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) Yossi Klein Halevi - The real meaning of the court's decision is to delegitimize not Israel's right to self-defense but its right to claim any territory, even for self-defense, over the "green line." The danger of that decision is to create the legal groundwork for an imposed solution that would force Israel back to the 1967 borders, even without a peace agreement - Arafat's dream scenario. So the war Israel needs to fight now isn't so much over the decision itself but its premise: that all land beyond the 1967 border belongs by right to Palestine. In determining that Israel has no legitimate claim to any of the long-disputed territory it won in 1967 in a defensive war of survival, the court has, in effect, overturned UN Resolution 242, the basis of the land for peace formula. In a Middle East that celebrates acts of terrorism as sacraments and denies the most basic legitimacy to the Jewish story, from the existence of the Temple to the existence of gas chambers, it would be madness to return to the eight-mile-wide borders of 1967 - whose vulnerability, after all, tempted the Arab world to try to destroy Israel. 2004-07-23 00:00:00Full Article
The Real Danger of the Hague Ruling
(Jerusalem Post) Yossi Klein Halevi - The real meaning of the court's decision is to delegitimize not Israel's right to self-defense but its right to claim any territory, even for self-defense, over the "green line." The danger of that decision is to create the legal groundwork for an imposed solution that would force Israel back to the 1967 borders, even without a peace agreement - Arafat's dream scenario. So the war Israel needs to fight now isn't so much over the decision itself but its premise: that all land beyond the 1967 border belongs by right to Palestine. In determining that Israel has no legitimate claim to any of the long-disputed territory it won in 1967 in a defensive war of survival, the court has, in effect, overturned UN Resolution 242, the basis of the land for peace formula. In a Middle East that celebrates acts of terrorism as sacraments and denies the most basic legitimacy to the Jewish story, from the existence of the Temple to the existence of gas chambers, it would be madness to return to the eight-mile-wide borders of 1967 - whose vulnerability, after all, tempted the Arab world to try to destroy Israel. 2004-07-23 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|