To many Americans, the spate of random stabbings and car-ramming attacks in Israel, often carried out by young Palestinians, seems unfathomable. One significant reason such attacks are hard to understand is that a lot of Americans assume that basically everyone everywhere wants the same things: a good life for themselves, a bright future for their children. But that life-affirming orientation is far from universal. Yet that assumption has shaped the common view of the Palestinian cause. The result: it subverts our ability to understand what animates that cause.
When the Iran nuclear deal was signed last summer, the Obama administration celebrated it as a diplomatic triumph. Many supporters of the accord endorsed it on the grounds that it could delay Iran’s nuclear program. At the time I argued in The Federalist that the case for the deal hinged in large part on willfully disregarding Tehran’s malignant ideological character and goals. A militant theocracy, the Iranian regime actively funds jihadist groups and calls for our destruction.
Ten years ago last week, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published twelve cartoons related to Islam. The aim was to gauge a seemingly growing climate of self-censorship in Europe. The ensuing crisis went global.
In this talk, Onkar Ghate, Senior Fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, argues that the assassination of the journalists at Charlie Hebdo is an ominous event. It revealed the price of the West’s ongoing appeasement of religion. This appeasement takes many forms, but all serve to embolden religionists and encourage further demands and attacks. Onkar argues that we need to talk with our fellow Americans about the right to deliberately ridicule religion, and offers some advice on how to do that in the face of religious attacks.
When Obama swept into office, on a tidal wave of Hope and the promise of Change, he vowed to reset America’s orientation to the world. Frankly, after eight years of George W. Bush’s destructive foreign policy, you can see why many people would heave a sigh of relief and welcome an ABB (Anything But Bush) commander-in-chief. From today’s vantage — and on the week marking 14 years since 9/11 — how should we judge Obama’s record? Can we judge Obama’s policy without weighing the Bush legacy? Is the Iran deal, as many believe, a crowning achievement? How, more broadly, should we evaluate Obama’s Middle East policy? These are some of the questions I’ll cover when I guest host The Yaron Brook Show this Saturday, September 12.
On the heels of the proposed nuclear deal with Iran, Elan Journo asks: “Why are seemingly sensible people cheering the Iran deal, given the regime’s notorious brutality and belligerence?”
Unless you visit a college campus regularly, chances are that this may be the first time you’ve heard of the so-called boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to pressure Israel to change its policies toward Palestinians.
In this interview, ARI’s Elan Journo assesses America’s deal with Iran. Among other things, he discusses the futility of trying to contain Iran’s nuclear program without addressing the broader threat of the Iranian regime, the need to recognize the ideological goals of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Obama administration’s false alternative between diplomacy and war.
A little more than a week ago, the Obama administration reached a historic agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran over its nuclear program. How should we evaluate this deal? ARI’s Elan Journo argues not only that this is a “bad deal,” but also that it’s irrational to negotiate with Iran. Why?
