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
(Israel Hayom) Brig.-Gen. (res.) Jacob Nagel - It seems that the discourse regarding a narrow defense pact between the U.S. and Israel has lost momentum, mainly due to a lack of American (White House) motivation to promote an alliance at this time, which is a very good thing. The drawbacks of such an alliance far outweigh the advantages. Riyadh's main demands for an agreement with the U.S. are security guarantees, based on a defense agreement along the lines of the Asian model, mainly against Iranian aggression; advanced weaponry deals; a free trade zone, and more. These are demands that Israel can accept, assuming its qualitative military edge (QME) is maintained. On the other hand, the demand for a full nuclear fuel cycle capability on Saudi soil is problematic. While the Saudis are ready for any supervision and control measures imposed by the U.S. and the International Atomic Energy Agency to prevent a future shift to a military program, I recommend continuing the approach of not rolling the dice when it comes to nuclear capabilities. We should ignore irresponsible reports saying Israel is developing "hidden capabilities" that in the future will prevent Saudi Arabia from shifting to a military nuclear program. There is no way of knowing how things unfold. If Israel's rejection of allowing enrichment means the derailment of normalization deals, so be it. Israel should not give in; this is essential. Accepting the Saudi nuclear demands will of course serve as a basis for demands by other countries in the region such as Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Turkey. Israel should remind the world that the Iranians have violated every treaty and agreement that they have signed. Despite this, the recent understandings struck with Tehran (which the Americans deny) grant the regime permission to continue to enrich to 60% purity, which constitutes about 98% of the required path for full military enrichment level. The writer is a former Israeli national security adviser and head of Israel's National Security Council. 2023-09-28 00:00:00Full Article
Israel Must Not Roll the Dice When It Comes to Nuclear Threats
(Israel Hayom) Brig.-Gen. (res.) Jacob Nagel - It seems that the discourse regarding a narrow defense pact between the U.S. and Israel has lost momentum, mainly due to a lack of American (White House) motivation to promote an alliance at this time, which is a very good thing. The drawbacks of such an alliance far outweigh the advantages. Riyadh's main demands for an agreement with the U.S. are security guarantees, based on a defense agreement along the lines of the Asian model, mainly against Iranian aggression; advanced weaponry deals; a free trade zone, and more. These are demands that Israel can accept, assuming its qualitative military edge (QME) is maintained. On the other hand, the demand for a full nuclear fuel cycle capability on Saudi soil is problematic. While the Saudis are ready for any supervision and control measures imposed by the U.S. and the International Atomic Energy Agency to prevent a future shift to a military program, I recommend continuing the approach of not rolling the dice when it comes to nuclear capabilities. We should ignore irresponsible reports saying Israel is developing "hidden capabilities" that in the future will prevent Saudi Arabia from shifting to a military nuclear program. There is no way of knowing how things unfold. If Israel's rejection of allowing enrichment means the derailment of normalization deals, so be it. Israel should not give in; this is essential. Accepting the Saudi nuclear demands will of course serve as a basis for demands by other countries in the region such as Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Turkey. Israel should remind the world that the Iranians have violated every treaty and agreement that they have signed. Despite this, the recent understandings struck with Tehran (which the Americans deny) grant the regime permission to continue to enrich to 60% purity, which constitutes about 98% of the required path for full military enrichment level. The writer is a former Israeli national security adviser and head of Israel's National Security Council. 2023-09-28 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|