Beware of Engagement -Martin KramerThere 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.
(Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies-Shalem Center)
3 comments:
I disagree. It is true that the Arabs do not engage Israel because it would look as they are legitimizing them. But in reality we know that Israel is legitimate. Peace will never come without engaging them. Any country's leaders are legitimate, and we need to speak directly to them---even if it ultimately ends up to say "you will never get away with that", or "try that and we will destroy you".
Truth be told, time will make this controversy clear. If after serious "engagement" we're left with stronger terror networks, we could be in serious trouble.
State sponsorship is the dirty little secret of terror groups. The myth that they are stateless and independent operators is a self serving and dangerous myth.
Engaging an enemy is never a mistake. Concessions without results is. While I think there are stateless groups, I have not heard anyone ever make a convincing case that there is NO state sponsorship. Iran is a big culprit. Iraq, as far as evidence can tell, was better at grandstanding support, such as paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers for killing Israelis, then for aligning with specific organizations, most probably because Hussein feared ever terrorist group in the MidEast, as threats to his own demagoguery.
Post a Comment