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
(Jerusalem Post) Amb. Alan Baker - The institution that describes itself as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) represents a motley bunch of predominantly non-democratic states that have taken the institution hostage. Its judges are merely political appointees acting upon instructions from their respective governments, presided over by a Lebanese judge with a record of hostile, anti-Israel political statements. The ICJ is nothing more than another biased and politically motivated UN body. It functions under the influence of a politically driven automatic majority of partisan states dictating their political will to the court and to the international community. The new non-binding advisory opinion issued by the court, according to which Israel is "obliged to bring an end to its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible," ignores the fact that both the Palestinian leadership and Israel are committed in the Oslo Accords to negotiate between them the permanent status of the territories. This is an internationally recognized commitment to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by negotiation, rather than by an imposed political diktat by a UN kangaroo court. Moreover, the court is deliberately ignoring Israel's long-recognized and legitimate historical and legal claims to the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. In fact, by attempting to prejudge and prejudice the outcome of any final-status negotiation, the international court is itself violating the international law requirement to resolve disputes by negotiation, as it absurdly gives credence to the fiction of a non-existing "state of Palestine." The writer, former legal adviser to Israel's foreign ministry, led the team preparing Israel's response to the previous Palestinian attempt to engage the ICJ, regarding Israel's security fence. He is Director of the Institute for Diplomatic Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.2024-07-23 00:00:00Full Article
The ICJ Generates the Fiction of Palestinian Statehood
(Jerusalem Post) Amb. Alan Baker - The institution that describes itself as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) represents a motley bunch of predominantly non-democratic states that have taken the institution hostage. Its judges are merely political appointees acting upon instructions from their respective governments, presided over by a Lebanese judge with a record of hostile, anti-Israel political statements. The ICJ is nothing more than another biased and politically motivated UN body. It functions under the influence of a politically driven automatic majority of partisan states dictating their political will to the court and to the international community. The new non-binding advisory opinion issued by the court, according to which Israel is "obliged to bring an end to its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible," ignores the fact that both the Palestinian leadership and Israel are committed in the Oslo Accords to negotiate between them the permanent status of the territories. This is an internationally recognized commitment to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by negotiation, rather than by an imposed political diktat by a UN kangaroo court. Moreover, the court is deliberately ignoring Israel's long-recognized and legitimate historical and legal claims to the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. In fact, by attempting to prejudge and prejudice the outcome of any final-status negotiation, the international court is itself violating the international law requirement to resolve disputes by negotiation, as it absurdly gives credence to the fiction of a non-existing "state of Palestine." The writer, former legal adviser to Israel's foreign ministry, led the team preparing Israel's response to the previous Palestinian attempt to engage the ICJ, regarding Israel's security fence. He is Director of the Institute for Diplomatic Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.2024-07-23 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|