Elan Journo explains the essential nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and what has fueled it for so long. What justice demands, he shows, is that we evaluate both adversaries according to a universal moral ideal: individual liberty.
Middle East & Israel
Middle Eastern young people are moving away from fundamentalism.
Iraq was never the fundamental issue; the Iran-led ascent of the Islamist movement was and still is.
Voice of Capitalism
Our weekly email newsletter.
We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe anytime.
We should recognize Israel’s fundamental nature as a free society, and lend it our moral endorsement so long as that remains a defining feature
Collectivist claims to land based on heredity or ancestral links often reflect a xenophobic, or worse, motivation: the desire to exclude “outsiders” precisely because they differ from your racial or tribal group.
The Palestinian movement is divided between would-be quasi-secular dictators and Islamist theocrats, and it exploits its own people, disposing of their lives as cheap.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is solvable, and we can secure American interests in the Middle East, but there’s no shortcut.
To view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as just a quarrel over one piece of land fails to recognize the fundamental nature of this conflict.
Iran attacks oil tankers and bombs Saudi Arabian oil facilities and Trump becomes the villain?
The actual injustice is that America has sold out the region’s only free society, Israel—along with freedom-seeking people across the Middle East and among the Palestinian community—while empowering jihadist forces.
The idea of national self-determination cannot be a license to subjugate. No individual, no group of individuals, no self-identified national community has the moral right to create a tyrannical regime.
We need to take seriously the lesson of the last 25 years. It is because the peace process negated the principle of moral judgment, that it enabled the Palestinian movement to subjugate, indoctrinate, and impoverish its people while continuing to attack Israel.
Any rational view of our interests would recognize that Iran — along with Saudi Arabia — is a wellspring of the jihadist movement.
The United States could have defeated the Islamist forces in Afghanistan, but we did not believe we had a moral right to.
Israel, the region’s only free society, faces a virulent movement fighting to eradicate individual freedom and to impose totalitarian rule in the name of Islam — the jihadist cause — and Iran is a leader of that cause.
A tariff is essentially a tax that will be paid by domestic consumers.
The corruption of government officials seems to be as old as recorded history.
For years, the U.S. has embraced Saudi Arabia as an ally, but at the deepest level, Saudi Arabia is hostile to our ideal of individual rights.
The Cairo regime is notorious for flouting individual rights, freedom of speech, and rule of law. If Trump takes those political ideals seriously, he should call out, rather than turn a blind eye to, Egypt’s persistent authoritarianism.
To deter jihadists and would-be recruits, it’s crucial to demonstrate that their totalitarian vision is unrealizable, that their cause is doomed.
Iran’s domestic repression and its imperialist march and its nuclear aspiration are inseparable.
Americans today who say that the only alternative to the Obama administration’s pretense of controlling Iran’s continued movement toward nuclear bombs is war ignore the fact that Israel bombed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear facilities, and Iraq did not declare war. To do so would have risked annihilation.
What lessons might we learn from the whole experience of the Iraq war?
Once Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s reasonable to assume that they might use it, on day one, a threat we never necessarily faced with the Soviets. The people of Israel have no choice but to pay attention to this fact.