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
(Tablet) David Makovsky - While the U.S. debates whether its pending missile strikes on Syria should be designed as a deterrent against further chemical attacks or more broadly, Israel's government seems focused on the effects for U.S. deterrence throughout the region. In the public mind, the U.S. reluctance to intervene has raised questions about the reliability of American commitments going forward. As a top Israeli official told me last week, "when the U.S. puts forward a red line, it has to mean it. The issue goes beyond Syria. It is a matter of credibility with reverberations for U.S. policy towards Iran." Enforcing red lines in Syria would send out a broader message that words do have meaning. At the same time, Israel has not been prodding the U.S. to act in Syria, and the chemical issue is not viewed as relating directly to Israel. The writer is a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. 2013-08-29 00:00:00Full Article
If Bombs Hit Damascus, Israel Looks to Tehran
(Tablet) David Makovsky - While the U.S. debates whether its pending missile strikes on Syria should be designed as a deterrent against further chemical attacks or more broadly, Israel's government seems focused on the effects for U.S. deterrence throughout the region. In the public mind, the U.S. reluctance to intervene has raised questions about the reliability of American commitments going forward. As a top Israeli official told me last week, "when the U.S. puts forward a red line, it has to mean it. The issue goes beyond Syria. It is a matter of credibility with reverberations for U.S. policy towards Iran." Enforcing red lines in Syria would send out a broader message that words do have meaning. At the same time, Israel has not been prodding the U.S. to act in Syria, and the chemical issue is not viewed as relating directly to Israel. The writer is a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. 2013-08-29 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|