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
(Wall Street Journal) Daniel Z. Feldman - The mandate of the International Criminal Court is "the continuation of the Nuremberg trials," according to its first president, Philippe Kirsch. President Harry Truman credited the Nuremberg trials with "the blazing of a new trail in international justice" that "will be long remembered" for serving "faithfully and well the cause of civilization and world peace." The actions of today's ICC are the exact opposite and threaten to undo Nuremberg's legacy. The ICC's arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas military leader in Gaza, equate the attacker and defender in the context of war. This fallacy was itself highlighted at Nuremberg in the Einsatzgruppen Trial of the Nazis' paramilitary death squads. One defendant at that trial, a commander named Otto Ohlendorf, insisted that the murder, under his supervision, of tens of thousands of innocent Jews was no different from the death of civilians from Allied bombs. The judges rejected the argument: "A city is bombed for tactical purposes....It inevitably happens that nonmilitary persons are killed...an unavoidable corollary of battle action...that is entirely different, both in fact and in law, from an armed force...dragging out the men, women and children and shooting them." The Nazis committed their acts so that millions would die; the Allies killed the people they did so that millions more wouldn't die. The opposite purposes of the Nazis and the Allies are clear. Today, unaccountable terrorists - the new death squads - can massacre and kidnap babies, women and the elderly and hide behind innocents, and accountable governments are powerless to defend against such tactics without taking steps that inflict unwanted casualties. Legal strategies that erase the distinction between the two sides invert Nuremberg's accomplishment. It isn't just the legacy of Nuremberg that is at stake; it is the defense of civilization. The writer teaches Talmud, ethics and public policy at Yeshiva University. 2024-06-18 00:00:00Full Article
The International Criminal Court Betrays the Legacy of Nuremberg
(Wall Street Journal) Daniel Z. Feldman - The mandate of the International Criminal Court is "the continuation of the Nuremberg trials," according to its first president, Philippe Kirsch. President Harry Truman credited the Nuremberg trials with "the blazing of a new trail in international justice" that "will be long remembered" for serving "faithfully and well the cause of civilization and world peace." The actions of today's ICC are the exact opposite and threaten to undo Nuremberg's legacy. The ICC's arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas military leader in Gaza, equate the attacker and defender in the context of war. This fallacy was itself highlighted at Nuremberg in the Einsatzgruppen Trial of the Nazis' paramilitary death squads. One defendant at that trial, a commander named Otto Ohlendorf, insisted that the murder, under his supervision, of tens of thousands of innocent Jews was no different from the death of civilians from Allied bombs. The judges rejected the argument: "A city is bombed for tactical purposes....It inevitably happens that nonmilitary persons are killed...an unavoidable corollary of battle action...that is entirely different, both in fact and in law, from an armed force...dragging out the men, women and children and shooting them." The Nazis committed their acts so that millions would die; the Allies killed the people they did so that millions more wouldn't die. The opposite purposes of the Nazis and the Allies are clear. Today, unaccountable terrorists - the new death squads - can massacre and kidnap babies, women and the elderly and hide behind innocents, and accountable governments are powerless to defend against such tactics without taking steps that inflict unwanted casualties. Legal strategies that erase the distinction between the two sides invert Nuremberg's accomplishment. It isn't just the legacy of Nuremberg that is at stake; it is the defense of civilization. The writer teaches Talmud, ethics and public policy at Yeshiva University. 2024-06-18 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|