Writing in Foreign Policy, Steven A. Cook argues that the commonly-held assumption that the best way to confront Islamism is through cultivating moderate Muslims is fatally flawed.

Cook says that it’s impossible to agree on a definition of the word “moderate.” He also says, citing the examples of Hamas and Hezbollah, that power does not, as a rule, moderate extremists.

His conclusion is worth thinking about, particularly in the light of the announcement of a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel:

“A smarter position is to avoid theological discussions altogether. As with all faiths, there will be heated debates between competing groups within Islam over the proper interpretation of sacred texts and the relationship between religion and politics. Yet because these arguments are so opaque to outsiders, policymakers should resist the urge to jump in. Given that moderation is in the eye of the beholder, Washington should not have an ideological litmus test for whom it wishes to engage. Rather, policymakers should focus on identifying those who can contribute pragmatic solutions to the many problems we confront in the region, ‘moderate’ or not.”

Read the entire article here.