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
(Jewish News-UK) Natasha Hausdorff - The last few weeks have seen a herd mentality take hold about Israel with fevered discussion over Israel's proposed application of civilian law to parts of Area C in the West Bank. The move is consistently misrepresented as "annexation" and a "violation" of international law. Both allegations are false and stand in the way of any informed debate. What is being considered is a change to the internal administrative legal framework in certain parts of Area C which would replace military law with the civilian law that applies throughout Israel. The existing framework was intended to be temporary, but it has been dragged out for 53 years, through decades of failed negotiations. The universal rule for determining borders for emerging states dictates that they are established with the administrative boundaries of the prior administrative entity. Israel was preceded by the "Mandate for Palestine," which was established by the League of Nations and administered by Britain. As the only state to emerge from the Mandate in 1948, international law dictates that Israel inherited the Mandate's administrative boundaries. The principle that a new state inherits the borders of the last top-level administrative unit has been universally applied upon the independence of new states, including to the emergence of states in Asia, Africa, South America and from the former Soviet Union. The one and only exception now appears to be with respect to the establishment of Israel. When generations of Israelis have witnessed every compromise lead to more blood on the streets, it has become harder and harder to explain why the next time will be different. The policy of "land for peace" (where Israel hands over land and the Palestinians promise peace) has been revealed to be a gargantuan failure. The public is being consistently misinformed on the proposal Israel is to consider this month. The harm to Israel's international standing arises from the conspiracy theory that it violates international law, not from the reality of the proposals. The writer is a barrister and a director of UK Lawyers for Israel.2020-07-02 00:00:00Full Article
Misconceptions over Planned Israeli Moves in West Bank
(Jewish News-UK) Natasha Hausdorff - The last few weeks have seen a herd mentality take hold about Israel with fevered discussion over Israel's proposed application of civilian law to parts of Area C in the West Bank. The move is consistently misrepresented as "annexation" and a "violation" of international law. Both allegations are false and stand in the way of any informed debate. What is being considered is a change to the internal administrative legal framework in certain parts of Area C which would replace military law with the civilian law that applies throughout Israel. The existing framework was intended to be temporary, but it has been dragged out for 53 years, through decades of failed negotiations. The universal rule for determining borders for emerging states dictates that they are established with the administrative boundaries of the prior administrative entity. Israel was preceded by the "Mandate for Palestine," which was established by the League of Nations and administered by Britain. As the only state to emerge from the Mandate in 1948, international law dictates that Israel inherited the Mandate's administrative boundaries. The principle that a new state inherits the borders of the last top-level administrative unit has been universally applied upon the independence of new states, including to the emergence of states in Asia, Africa, South America and from the former Soviet Union. The one and only exception now appears to be with respect to the establishment of Israel. When generations of Israelis have witnessed every compromise lead to more blood on the streets, it has become harder and harder to explain why the next time will be different. The policy of "land for peace" (where Israel hands over land and the Palestinians promise peace) has been revealed to be a gargantuan failure. The public is being consistently misinformed on the proposal Israel is to consider this month. The harm to Israel's international standing arises from the conspiracy theory that it violates international law, not from the reality of the proposals. The writer is a barrister and a director of UK Lawyers for Israel.2020-07-02 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|