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
(Wall Street Journal) Editorial - Israeli diplomats are girding for the possibility that President Obama may try to force a diplomatic resolution for Israel and the Palestinians at the UN in the period after the U.S. elections. Our sources say the White House has asked the State Department to develop an options menu for the President's final weeks. One possibility would be to sponsor, or at least allow, a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction, perhaps alongside new IRS regulations revoking the tax-exempt status of people or entities involved in settlement building. The Administration vetoed such a resolution in 2011 on grounds that it "risks hardening the position of both sides," which remains true. The U.S. may also seek formal recognition of a Palestinian state at the Security Council. This would run afoul of Congress' longstanding view that "Palestine" does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood, including a defined territory and effective government. The worst option would be an effort to introduce a resolution at the UN Security Council setting "parameters" for a final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. One option for the Administration would be to let such a resolution pass simply by refusing to veto it. This would be a blunder. U.S. policy has long and wisely been that only Israelis and Palestinians can work out a peace agreement between themselves, and that efforts to impose one would be counterproductive. Whatever parameters the UN established would be unacceptable to any Israeli government. The Palestinians would seize on those parameters as their birthright, making it impossible for any future Palestinian leader to bargain part of them away in a serious negotiation. Arab states would find their diplomatic hands tied, making it impossible to serve as useful intermediaries. After decades of fruitless efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it might be wiser for the U.S. to step back until the Palestinians recognize that peace cannot be imposed from the outside. 2016-11-01 00:00:00Full Article
Will Israel Face an Ambush at the UN after the U.S. Elections?
(Wall Street Journal) Editorial - Israeli diplomats are girding for the possibility that President Obama may try to force a diplomatic resolution for Israel and the Palestinians at the UN in the period after the U.S. elections. Our sources say the White House has asked the State Department to develop an options menu for the President's final weeks. One possibility would be to sponsor, or at least allow, a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction, perhaps alongside new IRS regulations revoking the tax-exempt status of people or entities involved in settlement building. The Administration vetoed such a resolution in 2011 on grounds that it "risks hardening the position of both sides," which remains true. The U.S. may also seek formal recognition of a Palestinian state at the Security Council. This would run afoul of Congress' longstanding view that "Palestine" does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood, including a defined territory and effective government. The worst option would be an effort to introduce a resolution at the UN Security Council setting "parameters" for a final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. One option for the Administration would be to let such a resolution pass simply by refusing to veto it. This would be a blunder. U.S. policy has long and wisely been that only Israelis and Palestinians can work out a peace agreement between themselves, and that efforts to impose one would be counterproductive. Whatever parameters the UN established would be unacceptable to any Israeli government. The Palestinians would seize on those parameters as their birthright, making it impossible for any future Palestinian leader to bargain part of them away in a serious negotiation. Arab states would find their diplomatic hands tied, making it impossible to serve as useful intermediaries. After decades of fruitless efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it might be wiser for the U.S. to step back until the Palestinians recognize that peace cannot be imposed from the outside. 2016-11-01 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
|
Search:
|