What Israel Has Learned about Security:
Nine IDF Officers Discuss Israel’s Security Challenges
What Israel Has Learned about Securit
What Israel Has Learned about Securit
If you ask any Arab leader about the greatest threat, he will say Iran – not Israel – but not publicly.
The new situation emerging as a result makes the strategic logic of Israel retaining the Jordan Valley as its forward line of defense even more compelling, just as leading voices in the international community are unfortunately pressuring it to fully withdraw from the West Bank and accept the 1967 lines.
Download the report (pdf) More than sixty years after the admission to the United Nations of the State of Israel with no internationally recognized boundaries,2 a central question remains: what legal rights to territory does Israel have and, assuming such rights exist, how far do they reach, that is, what are Israel’s rightful borders? These […]
Comprehensive reports of issues confronting Israel and the Middle East.
By the time Saudi Arabia’s “Arab Peace Initiative” reached the Arab summit in Beirut in March 2002, it had been modified and its terms hardened.
Israeli-Syrian negotiations in 1999-2000 discussed security arrangements to compensate Israel for the loss of the Golan Heights. The idea was to guarantee that in case of war, IDF forces could quickly return to the place where they are currently stationed. This analysis demonstrates that Israel does not possess a plausible solution to its security needs without the Golan Heights. Not only was the “solution” proposed in the year 2000 implausible at the time, but changing circumstances have rendered Israel’s forfeiture of the Golan today an even more reckless act.
In Syria, the story is the emergence of social groups from the periphery and their struggle to gain access to power and take over the center. The emergence of the Baath party and the Assad dynasty in the 1960s involved a coalition of peripheral forces led by the Alawites, but many others joined who came from the periphery. Now, because of socioeconomic reasons, the periphery has turned against the regime.
The World Council of Churches, an umbrella organization for 349 Protestant and Orthodox churches founded in 1948, has expressed concern for the safety and wellbeing of the Jewish people but has largely been hostile to their state, particularly during times of conflict. At these times, WCC institutions demonize Israel, use a double standard to assess its actions, and in some instances delegitimize the Jewish state. They have also persistently denied the intent of Israel’s adversaries to deprive the Jewish people of their right to a sovereign state.
In short, the Palestinian issue has little in common with this new historical trend.
Israel’s deterrence was put to a severe test again with the outbreak of the First Palestinian Intifida that began in 1987. For the first time since 1948, the Palestinians took to the streets and fought Israel’s presence: The threshold of fear had been overcome.
Israel needs to prepare for the possibility that the UN Security Council will be asked to decide on the establishment of a Palestinian state along the 1967 lines.
Perspectives on Israel at war – from the War of Independence to the Gaza War of 2012 – from those writing at the time, the primary sources of history.
How do we resolve the dilemma of a peace agreement that includes handing over the Golan Heights to the Syrians, while facing the fact that Israel cannot be defended without the Golan Heights? The way around this was supposed to be a peace agreement with specific security arrangements. This approach was based on a number of misguided assumptions.
A ship that clearly intends to breach a lawful blockade may be stopped when it is still on the high seas.