International news organizations covering the Arab-Israeli conflict frequently refer to international agreements and resolutions in ways that are prejudiced against Israel’s legal rights and claims. Frequent references to Israel’s legal obligation to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders are inconsistent with UN Security Council Resolution 242 and the Oslo Accords.
Beyond the Iraqi missile threat to Israel in the 1990s, missile threats to Israel have emerged from Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Libya. Yet many of the New Middle East missile powers are determined to project their power toward Europe. Missile suppliers in the Middle East include North Korea, China, and Russian and Indian companies.
Syria remains one of the worst state-sponsors of international terrorism, providing a haven for leaders of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas. Syria sponsors Hizballah in Lebanon, an international terrorist organization with a global reach that, before 9/11, had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group.
The second Camp David summit (July 2000) was the culmination of nearly ten years of political dialogue between Israel and the representatives of the Palestinian people, and of almost six years of interim agreements since the mutual recognition of Israel and the PLO. Yet Camp David II did not result in the conclusion of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement to end the protracted conflict between the Palestinian national movement and the Jewish national (Zionist) movement.
Many television viewers were surprised when U.S. Senator Bob Graham declared on "Meet the Press" on July 7 that there are "more urgent" priorities facing the United States than dealing with Saddam Hussein.
Vol. 1, No. 18 February 6, 2002 Both Iraq and Iran would have a difficult time projecting their influence in the Arab-Israeli sector of the Middle East, if Yasser Arafat was not seeking to draw them into his conflict with Israel and, thereby, jeopardize regional stability. Speaking to his Knesset faction on February 4, […]
Three times in recent decades the United States has approached Arab countries to join broad coalitions in support of military objectives: ousting the Soviet Union from Afghanistan in the 1980s, ousting Iraq from Kuwait in 1991, and the current war on terrorism. In each case, efforts to garner Arab support created tensions with the U.S. commitment to maintain Israel’s “qualitative military edge” against all potential adversaries. Proposed sales in 2001 of AGM-84 Harpoon “Block II” missiles and MLRS rocket systems to Egypt indicate that once again there is a danger that a fundamental strategic principle may be sacrificed for ephemeral diplomatic gains.
Confronting bin Laden’s rallying cry of "good" and "bad" terrorism lies at the heart of any battle to defeat terrorism. This now entails the courage to address directly the terrorists’ and their state sponsors’ rhetorical weapon of choice, the accusation of racism. In fact, their claim inverts the very heart of a civil libertarian agenda, since it is closely associated with a deep-rooted antisemitism.
Ironically, the post-September 11 international environment has not reduced Syria’s traditional support of international terrorism, but rather led Damascus to follow a dangerously escalatory policy.
In the midst of an already crumbling cease-fire, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell dropped what to Israeli ears was a bombshell. Standing next to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat after their June 2001 meeting in Ramallah, Powell said, "I think as we get into the confidence-building phase there will be a need for monitors and observers to…make an independent observation of what has happened."
The wave of Palestinian violence and terrorism that began at the end of September 2000 led to a widespread tendency to focus exclusively on Israeli-Palestinian political and security relationships. This narrow concentration of attention is potentially misleading and obscures the fundamental security threats that Israel is facing at the beginning of the twenty-first century.
At present, there are no substantive Arab-Israeli peace negotiations underway. Israel has had to contend with the ongoing armed offensive launched by the Palestinians in late September 2000 after the failure of the Camp David summit.
Learn More Why International Peacekeepers Cannot Replace the IDF Amb. Dore Gold Kerry and the Struggle Over the Jordan Valley Amb. Dore Gold No Reliance on Foreign Forces Minister Yuval Steinitz The Risks of Foreign Peacekeeping Forces in the West Bank Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror Who Will Keep the Peace? Avinoam Sharon, Michelle Morrison […]
A critical issue in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is the future of the Jordan Valley. Watch this video to learn why Israel cannot withdraw from the area and rely on international forces. “We don’t want to see rockets and missiles streaming into a Palestinian state and placed on the hills above Tel Aviv and the hills encircling […]
Over the last two decades, the reliance on separate negotiating tracks in the Arab-Israeli peace process has resulted in a cumulative loss of territories vital for the defense of Israel’s very existence, without any corresponding buildup of peace and security for Israel that could last for generations.
