Additional Resources
Top Commentators:
- Elliott Abrams
- Fouad Ajami
- Shlomo Avineri
- Benny Avni
- Alan Dershowitz
- Jackson Diehl
- Dore Gold
- Daniel Gordis
- Tom Gross
- Jonathan Halevy
- David Ignatius
- Pinchas Inbari
- Jeff Jacoby
- Efraim Karsh
- Mordechai Kedar
- Charles Krauthammer
- Emily Landau
- David Makovsky
- Aaron David Miller
- Benny Morris
- Jacques Neriah
- Marty Peretz
- Melanie Phillips
- Daniel Pipes
- Harold Rhode
- Gary Rosenblatt
- Jennifer Rubin
- David Schenkar
- Shimon Shapira
- Jonathan Spyer
- Gerald Steinberg
- Bret Stephens
- Amir Taheri
- Josh Teitelbaum
- Khaled Abu Toameh
- Jonathan Tobin
- Michael Totten
- Michael Young
- Mort Zuckerman
Think Tanks:
- American Enterprise Institute
- Brookings Institution
- Center for Security Policy
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Heritage Foundation
- Hudson Institute
- Institute for Contemporary Affairs
- Institute for Counter-Terrorism
- Institute for Global Jewish Affairs
- Institute for National Security Studies
- Institute for Science and Intl. Security
- Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
- Investigative Project
- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
- RAND Corporation
- Saban Center for Middle East Policy
- Shalem Center
- Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Media:
- CAMERA
- Daily Alert
- Jewish Political Studies Review
- MEMRI
- NGO Monitor
- Palestinian Media Watch
- The Israel Project
- YouTube
Government:
Back
(FrontPageMagazine) Daniel Pipes - Bush's Oct. 6 speech transforms the official American understanding of who the enemy is, moving it from the superficial and inadequate notion of "terrorism" to the far deeper concept of "Islamic radicalism." This change has potentially enduring importance if it convinces polite society to name the enemy. Doing so means, for example, that immigration and law enforcement authorities can take Islam into account when deciding whom to let enter the country or whom to investigate for terrorism offences. Focusing on Muslims as the exclusive source of Islamists permits them finally to do their job adequately. Yet Bush's speech is far from perfect. While he limits the "radical Islamic empire" (or caliphate) to just the Spain-to-Indonesia region, Islamists have a global vision that requires control over non-Muslim countries too - and specifically the United States. Their universal ambitions certainly can be stopped, but first they must be understood and resisted. Americans must realize that the Islamists intend to replace the U.S. Constitution with Shari'a (Islamic law). The writer is director of the Middle East Forum. 2005-10-12 00:00:00Full Article
Bush Declares War on Radical Islam
(FrontPageMagazine) Daniel Pipes - Bush's Oct. 6 speech transforms the official American understanding of who the enemy is, moving it from the superficial and inadequate notion of "terrorism" to the far deeper concept of "Islamic radicalism." This change has potentially enduring importance if it convinces polite society to name the enemy. Doing so means, for example, that immigration and law enforcement authorities can take Islam into account when deciding whom to let enter the country or whom to investigate for terrorism offences. Focusing on Muslims as the exclusive source of Islamists permits them finally to do their job adequately. Yet Bush's speech is far from perfect. While he limits the "radical Islamic empire" (or caliphate) to just the Spain-to-Indonesia region, Islamists have a global vision that requires control over non-Muslim countries too - and specifically the United States. Their universal ambitions certainly can be stopped, but first they must be understood and resisted. Americans must realize that the Islamists intend to replace the U.S. Constitution with Shari'a (Islamic law). The writer is director of the Middle East Forum. 2005-10-12 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|