Home
Archives
Jerusalem Center Homepage
View the current issue
Jerusalem Center Videos
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
(Council on Foreign Relations) Elliott Abrams - On July 19, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered an advisory opinion on "the policies and practices of Israel" in the territories and Jerusalem. An insight into the minds and prejudices of the judges can quickly be gained by looking at their description of Israel's War of Independence when "an armed conflict broke out between Israel and a number of Arab states." "In October 1973, another armed conflict broke out between Egypt, Syria and Israel." In its language, the Court avoided any reference to Arab aggression - that Arab states attacked Israel in 1948 to snuff out the Jewish state as soon as it was born, or that in 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel. Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel and the center of Jewish religious devotion for thousands of years. When the Court refers to eastern Jerusalem as Occupied Palestinian Territory, it is saying that, unlike any other country, Israel has no right to "settle" in its own capital, Jews have no right to live in many parts of it, and they must leave. According to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, "applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation" is antisemitic. The Court's desire to protect Palestinians is not - of course - matched by concern about Muslims in Xinjiang or Buddhists in Tibet. Moreover, the Court refers to the "right to an independent and sovereign state" of the Palestinian people. Do Tibetans not have that right? The people of Xinjiang? Berbers? Basques? Catalans? The politics and prejudices of the judges permeate this ICJ action and render it illegitimate. The State of Israel and the U.S. should pay it no heed. The writer, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, served as deputy national security advisor, where he supervised U.S. policy in the Middle East for the White House. 2024-07-23 00:00:00Full Article
Injustice, Israel, and the International Court of Justice
(Council on Foreign Relations) Elliott Abrams - On July 19, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered an advisory opinion on "the policies and practices of Israel" in the territories and Jerusalem. An insight into the minds and prejudices of the judges can quickly be gained by looking at their description of Israel's War of Independence when "an armed conflict broke out between Israel and a number of Arab states." "In October 1973, another armed conflict broke out between Egypt, Syria and Israel." In its language, the Court avoided any reference to Arab aggression - that Arab states attacked Israel in 1948 to snuff out the Jewish state as soon as it was born, or that in 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel. Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel and the center of Jewish religious devotion for thousands of years. When the Court refers to eastern Jerusalem as Occupied Palestinian Territory, it is saying that, unlike any other country, Israel has no right to "settle" in its own capital, Jews have no right to live in many parts of it, and they must leave. According to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, "applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation" is antisemitic. The Court's desire to protect Palestinians is not - of course - matched by concern about Muslims in Xinjiang or Buddhists in Tibet. Moreover, the Court refers to the "right to an independent and sovereign state" of the Palestinian people. Do Tibetans not have that right? The people of Xinjiang? Berbers? Basques? Catalans? The politics and prejudices of the judges permeate this ICJ action and render it illegitimate. The State of Israel and the U.S. should pay it no heed. The writer, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, served as deputy national security advisor, where he supervised U.S. policy in the Middle East for the White House. 2024-07-23 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
|
Search:
|