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) Yonah Jeremy Bob - In an article to be published soon in the Chicago Journal of International Law, Prof. Eugene Kontorovich of Northwestern University compares UN Security Council Resolution 242 to all 18 other Security Council resolutions dealing with territorial withdrawals and finds that the resolution was unique in its ambiguity as to how much territory Israel needs to withdraw from, with other resolutions being explicit about a full withdrawal. Kontorovich cites five pre-1967 UN resolutions obligating withdrawals, noting that the USSR had to withdraw from "the whole" of Iran, and that Belgium had to withdraw from "the territory" of Congo. In contrast, the intentional dropping of "the" in 242 and leaving out of a set date or geographic marker shows that the UN intentionally left the issue vague. Former UN Ambassador and Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs president Dore Gold responded to the article, saying, "Unfortunately there are voices that believe the whole discussion of the absence of the definite article 'the' in 242 is being picky. What they don't understand is that the language of the resolution was drafted at the highest levels of the U.S. government at the time." "It was no less than LBJ [President Lyndon Johnson] who held firm and insisted that the language be 'withdrawal from territories' without the word 'the' to limit the withdrawal obligation." "Kontorovich has come onto something extremely important which reinforces the traditional Israeli interpretation of 242." 2015-01-06 00:00:00Full Article
UN Resolution 242 Is Recognized as the Key UN Resolution on the Israeli-Arab Conflict
(Jerusalem Post) Yonah Jeremy Bob - In an article to be published soon in the Chicago Journal of International Law, Prof. Eugene Kontorovich of Northwestern University compares UN Security Council Resolution 242 to all 18 other Security Council resolutions dealing with territorial withdrawals and finds that the resolution was unique in its ambiguity as to how much territory Israel needs to withdraw from, with other resolutions being explicit about a full withdrawal. Kontorovich cites five pre-1967 UN resolutions obligating withdrawals, noting that the USSR had to withdraw from "the whole" of Iran, and that Belgium had to withdraw from "the territory" of Congo. In contrast, the intentional dropping of "the" in 242 and leaving out of a set date or geographic marker shows that the UN intentionally left the issue vague. Former UN Ambassador and Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs president Dore Gold responded to the article, saying, "Unfortunately there are voices that believe the whole discussion of the absence of the definite article 'the' in 242 is being picky. What they don't understand is that the language of the resolution was drafted at the highest levels of the U.S. government at the time." "It was no less than LBJ [President Lyndon Johnson] who held firm and insisted that the language be 'withdrawal from territories' without the word 'the' to limit the withdrawal obligation." "Kontorovich has come onto something extremely important which reinforces the traditional Israeli interpretation of 242." 2015-01-06 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|