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
(Washington Post) Charles Lane - The first misconception is that Omar faced a vehement negative reaction because she offered "criticism of U.S. policy toward Israel" (Wall Street Journal) or of the Israeli government. Incorrect. Omar offered no new criticism of U.S. policy or what she has called "the apartheid Israeli regime." What she did was to attack Israel's supporters in the U.S., and specifically in Congress. She did so by suggesting their motives were corrupt: either to enforce "allegiance to a foreign country" or to accumulate political cash from pro-Israel lobbyists. Moreover, it is simply not the case that support for Israel in a country where 59% of the public favors Israel over the Palestinians is merely a function of AIPAC's influence. It should have been possible for Omar to point out what's wrong with U.S. and Israeli policy without questioning the good faith of those who think differently. 2019-03-15 00:00:00Full Article
Some Misconceptions about the Ilhan Omar Affair
(Washington Post) Charles Lane - The first misconception is that Omar faced a vehement negative reaction because she offered "criticism of U.S. policy toward Israel" (Wall Street Journal) or of the Israeli government. Incorrect. Omar offered no new criticism of U.S. policy or what she has called "the apartheid Israeli regime." What she did was to attack Israel's supporters in the U.S., and specifically in Congress. She did so by suggesting their motives were corrupt: either to enforce "allegiance to a foreign country" or to accumulate political cash from pro-Israel lobbyists. Moreover, it is simply not the case that support for Israel in a country where 59% of the public favors Israel over the Palestinians is merely a function of AIPAC's influence. It should have been possible for Omar to point out what's wrong with U.S. and Israeli policy without questioning the good faith of those who think differently. 2019-03-15 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|