Am now almost done reading Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy in which he argues that free societies are more secure when freedom is more widespread, that fear societies need an external enemy to maintain their repression, which is therefore also a source of international and regional instability. He makes this case very strongly with a history of the situation between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. I would like to see here a debate on that thesis. Though I certainly don't own the thread I hope that we will steer clear of tangential issues such as: (1) a broader discussion of neo-conservatism beyond foreign policy, such as influences of Machiavelli and Leo Strauss. (2) a focus on Iraq and whether our aims are being attained there, though I think Iraq as a good or bad example of this aspect of neo conservatism is well in line. (3) since I mentioned Israel and the PA I should probably note I would rather not get into a discussion of the merits of the Zionist position, though the relationship between them as a good or bad defense of Sharansky's argument would be good. And I want to thank Joe Botwinick for steering me toward Sharansky. I have picked this book up and put it down many times before buying it after JB praised it so highly. When I first skimmed through it and saw much of it devoted to the situation with Israel, I was disheartened that he would take his thesis as an excuse to do a history, but rather he uses that history very well to make his point. IMO, the book is very Reaganesque in his argument for Reagan's point that a nation which tyrannizes its own people can't be considered peaceful in dealing with its neighbors.