article
A Chance to Change the Agenda?
(Canadian Jewish News) Gerald M. Steinberg - The public proceedings at the International Court of Justice may provide an opportunity for Israel to demonstrate the core morality of its case. A high-profile presentation of the history of Palestinian and Arab rejectionism, beginning in 1947 and continuing to this day, could be an important opportunity. The Israeli team would need to demonstrate that unilateral separation is necessary to protect lives, and that there is no other realistic way of preventing terrorism. The alternative of maintaining the status quo would sentence hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of additional Israelis to death from terror attacks. The Israeli team will also need to show that the armistice line that was drawn in 1949, following the Arab invasion, and held until the 1967 war, lacks the status of an international boundary and is not, therefore, sacrosanct. In addition, the history of the 1967 war will need to be presented, including the fact that the Israeli capture of the "occupied territories" was an appropriate response to Arab preparations to drive the Jews into the sea. Under international law, territory gained in a defensive war has an entirely different status than the ill-gotten gains of an aggressive one. 2004-01-09 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|