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
(Lieber Institute-West Point) Orde Kittrie and Bruce Rashkow - The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is poised to eviscerate the longstanding legal framework for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which was established by UN Security Council resolutions and the Oslo Accords. It is the only framework for achieving peace that has been endorsed by Israel and all Arab League member states. Yet the ICJ - at the behest of the UN General Assembly - may soon advise that international law requires Israel to unilaterally and unconditionally withdraw from the disputed Palestinian territories. Unless the Western allies take robust action in this case, the ICJ could also undercut the inherent rights of states to self-defense and sovereignty, undermine the UNSC's authority to maintain international peace and security, and subvert the law of armed conflict (LOAC). International law does not prohibit an interim occupation, which results from a legal use of force in self-defense, pending resolution of the conflict. Neither the 1907 Hague Regulations nor the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention requires an occupier, whose occupation results from a legal use of force in self-defense, to withdraw before a peace treaty is signed. In 1967, the international community recognized the legality of Israel's preemptive action against Arab armies poised to attack. Draft resolutions condemning Israel's actions were resoundingly defeated in both the UNSC and the UNGA. Orde Kittrie is a law professor at Arizona State University who served as a U.S. State Department attorney. Bruce Rashkow served as the U.S. State Department's assistant legal adviser for UN affairs and as director of the UN Office of Legal Affairs' General Legal Division. 2023-08-28 00:00:00Full Article
The Pending Israel-Palestinian ICJ Advisory Opinion: Threats to Legal Principles and Security
(Lieber Institute-West Point) Orde Kittrie and Bruce Rashkow - The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is poised to eviscerate the longstanding legal framework for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which was established by UN Security Council resolutions and the Oslo Accords. It is the only framework for achieving peace that has been endorsed by Israel and all Arab League member states. Yet the ICJ - at the behest of the UN General Assembly - may soon advise that international law requires Israel to unilaterally and unconditionally withdraw from the disputed Palestinian territories. Unless the Western allies take robust action in this case, the ICJ could also undercut the inherent rights of states to self-defense and sovereignty, undermine the UNSC's authority to maintain international peace and security, and subvert the law of armed conflict (LOAC). International law does not prohibit an interim occupation, which results from a legal use of force in self-defense, pending resolution of the conflict. Neither the 1907 Hague Regulations nor the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention requires an occupier, whose occupation results from a legal use of force in self-defense, to withdraw before a peace treaty is signed. In 1967, the international community recognized the legality of Israel's preemptive action against Arab armies poised to attack. Draft resolutions condemning Israel's actions were resoundingly defeated in both the UNSC and the UNGA. Orde Kittrie is a law professor at Arizona State University who served as a U.S. State Department attorney. Bruce Rashkow served as the U.S. State Department's assistant legal adviser for UN affairs and as director of the UN Office of Legal Affairs' General Legal Division. 2023-08-28 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|