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
[Henry Jackson Society] Eran Benedek - Many assume that UN Resolutions 242 and 338 call for a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-Six-Day-War lines (the lines of June 4, 1967) and establish the principle of land-for-peace to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Both assumptions are incorrect. The essence of Resolution 242 is that Israel is allowed to remain in the territories it captured in 1967 until such a time as "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved. The authors of the resolution emphasized time and again that Israel was not required to retreat to the pre-war lines. Indeed, the authors of the resolution fully recognized that Israel needed to establish defensible borders because the pre-war lines were indefensible and invited attack. Resolution 242 defined three principles regarding the territorial component of the peacemaking process: 1. Israel is allowed to administer the territories it captured until the Arab states make peace. 2. Peace agreements reached between Israel and the Arab states should demarcate "secure and recognized boundaries." 3. Israel's future boundaries would necessarily be different from the 1949 armistice lines and the lines of June 4, 1967, which are essentially the same. 2007-09-12 01:00:00Full Article
UN Resolution 242 (Land for Peace): Setting the Record Straight
[Henry Jackson Society] Eran Benedek - Many assume that UN Resolutions 242 and 338 call for a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-Six-Day-War lines (the lines of June 4, 1967) and establish the principle of land-for-peace to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Both assumptions are incorrect. The essence of Resolution 242 is that Israel is allowed to remain in the territories it captured in 1967 until such a time as "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved. The authors of the resolution emphasized time and again that Israel was not required to retreat to the pre-war lines. Indeed, the authors of the resolution fully recognized that Israel needed to establish defensible borders because the pre-war lines were indefensible and invited attack. Resolution 242 defined three principles regarding the territorial component of the peacemaking process: 1. Israel is allowed to administer the territories it captured until the Arab states make peace. 2. Peace agreements reached between Israel and the Arab states should demarcate "secure and recognized boundaries." 3. Israel's future boundaries would necessarily be different from the 1949 armistice lines and the lines of June 4, 1967, which are essentially the same. 2007-09-12 01:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|