The U.S. is capable of bringing Iran’s nuclear program to a halt – it simply is choosing not to do so.
The steps suggested by Israel and other critics to improve the efficacy of the nuclear deal with Iran will have little effect. The deal is basically dangerous in nature, and needs to be rejected outright.
The Obama administration seems not to understand the current power configuration in the Middle-East and the dangers of the growing Islamist movement.
Last week’s failed ceasefire proposal by John Kerry highlights the clash between the Obama administration’s approach to the Middle East, and the strategy preferred by Israel and other American allies in the region.
The developing international consensus to offer Gaza economic aid in exchange for a ceasefire is a moral and strategic mistake.
Palestinian demands to divide Jerusalem are unreasonable and it is time for U.S. and the international community to recognise this
A collapse in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks will not lead to an international boycott of Israel. Jerusalem’s robust trade relations with many countries will not freeze over an impasse in negotiations.
Israel must resist pressure and retain the Jordan Valley, its only available defensible border to the east, in a future peace deal. Israel must also build in Area E-1, which would link the valley to an undivided Jerusalem.
Mahmoud Abbas views recognition of Israel as the Jewish state as a red line. It is high time the Palestinians recognize the Jewish people’s right to their ancient homeland.
The interim accord reached in Geneva regarding Iran’s nuclear program is a bad deal that enshrines Iran’s status as a nuclear threshold state and paves Tehran’s path towards a nuclear bomb.
Moderate leaders warn that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may turn from a national conflict into a religious one. Right-wing leaders claim it has been a religious conflict from the start. Both approaches have been applied to the Temple Mount crisis, and both are affected by a totalist perception of the understanding of the religious imperative.
The concept of “settler colonialism” has been applied with almost unique vehemence against Israel. But the fact that Jews are the indigenous population of the Southern Levant can be proved with ease. In contrast, historical and genealogical evidence shows Palestinians descend primarily from three primary groups: Muslim invaders, Arab immigrants, and local converts to Islam. The Muslim conquest of Byzantine Palestine in the 7th century CE is a textbook example of settler-colonialism, as is subsequent immigration, particularly during the 19th and 20th centuries under the Ottoman and British Empires. The application of the concept to Jews and Zionism by Palestinians is both ironic and unhelpful.
North Korea’s nuclearization has implications for Israel’s nuclear deterrence posture. There are several plausible means by which a nuclear conflict could arise in the Middle East. It may be time to consider a phase-out of Israel’s “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” and to focus Israeli planning around evaluations of enemy rationality.
Former PM Ehud Barak’s arguments in favor of withdrawal from Judea and Samaria undercut Israel’s security and are a departure from the Oslo Accords’ security vision. Israel would be wise to present President Trump with actual facts on this issue.
Many American detractors of Israel begin by citing that Israel receives the lion’s share of US military aid. The very suggestion conjures the demon of an all-powerful Israel lobby that has turned the US Congress into its pawn. But these figures, while reflecting official direct US military aid, are almost meaningless in comparison to the real costs and benefits of US military aid – above all, American boots on the ground. In reality, Israel receives only a small fraction of American military aid, and most of that was spent in the US to the benefit of the American economy.
The Oslo diplomatic process is the starkest strategic blunder in Israel’s history and one of the worst calamities ever to have afflicted Israelis and Palestinians. Twenty three years after its euphoric launch on the White House lawn, the Oslo ‘peace process’ has substantially worsened the position of both parties, and made the prospects for peace and reconciliation ever more remote.
