"Circumstances do not call for passivity, for doing nothing. They do call for sober consideration of diplomatic reality; the peace process cannot afford another failure.... Moreover, American diplomatic capital is a finite resource and should not be risked unless the prospects of success are significant."

"Israel's national security stands on three pillars — the resolve of its people, the strength of the IDF and the US-Israeli relationship. Those who endanger any of these pillars, even if well-intentioned, endanger Israel's security. If pluralism in thought and organizational structure has enriched American-Jewish life internally, the unity in support for Israel was always the basis of the strength of the US-Israeli relationship."

"...[D]id Israel have to respond to the UN decision by reviving long moribund settlement plans in Ma'ale Adumim and Jerusalem, that it will probably not implement any way and whose sole practical import is to infuriate the entire world, including the US and Europe? Were there no other options, or have we too become more interested in form than substance? Do we truly wish to cut off funding to the PA and undermine the security cooperation which has significantly contributed to the near total absence of terrorism from the West Bank in recent years?"

"Although the unusual public nature and stridency of the debate struck many around the world, it is still hard for those abroad to understand how great the effect on the Israeli public has been. The Iranian nuclear programme had been the one consensual issue in an otherwise politically frenetic and deeply divided country and was dealt with, so the public believed, in a manner appropriate to the severity of the threat."

"The United States too cannot afford a further blow to its regional status. One aspect of American power is the perception that it can force the sides to reach agreement — and succeed in brokering a deal. Another aborted attempt would merely reinforce the Arab image of the U.S. as a weak, declining power, making it that much harder for the U.S. to play an effective role when the time is right."

"Some believe that President Obama should make use of his second term to renew efforts to promote the peace process, as have all of his predecessors. Honorable sentiments aside, he should not, at least not now; the last thing Israelis and Palestinians need is another failed peace initiative. Both already despair of the prospects of peace, and the last thing the US needs is to squander its political capital in the Middle East once again."

In Zion's Dilemmas, a former deputy national security adviser to the State of Israel details the history and, in many cases, the chronic inadequacies in the making of Israeli national security policy. The author uses his insider understanding and substantial archival and interview research to describe how Israel has made strategic decisions and to present a first of its kind model of national security decision-making in Israel. The book concludes with cogent and timely recommendations for reform.

"The entire Israeli national security establishment, at all levels, has been deeply engaged on this issue since the early '90s. Indeed, it is hard to think of any other issue in Israel in recent decades that has been the subject of such extensive and careful attention. Regardless of what one thinks of the ultimate decision, it will not be for lack of painstaking consideration of the options."

"China, a great power in the making, and Russia, a fading but nonetheless aspiring power, have repeatedly positioned themselves on 'the wrong side of history' in regard to the Iranian nuclear program, events in Syria, and more. Great power status confers not just prestige and influence, but also a need to share responsibility for international security and the 'global good.' With their uncaring pursuit of narrow national interests, neither is demonstrating a predilection to do so."

"The present study assesses the reasons for Israel's repeated policy failures in Lebanon by comparing the decision making processes (DMPs) in the three most important cases above: the two wars and the unilateral withdrawal. Failure, of course, is both a relative and subjective term. Indeed, it can be argued that not all of these cases were unequivocal failures; the outcome of the 2006 war was not entirely negative from Israel's perspective and the alternative in 2000, such as remaining in Lebanon, might have been worse. Thus, failure, for the purposes of this study, refers not to the quality of the outcomes, but to Israel's ability to achieve the objectives set out by its leaders."