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
(Real Clear Politics) Peter Berkowitz - To subject the resolution of political controversies to legal reasoning that purports to yield rational, objective judgments is to pretend that one right answer is available for disputes that can only be managed through compromise and mutual accommodation. In July, Hebrew University professor of law emerita Ruth Gavison, an Israel Prize winner, argued that pursuit of a legal resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian controversy "actually deepens the deadlock." That's because the resort to legal reasoning obscures "the crucial political, social, cultural and religious processes in Israeli and Palestinian society" and "weakens, on both sides, the fortitude needed for painful concessions based on an agreement between the people and their leaders on what's the best outcome under the present circumstances." Gavison maintains, "From the perspective of international law, the Palestinians have no 'right' to end the occupation - which was the result of a defensive war - and Israel has no obligation to end it without a peace agreement." The writer is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. 2017-09-14 00:00:00Full Article
Why Legal Avenues to Mideast Peace Are Misguided
(Real Clear Politics) Peter Berkowitz - To subject the resolution of political controversies to legal reasoning that purports to yield rational, objective judgments is to pretend that one right answer is available for disputes that can only be managed through compromise and mutual accommodation. In July, Hebrew University professor of law emerita Ruth Gavison, an Israel Prize winner, argued that pursuit of a legal resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian controversy "actually deepens the deadlock." That's because the resort to legal reasoning obscures "the crucial political, social, cultural and religious processes in Israeli and Palestinian society" and "weakens, on both sides, the fortitude needed for painful concessions based on an agreement between the people and their leaders on what's the best outcome under the present circumstances." Gavison maintains, "From the perspective of international law, the Palestinians have no 'right' to end the occupation - which was the result of a defensive war - and Israel has no obligation to end it without a peace agreement." The writer is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. 2017-09-14 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|