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
[Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies-Shalem Center] Martin Kramer - There is a large industry out there whose sole purpose is the systematic downplaying of the risks posed by radical Islam. In the best American tradition, these risks are repackaged as opportunities. Engagement sounds low-risk - after all, there's no harm in talking, right? Worried about Ahmadinejad? He doesn't really call the shots in Iran. Pay no attention to the old slogans of "death to America," because that's not the real Iran. Worried about the Palestinian Hamas? They are basically a protest movement against corruption. Troubled by Hizbullah? All their talk about "onwards to Jerusalem" is rhetoric for domestic consumption. We are told that the demands of Hamas, Hizbullah or Iran are finite. If we give them a concession here, or a foothold there, we will somehow diminish their demand for more. But if their purpose is the reversal of history, to restore the vast power exercised in the past when Islam dominated the world, then our gestures of accommodation only persuade them to press on. In the Middle East, the idea that "there's no harm in talking" is entirely incomprehensible. It matters whom you talk to, because you legitimize your interlocutors. Hence the Arab refusal to normalize relations with Israel. An Arab head of state will never directly engage Israel before extracting every concession. Only an American would think of doing this at the outset, and in return for nothing. There is harm in talking, if your talking legitimates your enemies, and persuades them and those on the sidelines that you have done so from weakness. 2008-11-27 01:00:00Full Article
Beware of Engagement
[Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies-Shalem Center] Martin Kramer - There is a large industry out there whose sole purpose is the systematic downplaying of the risks posed by radical Islam. In the best American tradition, these risks are repackaged as opportunities. Engagement sounds low-risk - after all, there's no harm in talking, right? Worried about Ahmadinejad? He doesn't really call the shots in Iran. Pay no attention to the old slogans of "death to America," because that's not the real Iran. Worried about the Palestinian Hamas? They are basically a protest movement against corruption. Troubled by Hizbullah? All their talk about "onwards to Jerusalem" is rhetoric for domestic consumption. We are told that the demands of Hamas, Hizbullah or Iran are finite. If we give them a concession here, or a foothold there, we will somehow diminish their demand for more. But if their purpose is the reversal of history, to restore the vast power exercised in the past when Islam dominated the world, then our gestures of accommodation only persuade them to press on. In the Middle East, the idea that "there's no harm in talking" is entirely incomprehensible. It matters whom you talk to, because you legitimize your interlocutors. Hence the Arab refusal to normalize relations with Israel. An Arab head of state will never directly engage Israel before extracting every concession. Only an American would think of doing this at the outset, and in return for nothing. There is harm in talking, if your talking legitimates your enemies, and persuades them and those on the sidelines that you have done so from weakness. 2008-11-27 01:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|