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
[Jerusalem Post] Editorial - Israel is reportedly bracing for a "skewed" report from Lt.-Gen. William Fraser on Israeli and Palestinian implementation of their Roadmap obligations. What is likely "skewed," however, is the whole U.S. approach to achieving Arab-Israeli peace. Since the government recently announced it would expand a settlement inside the security barrier near Jerusalem, Israel expects to be criticized in the Fraser report. The problem with this approach is that there is no symmetry between settlements and terrorism, on either the moral or strategic levels. It is a moral travesty that building homes is compared to murdering innocents. But even if settlement expansion can be seen as problematic, it makes little sense to treat all settlements equally, as if there were no difference between expanding existing towns that are contiguous with Israel and inside the security barrier, and settlements situated amidst the Palestinian population. A clear distinction should be made over settlements that are entirely consistent with a two-state solution. But all this is trivial compared to the macro problem, which is that the U.S. makes no distinction between the respective distances Israel and the Palestinians are from making the two-state approach work. Since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, the Israeli public and political system have moved dramatically to a broad consensus that regards a Palestinian state as acceptable, even a necessity. At the same time, the Palestinians have, if anything, become more radicalized since 1993, and have not begun to prepare themselves for a two-state approach, let alone embrace it. Almost no Palestinian will accept that the Jewish people have any national or historical rights to a state alongside Palestine. This is what prevents peace. Pretending that Israelis and Palestinians are equally to blame for the lack of peace is not just misleading and unfair, it is actively harmful to the cause of peace, because it lets those who are obstructing peace off the hook. 2008-03-14 01:00:00Full Article
A Skewed Process
[Jerusalem Post] Editorial - Israel is reportedly bracing for a "skewed" report from Lt.-Gen. William Fraser on Israeli and Palestinian implementation of their Roadmap obligations. What is likely "skewed," however, is the whole U.S. approach to achieving Arab-Israeli peace. Since the government recently announced it would expand a settlement inside the security barrier near Jerusalem, Israel expects to be criticized in the Fraser report. The problem with this approach is that there is no symmetry between settlements and terrorism, on either the moral or strategic levels. It is a moral travesty that building homes is compared to murdering innocents. But even if settlement expansion can be seen as problematic, it makes little sense to treat all settlements equally, as if there were no difference between expanding existing towns that are contiguous with Israel and inside the security barrier, and settlements situated amidst the Palestinian population. A clear distinction should be made over settlements that are entirely consistent with a two-state solution. But all this is trivial compared to the macro problem, which is that the U.S. makes no distinction between the respective distances Israel and the Palestinians are from making the two-state approach work. Since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, the Israeli public and political system have moved dramatically to a broad consensus that regards a Palestinian state as acceptable, even a necessity. At the same time, the Palestinians have, if anything, become more radicalized since 1993, and have not begun to prepare themselves for a two-state approach, let alone embrace it. Almost no Palestinian will accept that the Jewish people have any national or historical rights to a state alongside Palestine. This is what prevents peace. Pretending that Israelis and Palestinians are equally to blame for the lack of peace is not just misleading and unfair, it is actively harmful to the cause of peace, because it lets those who are obstructing peace off the hook. 2008-03-14 01:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|