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
(Hoover Institution) Tony Badran - Progress on a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians is as low a priority for America in the Middle East as you can get. The real interest for the U.S. lies elsewhere. In the 1990s, U.S. policymakers convinced themselves the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians was the central dynamic preoccupying and driving the behavior of regional states. It became a self-evident truth that everything depended on resolving this conflict and on giving the Palestinians their own state. This linkage grossly inflated the importance not just of the Palestinians, but also of the fractured Levant. Moreover, linkage made U.S. policy hostage to the maximalist demands of the most radical elements of the region. The path forward for the U.S. is to continue to strengthen Israel's position as a security pillar in the region while shoring up the U.S.-allied Arab states and fostering closer cooperation between them and the Israelis against Iran. What matters for the U.S. in the region is to consolidate its state alliance system to contain Iran and its assets. Progress in peace talks with the Palestinians is a matter of far less concern. The writer is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. 2019-09-27 00:00:00Full Article
U.S. Priorities in the Middle East
(Hoover Institution) Tony Badran - Progress on a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians is as low a priority for America in the Middle East as you can get. The real interest for the U.S. lies elsewhere. In the 1990s, U.S. policymakers convinced themselves the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians was the central dynamic preoccupying and driving the behavior of regional states. It became a self-evident truth that everything depended on resolving this conflict and on giving the Palestinians their own state. This linkage grossly inflated the importance not just of the Palestinians, but also of the fractured Levant. Moreover, linkage made U.S. policy hostage to the maximalist demands of the most radical elements of the region. The path forward for the U.S. is to continue to strengthen Israel's position as a security pillar in the region while shoring up the U.S.-allied Arab states and fostering closer cooperation between them and the Israelis against Iran. What matters for the U.S. in the region is to consolidate its state alliance system to contain Iran and its assets. Progress in peace talks with the Palestinians is a matter of far less concern. The writer is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. 2019-09-27 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|