It is always difficult to believe that any thinking friend of Israel, let alone a prominent Israeli academic strategist, could find something positive in Israeli territorial surrenders and associated capitulations.
Looking back over the original recommendations of Project Daniel, The Group concerned itself with, inter alia, the need for an expanded policy of preemption; an ongoing re-evaluation of "nuclear ambiguity";
The Project Daniel Group strongly endorsed the prime minister's acceptance of a broad concept of defensive first strikes, but just as strongly advised against using his undisclosed nuclear arsenal for anything but essential deterrence.
In our age of Total War, Israel must always remain fully aware of those harms that would threaten its very continuance as a state.
Project Daniel examined some of the precise ways in which a nuclear war might actually begin between Israel and its enemies.
Israel remains the openly declared national and religious object of Arab/Islamic genocide.
The views expressed in these six columns are those of Professor Louis René Beres, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of any other members of Project Daniel, or of any government.
For many years, any talk of preemption against a nuclearizing Iran was certain to elicit primarily harsh and uniform condemnation.
Smugly and shamelessly, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert gives freedom to terrorists in exchange for slain Jews.
The Still Unrecognized And Enduring Power Of 'Weakness'
By now, Eliot Spitzer is no longer on the front pages, but America's recent fascination with the former New York governor and high-end prostitution did reveal a great deal.
Ten years ago, Professor Beres - following publication of his memoir in The New York Times − was invited by Swiss Ambassador Thomas Borer to present personal testimony before the specially constituted Swiss Commission on World War II.
Ten years ago, Professor Beres - following publication of his memoir in The New York Times− was invited by Swiss Ambassador Thomas Borer to present personal testimony before the specially constituted Swiss Commission on World War II. Here, now, is that testimony - still a poignant reminder of yet other critical aspects of the Holocaust.
Recent testimony before Congress revealed − incontestably − Syria's secret preparations for membership in the Nuclear Club.
There is currently no place on earth called "Palestine" - certainly not in any meaningful legal or diplomatic sense.
We have seen that, among several other essential purposes, Israel could conceivably need nuclear weapons for nuclear war fighting.
We have seen that, among other purposes, Israel needs nuclear weapons to undertake and/or to support various forms of preemption.
We have seen (in last week's list of reasons, numbers 1 and 2) that Israel needs nuclear weapons, among other purposes, to deter large conventional attacks and all levels of unconventional attack by enemy states.
According to a May 1, 2008 article by Aaron Klein in WorldNetDaily, Joseph Cirincione, director of nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress, and an adviser on nuclear issues to Senator Barack Obama, has essentially urged Israel to give up its nuclear weapons.
Senator Barak Obama has displayed basic intelligence and understanding on many complex policy issues, and his "debate promises" in support of Israel were forthright and plausibly meaningful.
Every four years America looks to a new president as a source of real hope. And every four years the code word of each yelling aspirant is "change."
Horace was born in 65 BCE, and died in 8 BCE. His ode (I, 14) on the "Ship of State" pertains to ancient Rome, but it might just as well refer to Israel after "Palestine".
Protecting Israel from terrorism is, at least in part, an intellectual task. Let us, therefore, now think very deliberately about terrorism.
Over the years, regular readers of my column in The Jewish Press may have noticed a continuing regard for the concept of time.
Pain can sometimes be sanitized by language, but it can never be truly anesthetized.