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) Zalman Shoval - The U.S. peace plan is arguably the most important statement pertaining to Israel's political position since the UN partition plan of 1947 and the Declaration of Independence in 1948, provided that its major elements are implemented. Its primary significance is that the principle of secure borders, noted in UN Security Council Resolution 242, has become a concrete political precept initiated and supported by the world's major power, the U.S. (and apparently not objected to by major parts of the Arab world). The security-based essence of the plan - Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley and security control in the West Bank - has been one of the fundamentals of Israel's security doctrine since repelling aggression in the Six-Day War. As Henry Kissinger told me in 1991, "Peace is secondary; security is vital." The U.S. plan is the first time Israel has been accorded the right to set its own security borders. One important implication of the plan is the creation of a new paradigm, an up-to-date reference point for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the future, the general outline for any arrangement will have to take account of the template of the Trump plan, which even a future Democratic administration would find hard to reverse completely. The underlying guideline of the plan is the eventual two-state principle. The plan projects a minimum four-year transition period plus a string of clear conditions to the Palestinians on terrorism, incitement, renunciation of the "right of return," and an end to anti-Israel activities at international forums. While a Palestinian state is the final goal, in practice the present chaotic situation makes it clear that Palestinian statehood any time soon won't be an option. The plan has been castigated as one-sided. It is not. It is a pragmatic approach, taking into account realities as they are and not as some want them to be. It looks after Israel's security concerns and provides extensive economic and political advantages, including future self-governance, to the Palestinians, while setting a mutually beneficial framework for Jewish-Arab coexistence in the land shared by both. The writer served twice as Israel's ambassador to the U.S.2020-02-18 00:00:00Full Article
A Plan for Israel's Security
(Jerusalem Post) Zalman Shoval - The U.S. peace plan is arguably the most important statement pertaining to Israel's political position since the UN partition plan of 1947 and the Declaration of Independence in 1948, provided that its major elements are implemented. Its primary significance is that the principle of secure borders, noted in UN Security Council Resolution 242, has become a concrete political precept initiated and supported by the world's major power, the U.S. (and apparently not objected to by major parts of the Arab world). The security-based essence of the plan - Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley and security control in the West Bank - has been one of the fundamentals of Israel's security doctrine since repelling aggression in the Six-Day War. As Henry Kissinger told me in 1991, "Peace is secondary; security is vital." The U.S. plan is the first time Israel has been accorded the right to set its own security borders. One important implication of the plan is the creation of a new paradigm, an up-to-date reference point for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the future, the general outline for any arrangement will have to take account of the template of the Trump plan, which even a future Democratic administration would find hard to reverse completely. The underlying guideline of the plan is the eventual two-state principle. The plan projects a minimum four-year transition period plus a string of clear conditions to the Palestinians on terrorism, incitement, renunciation of the "right of return," and an end to anti-Israel activities at international forums. While a Palestinian state is the final goal, in practice the present chaotic situation makes it clear that Palestinian statehood any time soon won't be an option. The plan has been castigated as one-sided. It is not. It is a pragmatic approach, taking into account realities as they are and not as some want them to be. It looks after Israel's security concerns and provides extensive economic and political advantages, including future self-governance, to the Palestinians, while setting a mutually beneficial framework for Jewish-Arab coexistence in the land shared by both. The writer served twice as Israel's ambassador to the U.S.2020-02-18 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|