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
(Foreign Affairs) Michael S. Doran - By moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, blessing Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights, and other gestures, the administration is said to have overturned half a century of settled U.S. policy, abandoned the Palestinians, and killed the two-state solution. But on close inspection, these charges turn out to say more about the hysteria of the critics. In 1948, the U.S. foreign policy establishment opposed recognizing a soon-to-be independent Israel. Truman was not persuaded by the diplomats and experts, so he went ahead and recognized Israel anyway. The establishment considered it a gross mistake driven by the intrusion of amateur domestic politics into professional foreign policy. Egypt made a private side deal with Israel in the 1970s, and Jordan did so in the 1990s. Egypt made peace to get back the Sinai and a place within the American system, and Jordan did it to keep its place in that system and insulate itself from the vicissitudes of the peace process. Both sought to extricate themselves from the Palestinian problem, not solve it. It is difficult to say whether the Palestinians were ever serious about making peace. They certainly convinced their U.S. interlocutors that they were, and they parlayed that success into decades of continued power, status, and international largess. Yet somehow the final settlement was always six months away - and always would be. Thus did the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat start the 1990s exiled in Tunis, yet end them as a king in Ramallah. For 70 years now, many American (and European) policymakers have seen it as their mission to stabilize the Middle East by constraining Israel's power and getting the country to give back at the negotiating table what it has taken on the battlefield. Over the decades, however, Israel has grown ever stronger and more able to resist such impositions. Most Arab states moved on long ago. They now treat Israel as a normal player in the great game of regional power balancing. So now has the U.S. administration. The president looks at the Middle East like any other region, and respects power. Without the ideological blinders of the professional peace processors, he has recognized that the Palestinian issue is not a major U.S. strategic concern and has essentially delegated its handling to the local parties directly involved. He can see that Israel, having conquered the staging areas its enemies regularly used to attack it, will never give all of them back. The writer, a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, served as Senior Director for the Near East and North Africa at the National Security Council and as U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense.2019-10-18 00:00:00Full Article
The Dream Palace of the American Peace Processors
(Foreign Affairs) Michael S. Doran - By moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, blessing Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights, and other gestures, the administration is said to have overturned half a century of settled U.S. policy, abandoned the Palestinians, and killed the two-state solution. But on close inspection, these charges turn out to say more about the hysteria of the critics. In 1948, the U.S. foreign policy establishment opposed recognizing a soon-to-be independent Israel. Truman was not persuaded by the diplomats and experts, so he went ahead and recognized Israel anyway. The establishment considered it a gross mistake driven by the intrusion of amateur domestic politics into professional foreign policy. Egypt made a private side deal with Israel in the 1970s, and Jordan did so in the 1990s. Egypt made peace to get back the Sinai and a place within the American system, and Jordan did it to keep its place in that system and insulate itself from the vicissitudes of the peace process. Both sought to extricate themselves from the Palestinian problem, not solve it. It is difficult to say whether the Palestinians were ever serious about making peace. They certainly convinced their U.S. interlocutors that they were, and they parlayed that success into decades of continued power, status, and international largess. Yet somehow the final settlement was always six months away - and always would be. Thus did the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat start the 1990s exiled in Tunis, yet end them as a king in Ramallah. For 70 years now, many American (and European) policymakers have seen it as their mission to stabilize the Middle East by constraining Israel's power and getting the country to give back at the negotiating table what it has taken on the battlefield. Over the decades, however, Israel has grown ever stronger and more able to resist such impositions. Most Arab states moved on long ago. They now treat Israel as a normal player in the great game of regional power balancing. So now has the U.S. administration. The president looks at the Middle East like any other region, and respects power. Without the ideological blinders of the professional peace processors, he has recognized that the Palestinian issue is not a major U.S. strategic concern and has essentially delegated its handling to the local parties directly involved. He can see that Israel, having conquered the staging areas its enemies regularly used to attack it, will never give all of them back. The writer, a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, served as Senior Director for the Near East and North Africa at the National Security Council and as U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense.2019-10-18 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|