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) Zalman Shoval - Conventional wisdom in most of the international community regards the "return" of Israel to the pre-1967 armistice lines, a.k.a. the Green Line, with or without minor rectifications, as the key to a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, disregarding such matters as the Jewish people's historical, moral and legal rights in the areas which Israel is asked to relinquish, as well as ignoring Israel's dangerous security situation. This reality was expressly recognized by UN Security Council Resolution 242 in its reference to secure borders, as well as by a majority of American presidents since 1967; Ronald Reagan stated that "Israel should never be asked to return to where it was 8 miles wide." Though, as is often claimed, all the problems pertaining to the "two-state solution" were addressed in the Clinton Parameters of 2000 (which Yasser Arafat made sure to kill off by unleashing the second intifada), the two sides have not come to an agreement on any of them. There is no acceptable formula on refugees, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, or the concept of taking the Green Line as the basis for the future border. If there supposedly is a consensus on the settlement blocs, why do the Palestinians, the U.S. and the Europeans object every time Jews build another house within their perimeters? Furthermore, it is an illusion to assume that any Israeli government could persuade or force the 100,000 or so Israelis who live in the West Bank outside the settlement blocs to evacuate their homes (even evacuating just 8,500 Israelis from Gaza has left an open wound). Moshe Dayan, who had extensive contacts with Palestinian leaders and opinion-makers, reached the conclusion that there was no way that Israelis and Palestinians could reach a final, formal peace agreement which would be supported by a majority of people on both sides. He, therefore, believed that the best, perhaps the only, way to make progress would be by means of practical on-the-ground arrangements, with the aim of handing the Palestinians almost unlimited authority for running their own lives, but keeping security matters in the hands of Israel, and leaving the question of sovereignty in abeyance. The writer is a former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. 2013-04-03 00:00:00Full Article
When There Is No Peace
(Jerusalem Post) Zalman Shoval - Conventional wisdom in most of the international community regards the "return" of Israel to the pre-1967 armistice lines, a.k.a. the Green Line, with or without minor rectifications, as the key to a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, disregarding such matters as the Jewish people's historical, moral and legal rights in the areas which Israel is asked to relinquish, as well as ignoring Israel's dangerous security situation. This reality was expressly recognized by UN Security Council Resolution 242 in its reference to secure borders, as well as by a majority of American presidents since 1967; Ronald Reagan stated that "Israel should never be asked to return to where it was 8 miles wide." Though, as is often claimed, all the problems pertaining to the "two-state solution" were addressed in the Clinton Parameters of 2000 (which Yasser Arafat made sure to kill off by unleashing the second intifada), the two sides have not come to an agreement on any of them. There is no acceptable formula on refugees, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, or the concept of taking the Green Line as the basis for the future border. If there supposedly is a consensus on the settlement blocs, why do the Palestinians, the U.S. and the Europeans object every time Jews build another house within their perimeters? Furthermore, it is an illusion to assume that any Israeli government could persuade or force the 100,000 or so Israelis who live in the West Bank outside the settlement blocs to evacuate their homes (even evacuating just 8,500 Israelis from Gaza has left an open wound). Moshe Dayan, who had extensive contacts with Palestinian leaders and opinion-makers, reached the conclusion that there was no way that Israelis and Palestinians could reach a final, formal peace agreement which would be supported by a majority of people on both sides. He, therefore, believed that the best, perhaps the only, way to make progress would be by means of practical on-the-ground arrangements, with the aim of handing the Palestinians almost unlimited authority for running their own lives, but keeping security matters in the hands of Israel, and leaving the question of sovereignty in abeyance. The writer is a former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. 2013-04-03 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|