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
(Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies-Bar-Ilan University) Gerald M. Steinberg - Diplomatic deal-making requires mastery of four basic elements: integration of diplomacy with the credible threat of force; the rewarding of friends and the punishing of enemies (rather than the opposite); a diplomatic focus on interests rather than emotions; and a refusal to condescend to the citizens who will be affected. Throughout the Obama presidency, the essential role of power in international diplomacy was largely ignored. When Obama went to Cairo in March 2009, he called for freedom, democracy, and friendship between the U.S. and the Arab world. But there was no action plan behind the speech - no carrots and no sticks. In all of Obama's Middle East activities, interests and power were largely ignored. In the few instances in which Obama threatened to use force, there was no follow-through. (The killing of Bin Laden was a one-time attack against an individual, not an ongoing strategy against a state or terror group.) For John Kerry and Barack Obama, their main diplomatic "success" was the agreement with the Iranian regime on their illicit nuclear program. To avoid friction and maintain good feelings, the U.S. allowed Iran to continue many of its ongoing weapons-related activities, including upgrading centrifuges, testing new and better ballistic missiles, and supporting terror, including Hizbullah's butchery on behalf of the Assad regime in Syria. Diplomats who arrogantly tell people they are wrong, and that they know better than the people what is good for them, get little traction. No country's citizens relish being patronized by outsiders. In their last-minute initiatives, including the American decision to abstain (and thus passively support) UNSCR 2334 and the subsequent speech on the evil of settlements, Obama and Kerry repeatedly instructed Israelis that the policies they recommended were for Israelis' own good. The message was that Americans could define Israeli interests better than the country's elected leaders. The writer is a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University, founder of the graduate program on conflict management and negotiation, and president of NGO Monitor.2017-01-25 00:00:00Full Article
The Elements of Diplomatic Deal-Making
(Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies-Bar-Ilan University) Gerald M. Steinberg - Diplomatic deal-making requires mastery of four basic elements: integration of diplomacy with the credible threat of force; the rewarding of friends and the punishing of enemies (rather than the opposite); a diplomatic focus on interests rather than emotions; and a refusal to condescend to the citizens who will be affected. Throughout the Obama presidency, the essential role of power in international diplomacy was largely ignored. When Obama went to Cairo in March 2009, he called for freedom, democracy, and friendship between the U.S. and the Arab world. But there was no action plan behind the speech - no carrots and no sticks. In all of Obama's Middle East activities, interests and power were largely ignored. In the few instances in which Obama threatened to use force, there was no follow-through. (The killing of Bin Laden was a one-time attack against an individual, not an ongoing strategy against a state or terror group.) For John Kerry and Barack Obama, their main diplomatic "success" was the agreement with the Iranian regime on their illicit nuclear program. To avoid friction and maintain good feelings, the U.S. allowed Iran to continue many of its ongoing weapons-related activities, including upgrading centrifuges, testing new and better ballistic missiles, and supporting terror, including Hizbullah's butchery on behalf of the Assad regime in Syria. Diplomats who arrogantly tell people they are wrong, and that they know better than the people what is good for them, get little traction. No country's citizens relish being patronized by outsiders. In their last-minute initiatives, including the American decision to abstain (and thus passively support) UNSCR 2334 and the subsequent speech on the evil of settlements, Obama and Kerry repeatedly instructed Israelis that the policies they recommended were for Israelis' own good. The message was that Americans could define Israeli interests better than the country's elected leaders. The writer is a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University, founder of the graduate program on conflict management and negotiation, and president of NGO Monitor.2017-01-25 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|