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
(Hudson Institute) Michael Doran - The maritime border agreement between Israel and Lebanon is being hailed as a great success. Under military pressure from Hizbullah and diplomatic pressure from Washington, Israel did what it had refused to do for over a decade: dropped its claim to Line 1 or to any compromise position and accepted instead Line 23, the Lebanese position. In summary, the U.S. encouraged Israel to concede to all of Hizbullah's demands. Prime Minister Lapid compromised for a period of quiet that will last until Hizbullah decides to end it. The agreement will not make Lebanon less dependent on Iran. Lebanon is controlled by Hizbullah, which is controlled by Iran. Enriching the fictitiously independent state of Lebanon without enriching Hizbullah and Iran is impossible. Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei have every right to celebrate this agreement as a major victory, a capitulation by both the U.S. and Israel. A "historic achievement" is how Hizbullah Deputy Secretary-General Naim Qassem described the demarcation agreement on Oct. 15. Hizbullah received everything that it demanded within the timeline that it set. Israel made every conceivable concession; Lebanon made none. Supercharged American mediation rewarded Hizbullah for threatening war. Traditional military deterrence, not appeasement, is the only way to contain Hizbullah. Military deterrence is also the answer to the threat posed by Iran and all its proxies. The deal undermined Israel's deterrence because it taught Hizbullah and Iran that a threat of war will trigger American mediation to deliver concessions from Israel to "de-escalate" conflict. The removal of this or that grievance of Hizbullah today will do nothing to prevent the fabrication of new grievances tomorrow. If war suits either Nasrallah or his Iranian overlords, Hizbullah will manufacture a pretext for starting one. The agreement will have no impact on the European energy crisis. There is no guarantee that Lebanese gas will ever come on the international market. If it does, it will not appear for another five to ten years - by which time the European energy crisis will be history. The writer, director of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East at the Hudson Institute, served as a senior director in the U.S. National Security Council.2022-10-24 00:00:00Full Article
Myths about the "Historic" Israel-Lebanon Maritime Border Agreement
(Hudson Institute) Michael Doran - The maritime border agreement between Israel and Lebanon is being hailed as a great success. Under military pressure from Hizbullah and diplomatic pressure from Washington, Israel did what it had refused to do for over a decade: dropped its claim to Line 1 or to any compromise position and accepted instead Line 23, the Lebanese position. In summary, the U.S. encouraged Israel to concede to all of Hizbullah's demands. Prime Minister Lapid compromised for a period of quiet that will last until Hizbullah decides to end it. The agreement will not make Lebanon less dependent on Iran. Lebanon is controlled by Hizbullah, which is controlled by Iran. Enriching the fictitiously independent state of Lebanon without enriching Hizbullah and Iran is impossible. Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei have every right to celebrate this agreement as a major victory, a capitulation by both the U.S. and Israel. A "historic achievement" is how Hizbullah Deputy Secretary-General Naim Qassem described the demarcation agreement on Oct. 15. Hizbullah received everything that it demanded within the timeline that it set. Israel made every conceivable concession; Lebanon made none. Supercharged American mediation rewarded Hizbullah for threatening war. Traditional military deterrence, not appeasement, is the only way to contain Hizbullah. Military deterrence is also the answer to the threat posed by Iran and all its proxies. The deal undermined Israel's deterrence because it taught Hizbullah and Iran that a threat of war will trigger American mediation to deliver concessions from Israel to "de-escalate" conflict. The removal of this or that grievance of Hizbullah today will do nothing to prevent the fabrication of new grievances tomorrow. If war suits either Nasrallah or his Iranian overlords, Hizbullah will manufacture a pretext for starting one. The agreement will have no impact on the European energy crisis. There is no guarantee that Lebanese gas will ever come on the international market. If it does, it will not appear for another five to ten years - by which time the European energy crisis will be history. The writer, director of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East at the Hudson Institute, served as a senior director in the U.S. National Security Council.2022-10-24 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|