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
(Washington Post)Dennis Ross - Arafat always succeeded far more as a symbol than as a leader. As a symbol, he had only to excite passions; as a leader, he had to make hard decisions and choices, and in that he was far more a decision avoider than a decision maker. He was the lone figure of authority, and even if he chose to do little to prevent chaos and anarchy in the West Bank and Gaza, he was the one person who could have done something about it. It is the absence of a figure of authority that invites a power vacuum and is almost certain to trigger a struggle for power in Arafat's aftermath. The problem with any collective leadership arrangement is that it would mask the leadership vacuum and not resolve it. It would provide no legitimacy for making difficult decisions. 2004-11-05 00:00:00Full Article
After Arafat, What?
(Washington Post)Dennis Ross - Arafat always succeeded far more as a symbol than as a leader. As a symbol, he had only to excite passions; as a leader, he had to make hard decisions and choices, and in that he was far more a decision avoider than a decision maker. He was the lone figure of authority, and even if he chose to do little to prevent chaos and anarchy in the West Bank and Gaza, he was the one person who could have done something about it. It is the absence of a figure of authority that invites a power vacuum and is almost certain to trigger a struggle for power in Arafat's aftermath. The problem with any collective leadership arrangement is that it would mask the leadership vacuum and not resolve it. It would provide no legitimacy for making difficult decisions. 2004-11-05 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|