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
(Telegraph-UK) Jonathan Sacerdoti - Some 36 out of more than 300 members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews published a letter in the Financial Times on Wednesday rebuking Israel's military response to the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas. The Jewish religion and culture values disagreement. But the letter marks a deeply regrettable moment because it presents personal ideology as communal leadership. It is entirely legitimate for Jews and anyone in the world to criticize Israeli policy, including during wartime. Jewish tradition has long prized argument, debate, and conscience. But it must not - particularly in times of war - blur the moral lines between those who defend life and those who seek its destruction. The signatories claim that "Jewish values" are on their side - that war is inherently at odds with Judaism, and that diplomacy alone offers a path forward. But this is a selective reading of our tradition. Jewish values embrace both compassion and realism. The Torah commands us to pursue peace, yes - but it also commands us to defend life, to confront evil, and to understand that in a world where enemies plot genocide, force is sometimes not only justified but required. Ecclesiastes teaches, "There is a time for war and a time for peace." The signatories would have us believe that Judaism demands surrender. It does not. Their central claim - that diplomacy alone, not military action, has saved hostages - is historically and logically flawed. Every negotiated release of hostages has taken place under the shadow of Israeli military pressure. Hamas has never released hostages out of goodwill; it has done so because it has feared the consequences of continued defiance. Diplomacy works when backed by credible strength. Without it, there is no leverage - only wishful thinking. The Israeli government did not "choose" to return to war, as if it were an option freely available. Rather, it resumed military action after Hamas repeatedly violated ceasefires, paraded hostages for propaganda, and rejected further disarmament proposals. Ignoring these facts is a refusal to deal with reality. The dilemmas faced by Israel's leaders are excruciating. Every option is dreadful. But to pretend that there is an easy, bloodless alternative is not an act of conscience. It is an abdication of solidarity. In a time of war, clarity - about who we are, what we believe, and whom we stand with - is not just necessary. It is an obligation.2025-04-20 00:00:00Full Article
Judaism Commands Us to Pursue Peace, but also to Confront Evil
(Telegraph-UK) Jonathan Sacerdoti - Some 36 out of more than 300 members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews published a letter in the Financial Times on Wednesday rebuking Israel's military response to the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas. The Jewish religion and culture values disagreement. But the letter marks a deeply regrettable moment because it presents personal ideology as communal leadership. It is entirely legitimate for Jews and anyone in the world to criticize Israeli policy, including during wartime. Jewish tradition has long prized argument, debate, and conscience. But it must not - particularly in times of war - blur the moral lines between those who defend life and those who seek its destruction. The signatories claim that "Jewish values" are on their side - that war is inherently at odds with Judaism, and that diplomacy alone offers a path forward. But this is a selective reading of our tradition. Jewish values embrace both compassion and realism. The Torah commands us to pursue peace, yes - but it also commands us to defend life, to confront evil, and to understand that in a world where enemies plot genocide, force is sometimes not only justified but required. Ecclesiastes teaches, "There is a time for war and a time for peace." The signatories would have us believe that Judaism demands surrender. It does not. Their central claim - that diplomacy alone, not military action, has saved hostages - is historically and logically flawed. Every negotiated release of hostages has taken place under the shadow of Israeli military pressure. Hamas has never released hostages out of goodwill; it has done so because it has feared the consequences of continued defiance. Diplomacy works when backed by credible strength. Without it, there is no leverage - only wishful thinking. The Israeli government did not "choose" to return to war, as if it were an option freely available. Rather, it resumed military action after Hamas repeatedly violated ceasefires, paraded hostages for propaganda, and rejected further disarmament proposals. Ignoring these facts is a refusal to deal with reality. The dilemmas faced by Israel's leaders are excruciating. Every option is dreadful. But to pretend that there is an easy, bloodless alternative is not an act of conscience. It is an abdication of solidarity. In a time of war, clarity - about who we are, what we believe, and whom we stand with - is not just necessary. It is an obligation.2025-04-20 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|