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
(London Times) - Michael Gove Britain and America armed Saddam's tyranny. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, between 1973 and 2002, Russia supplied 57% of Saddam's arms imports, France 13%, and China 12%. The U.S. supplied at most just 1% and Britain significantly less than that. Brazil supplied more weaponry to Saddam than the U.S. and Britain combined. No wonder France, Russia, and China declined to support action to disarm one of their best customers. Targeting Baghdad is a "diversion" from the war on terrorism. The "secular" Iraqi regime played host to a variety of Islamist terrorists from across the Arab world, training them on its territory, supplying them with its weapons, and sending them abroad on missions to kill its enemies. During this war, Saddam's most determined defenders have not been the Iraqi Army but Islamist fanatics. Far from this campaign having been a distraction from the wider war on terror, it has been a hammer blow against a regime which sponsored, succored, and exported terrorism. We must now show "evenhandedness" by enforcing UN resolutions against Israel, just as we have against Iraq. The attempt to imply some parity of guilt between Iraq and Israel is morally shameful and a willfully blind misreading of the relevant UN resolutions. Iraq was in breach of Chapter 7 resolutions, which provide for military action to deal with threats to international peace and security. The resolutions which concern Israel are based on Chapter 6 of the UN Charter and they are non-binding recommendations for settling disputes. To bracket Iraq and Israel in the way that Robin Cook did is to suggest that there is a moral equivalence between a murderer and someone who is having difficulty with marriage counseling. In arguing that, after Iraq, Israel must abide by UN resolutions, Jack Straw is placing terrorism's biggest victim, rather than its perpetrators, in the dock.2003-04-08 00:00:00Full Article
Three Myths Ripe for Deconstruction
(London Times) - Michael Gove Britain and America armed Saddam's tyranny. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, between 1973 and 2002, Russia supplied 57% of Saddam's arms imports, France 13%, and China 12%. The U.S. supplied at most just 1% and Britain significantly less than that. Brazil supplied more weaponry to Saddam than the U.S. and Britain combined. No wonder France, Russia, and China declined to support action to disarm one of their best customers. Targeting Baghdad is a "diversion" from the war on terrorism. The "secular" Iraqi regime played host to a variety of Islamist terrorists from across the Arab world, training them on its territory, supplying them with its weapons, and sending them abroad on missions to kill its enemies. During this war, Saddam's most determined defenders have not been the Iraqi Army but Islamist fanatics. Far from this campaign having been a distraction from the wider war on terror, it has been a hammer blow against a regime which sponsored, succored, and exported terrorism. We must now show "evenhandedness" by enforcing UN resolutions against Israel, just as we have against Iraq. The attempt to imply some parity of guilt between Iraq and Israel is morally shameful and a willfully blind misreading of the relevant UN resolutions. Iraq was in breach of Chapter 7 resolutions, which provide for military action to deal with threats to international peace and security. The resolutions which concern Israel are based on Chapter 6 of the UN Charter and they are non-binding recommendations for settling disputes. To bracket Iraq and Israel in the way that Robin Cook did is to suggest that there is a moral equivalence between a murderer and someone who is having difficulty with marriage counseling. In arguing that, after Iraq, Israel must abide by UN resolutions, Jack Straw is placing terrorism's biggest victim, rather than its perpetrators, in the dock.2003-04-08 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|