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
(Telegraph-UK) Nigel Biggar - The widely broadcast pro-Palestinian protests in the U.S. have inspired some Oxford students to pitch their tents outside the Pitt Rivers Museum, decrying Oxford University's historic complicity in the British Empire's "disastrous colonial legacies" in Palestine. It remains dismaying that 301 Oxford academics and staff have signed an online letter declaring their support of the students' demand that the university disinvest from "Israel's genocide in Gaza." The signatories represent a fraction of the 15,000 professors, research staff, and doctoral students at Oxford. Yet, what should still dismay is that highly educated grown-ups in one of the world's leading universities have got their history, ethics, and law so wrong. The simplistic postcolonial stereotype of "colonization" comprises the invasion and seizure of land from native peoples by rapacious settlers. But before 1914, the land in Palestine on which Zionists settled had been purchased from Arab landlords. Moreover, many of the settlers were refugees from murderous pogroms in Russia. In 1922 the League of Nations mandated Britain to administer Palestine, in order to build a new independent Arab state and a Jewish homeland out of the ruins of the irredeemable Ottoman Empire. After Britain unilaterally withdrew from Palestine in 1948, invading Arab armies attempted to crush the infant State of Israel in 1948-9. When Arab troops occupied Jerusalem, Jews were forced out, and about 900,000 more were driven from Arab countries. Thus, the actual history of Zionist settlement in Palestine cannot be squeezed into the simplistic postcolonial template of "colonization." As for ethics, the large-scale killing of civilians by itself doesn't amount to a violation of the laws of war. Most of the Anglophone West regards the war to defeat genocidal Nazism in 1939-45 as morally justified. Yet one estimate has it that British and American bombers killed over 350,000 non-combatants in Germany. Air raids over France killed 70,000 French civilians. When there are sufficiently compelling reasons for fighting - say, self-defense against a manifestly genocidal Hamas - those civilian casualties may be, tragically, justified. That's why the laws of war don't forbid the killing of non-combatants as such, but only their intentional and disproportionate killing. The writer is Professor Emeritus of Moral Theology at the University of Oxford. 2024-05-09 00:00:00Full Article
UK Protestors Can't Hide Their Ignorance
(Telegraph-UK) Nigel Biggar - The widely broadcast pro-Palestinian protests in the U.S. have inspired some Oxford students to pitch their tents outside the Pitt Rivers Museum, decrying Oxford University's historic complicity in the British Empire's "disastrous colonial legacies" in Palestine. It remains dismaying that 301 Oxford academics and staff have signed an online letter declaring their support of the students' demand that the university disinvest from "Israel's genocide in Gaza." The signatories represent a fraction of the 15,000 professors, research staff, and doctoral students at Oxford. Yet, what should still dismay is that highly educated grown-ups in one of the world's leading universities have got their history, ethics, and law so wrong. The simplistic postcolonial stereotype of "colonization" comprises the invasion and seizure of land from native peoples by rapacious settlers. But before 1914, the land in Palestine on which Zionists settled had been purchased from Arab landlords. Moreover, many of the settlers were refugees from murderous pogroms in Russia. In 1922 the League of Nations mandated Britain to administer Palestine, in order to build a new independent Arab state and a Jewish homeland out of the ruins of the irredeemable Ottoman Empire. After Britain unilaterally withdrew from Palestine in 1948, invading Arab armies attempted to crush the infant State of Israel in 1948-9. When Arab troops occupied Jerusalem, Jews were forced out, and about 900,000 more were driven from Arab countries. Thus, the actual history of Zionist settlement in Palestine cannot be squeezed into the simplistic postcolonial template of "colonization." As for ethics, the large-scale killing of civilians by itself doesn't amount to a violation of the laws of war. Most of the Anglophone West regards the war to defeat genocidal Nazism in 1939-45 as morally justified. Yet one estimate has it that British and American bombers killed over 350,000 non-combatants in Germany. Air raids over France killed 70,000 French civilians. When there are sufficiently compelling reasons for fighting - say, self-defense against a manifestly genocidal Hamas - those civilian casualties may be, tragically, justified. That's why the laws of war don't forbid the killing of non-combatants as such, but only their intentional and disproportionate killing. The writer is Professor Emeritus of Moral Theology at the University of Oxford. 2024-05-09 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|