Home
Archives
Jerusalem Center Homepage
View the current issue
Jerusalem Center Videos
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) Eugene Kontorovich - My new article, "Resolution 242 Revisited: New Evidence on the Required Scope of Israeli Withdrawal," has just been published in the Chicago Journal of International Law. Res. 242 represented a territorial compromise, with accommodations to Arab and Israel positions. A proposed new French resolution - which mandates a withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice Lines - would specifically undo the parts of that compromise that were in Israel's favor, and essentially "reverse" 242, replacing it with the resolution demanded by the USSR and Arab states in 1967. If the U.S. allows this to happen, it would be a fundamental reversal of 50 years of Middle East diplomacy. If the French resolution is approved, this would teach the international community that if one does not like compromises embodied in Security Council resolutions, simply ignore them and wait for the political winds to shift and bring a different resolution. The writer is a professor at Northwestern University School of Law. 2015-09-11 00:00:00Full Article
"Resolution 242 Revisited": The Security Council's Approach to Israel-Arab Conflict
(Washington Post) Eugene Kontorovich - My new article, "Resolution 242 Revisited: New Evidence on the Required Scope of Israeli Withdrawal," has just been published in the Chicago Journal of International Law. Res. 242 represented a territorial compromise, with accommodations to Arab and Israel positions. A proposed new French resolution - which mandates a withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice Lines - would specifically undo the parts of that compromise that were in Israel's favor, and essentially "reverse" 242, replacing it with the resolution demanded by the USSR and Arab states in 1967. If the U.S. allows this to happen, it would be a fundamental reversal of 50 years of Middle East diplomacy. If the French resolution is approved, this would teach the international community that if one does not like compromises embodied in Security Council resolutions, simply ignore them and wait for the political winds to shift and bring a different resolution. The writer is a professor at Northwestern University School of Law. 2015-09-11 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
|
Search:
|