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 Institute for Near East Policy) David Pollock - Now is precisely the wrong time to put the Israeli-Palestinian conflict near the top of our foreign policy priorities. Certain current ideas about doing precisely that carry a very real risk of doing more harm than good. Such well-intentioned but actually self-defeating ideas include supporting multilateral diplomatic maneuvers like the French initiative, or a new UN Security Council resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, or proclaiming a new set of unilateral American ideas or "parameters" about a two-state solution. Multilateral diplomatic maneuvers, whether in Paris or at the UN, by definition encourage one or both parties to imagine that they can somehow avoid making compromises and ultimately peace with each other. It is also a matter of avoiding responsibility for the indispensable compromises that would make real peace possible. That is why the Palestinian Authority has become so enamored of this path. Multilateral initiatives of this kind are not "better than nothing" because they actually help prevent rather than promote peace. Until there is a clear demonstration by the parties that they are ready for real bargaining, the multilateral route risks hardening positions, raising false expectations, and repeating failure. The writer, a Fellow at The Washington Institute, testified before the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs on July 6.2016-07-08 00:00:00Full Article
Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Barriers to Peace
(Washington Institute for Near East Policy) David Pollock - Now is precisely the wrong time to put the Israeli-Palestinian conflict near the top of our foreign policy priorities. Certain current ideas about doing precisely that carry a very real risk of doing more harm than good. Such well-intentioned but actually self-defeating ideas include supporting multilateral diplomatic maneuvers like the French initiative, or a new UN Security Council resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, or proclaiming a new set of unilateral American ideas or "parameters" about a two-state solution. Multilateral diplomatic maneuvers, whether in Paris or at the UN, by definition encourage one or both parties to imagine that they can somehow avoid making compromises and ultimately peace with each other. It is also a matter of avoiding responsibility for the indispensable compromises that would make real peace possible. That is why the Palestinian Authority has become so enamored of this path. Multilateral initiatives of this kind are not "better than nothing" because they actually help prevent rather than promote peace. Until there is a clear demonstration by the parties that they are ready for real bargaining, the multilateral route risks hardening positions, raising false expectations, and repeating failure. The writer, a Fellow at The Washington Institute, testified before the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs on July 6.2016-07-08 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|