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
(Israel Hayom) Dror Eydar - Is the demand to evict Jews from Judea and Samaria within the framework of a peace deal justified, or ethnic cleansing? In the early 1970s, Judge Stephen Schwebel, who would later serve as president of the International Court of Justice at The Hague, argued that Israel was within its rights to hold onto the territory it had seized during the Six-Day War in 1967. His argument was based on the assessment that the war was a matter of self-defense for Israel. Schwebel said that because the original danger had not dissipated, from Israel's perspective, holding the land was justified, valid, and that any change was dependent on resolving the conflict through peaceful avenues. By its very definition, the law is a set of rules applied objectively and consistently to similar situations. If the law is applied selectively - as is the case only in regard to Israeli settlement - then it is not a law but rather the expression of an opinion under the guise of legal pretexts.2016-09-23 00:00:00Full Article
Palestinian Demand to Uproot Jews in West Bank Is Unprecedented in History
(Israel Hayom) Dror Eydar - Is the demand to evict Jews from Judea and Samaria within the framework of a peace deal justified, or ethnic cleansing? In the early 1970s, Judge Stephen Schwebel, who would later serve as president of the International Court of Justice at The Hague, argued that Israel was within its rights to hold onto the territory it had seized during the Six-Day War in 1967. His argument was based on the assessment that the war was a matter of self-defense for Israel. Schwebel said that because the original danger had not dissipated, from Israel's perspective, holding the land was justified, valid, and that any change was dependent on resolving the conflict through peaceful avenues. By its very definition, the law is a set of rules applied objectively and consistently to similar situations. If the law is applied selectively - as is the case only in regard to Israeli settlement - then it is not a law but rather the expression of an opinion under the guise of legal pretexts.2016-09-23 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|