Three years ago, ARI hosted a symposium in Washington D.C. to explore American foreign policy in the Middle East in the decade after September 11. What have we learned since then? How should we evaluate America's policy in that volatile region? What lies ahead for U.S. relations with Israel and with a likely soon-to-be nuclear Iran? The 2011 event featured three panel discussions, with noted commentators and scholars presenting a range of viewpoints.
By one reckoning, the cease-fire deal between Hamas and Israel might seem like an even stalemate. But in fact it’s lopsided in Hamas’s favor. Leaving aside the Israeli concession of easing the import of aid and materials for reconstruction, the fact that Hamas continues to exist as an organization ruling Gaza is an undeserved win.
What kind of foreign policy should Republican presidential hopefuls advocate? Angelo Codevilla’s shrewd answer: something other than the prevailing establishment view, practiced during the 20th century. While I differ from some points in his analysis, the thrust of his article illustrates some important weaknesses of Republican administrations.
In the past Arab regimes would pounce to vilify Israel’s efforts at defending itself from Palestinian aggression, but curiously, many have been quiet amid the Gaza war. One explanation, sketched in this New York Times piece is that the Arab states view the Islamists of Hamas (whose patron is Iran) as a major problem, a higher priority than their (unwarranted) enmity toward Israel. If so, that implies these regimes understand the Islamist threat better than many in the West.
In his regular podcast, Leonard Peikoff addresses questions on how Objectivism applies to your everyday life, and on alternating weeks Yaron Brook sits in as the guest host addressing questions on how Objectivism applies to politics, economics and current events. This week Yaron took on the Hamas-Israel War.
Steve Simpson interviews Elan Journo on the Hamas-Israel War. Points covered, among others: the cause of the war, the cycle-of-violence myth, the nature of Israel’s enemies, the goals of Hamas, how to judge a country, and the conflict between the “laws of war” and self-defense.
I’ve argued that Israel’s goal in the Gaza war should be to eliminate the threat from Hamas (and allied Islamist groups). That means defeating the enemy, by uprooting its infrastructure and leadership, in order to make the Islamist cause of Hamas and its allies unrealizable (a point I make at length in my book). Difficult though that may be, it is a necessary goal.
After years of terror — and thousands of rocket attacks — Israel is now waging a war of self-defense. But that war is, unfortunately, being undermined by the so-called international laws of war. So argues ARI fellow and director of policy research Elan Journo on Breitbart.com.
