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) Omri Nahmias - In his first interview since announcing his resignation, Middle East envoy Jason Greenblatt said he wouldn't change any of the significant U.S. decisions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "The decisions we made were appropriate for what we are trying to accomplish. They were correct for the United States and its interest." "Certainly, on the major decisions - Jerusalem, the embassy, UNRWA, the PLO office, the Golan - I firmly believe [those were] the correct decisions. And I think if we didn't make those decisions, it would have brought us no closer to peace." "I don't characterize anything we've done as sticks," he says regarding the peace team's approach to the Palestinians. "I think that each decision we've made over the last two and a half years has been in the interest of the United States. I know that people characterize some of our decisions as punishments toward the Palestinians. That is not only not true, it never entered into my mind." "Take the recognition of Jerusalem, for example. That's a law of the USA from 1995. We respected the will of the American people in a law passed by Congress. The closure of the PLO office was based on a law. On UNRWA, it is not in the interest of the United States to continue funding into that broken system that provides no future for Palestinians living in these refugee camps. I'm surprised how people weaponize these decisions and pretend that they were done for political purposes when, in fact, they were decisions based on either law or what makes sense for the U.S. taxpayer." Regarding the U.S. peace plan, he said, "If both sides study it and stay away from the political talk and understand that we delivered a realistic plan - one that is actually implementable, not one that just talks in lofty ideals - I think there is a chance that something good could come out of it." "When we started, everybody would say that this is the core conflict of the Middle East. And if we solve this conflict, all of a sudden the Middle East will be an oasis of peace. That is absolutely untrue. And I think most people now understand that. You will still have the occasional group of people who still make that statement, but nobody believes it."2019-09-16 00:00:00Full Article
Mideast Envoy Jason Greenblatt Looks Back on U.S. Peace Efforts
(Jerusalem Post) Omri Nahmias - In his first interview since announcing his resignation, Middle East envoy Jason Greenblatt said he wouldn't change any of the significant U.S. decisions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "The decisions we made were appropriate for what we are trying to accomplish. They were correct for the United States and its interest." "Certainly, on the major decisions - Jerusalem, the embassy, UNRWA, the PLO office, the Golan - I firmly believe [those were] the correct decisions. And I think if we didn't make those decisions, it would have brought us no closer to peace." "I don't characterize anything we've done as sticks," he says regarding the peace team's approach to the Palestinians. "I think that each decision we've made over the last two and a half years has been in the interest of the United States. I know that people characterize some of our decisions as punishments toward the Palestinians. That is not only not true, it never entered into my mind." "Take the recognition of Jerusalem, for example. That's a law of the USA from 1995. We respected the will of the American people in a law passed by Congress. The closure of the PLO office was based on a law. On UNRWA, it is not in the interest of the United States to continue funding into that broken system that provides no future for Palestinians living in these refugee camps. I'm surprised how people weaponize these decisions and pretend that they were done for political purposes when, in fact, they were decisions based on either law or what makes sense for the U.S. taxpayer." Regarding the U.S. peace plan, he said, "If both sides study it and stay away from the political talk and understand that we delivered a realistic plan - one that is actually implementable, not one that just talks in lofty ideals - I think there is a chance that something good could come out of it." "When we started, everybody would say that this is the core conflict of the Middle East. And if we solve this conflict, all of a sudden the Middle East will be an oasis of peace. That is absolutely untrue. And I think most people now understand that. You will still have the occasional group of people who still make that statement, but nobody believes it."2019-09-16 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|