IISS vs INSS: David vs Goliath – Part II
Last week, I began a series of comparative analyses between our hard-pressed IISS and the well-heeled INSS, highlighting the huge imbalance in the resources that we each have at our disposal to advance our respective agendas—see here for last week’s analysis.
But the difference is not only in the massive imbalance in resources but in the substance of the countervailing policy paradigms that each institute endorses. To help redress this imbalance click here to make a donation.
To illustrate this divergence, here are four issues (among numerous others) on which IISS and INSS differ sharply:
| INSS position | IISS position |
| INSS heartily endorses Palestinian statehood | IISS strongly opposes Palestinian statehood |
| INSS endorses unilateral & a-priori surrender of any Israeli claims to sovereignty over virtually all of Judea-Samaria | IISS endorses unilateral extension of Israeli sovereignty over all of Judea Samaria |
| INSS endorses expending Israeli resources to “pav[e] the way toward an independent, prosperous and functioning Palestinian state“ | IISS endorses expending Israeli resources to provide non-belligerent Palestinian-Arabs a more secure and prosperous future in third party countries. |
| INSS endorses stifling & strangling Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria beyond security barrier | IISS endorses strengthening and stimulating Jewish communities throughout Judea Samaria |
Please help IISS expose the existential dangers in INSS’s perilous proposal for political appeasement of Israel’s adversaries and territorial retreat from Israel’s ancient homeland.
To be continued…
For a more detailed critique of the INSS’s plan –see for example here and here.
Click HERE to make your donation
