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 Center for Public Affairs) Amb. Alan Baker - In its founding aims and principles, J Street declares its overriding aim as "reshaping political perceptions of what it means to be pro-Israel." On the one hand, J Street presents itself and is perceived by many as a genuine lobbying organization with the veneer of supporting Israel and expressing concern for its welfare. But, on the other hand, one can nevertheless see that J Street's substantive political viewpoint is openly radical and partisan, identifying itself clearly with the Palestinian narrative. J Street has failed to welcome and promote the normalization agreements between Israel and Arab states, apparently because they downgrade the urgency J Street feels for a Palestinian state. The organization has actively lobbied against military aid to those Arab states that normalized relations. As such, J Street is clearly undercutting any genuine concern for Israel's security and is, in fact, undermining Israel's right to defend itself. Undermining the internationally-accepted and agreed peace negotiation process called for in UN Security Council resolutions and implemented through the Oslo Accords, J Street advocates setting aside bilateral, direct negotiation, preferring to recommend a "multilateral approach to resolving the conflict." Such an approach echoes ongoing Palestinian attempts to bypass direct negotiations with Israel and transfer the issue to an international conference that would impose a solution on Israel. Finally, how does J Street equate its supposed concern for Israel's security while at the same time deliberately ignoring Iran's direct existential threats against Israel and advocating a policy of appeasement vis-a-vis Iran? While logical and substantive criticism of any particular action or policy by Israel may well be legitimate, J Street, by its actions and policies, has redefined itself as an anti-Israel organization. The writer, Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center and former deputy director-general of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, participated in the negotiation and drafting of the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians.2021-01-11 00:00:00Full Article
Is J Street Misrepresenting Its Real Mission?
(Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs) Amb. Alan Baker - In its founding aims and principles, J Street declares its overriding aim as "reshaping political perceptions of what it means to be pro-Israel." On the one hand, J Street presents itself and is perceived by many as a genuine lobbying organization with the veneer of supporting Israel and expressing concern for its welfare. But, on the other hand, one can nevertheless see that J Street's substantive political viewpoint is openly radical and partisan, identifying itself clearly with the Palestinian narrative. J Street has failed to welcome and promote the normalization agreements between Israel and Arab states, apparently because they downgrade the urgency J Street feels for a Palestinian state. The organization has actively lobbied against military aid to those Arab states that normalized relations. As such, J Street is clearly undercutting any genuine concern for Israel's security and is, in fact, undermining Israel's right to defend itself. Undermining the internationally-accepted and agreed peace negotiation process called for in UN Security Council resolutions and implemented through the Oslo Accords, J Street advocates setting aside bilateral, direct negotiation, preferring to recommend a "multilateral approach to resolving the conflict." Such an approach echoes ongoing Palestinian attempts to bypass direct negotiations with Israel and transfer the issue to an international conference that would impose a solution on Israel. Finally, how does J Street equate its supposed concern for Israel's security while at the same time deliberately ignoring Iran's direct existential threats against Israel and advocating a policy of appeasement vis-a-vis Iran? While logical and substantive criticism of any particular action or policy by Israel may well be legitimate, J Street, by its actions and policies, has redefined itself as an anti-Israel organization. The writer, Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center and former deputy director-general of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, participated in the negotiation and drafting of the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians.2021-01-11 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|