I do not recall Jews who marched and were slain in Mississippi ducked their moral responsibility. Certainly my father did not cop out on what he thought was the right way to respond to behaviour by segregationists he abhorred.
What lackey wimps inhabit the Black Caucus! (See 1 below.)
Dershowitz lets loose with both barrels. (See 1a below.)
===
Art Laffer: (http://www.c-span.org/video/?
===
Be careful what you read and believe - even if it comes from me. In fact, particularly if it comes from me.
Netanyahu was right and various media sources wish to discredit him as they are trying to do by smearing Gov. Walker.
Sad that the news and media folks fear the truth. There was a time when they eagerly tried to report it. (See 2 below.)
===
Insightful article by Gerald Seib. (See 3 below.)
===
ISIS also beheads authors. (See 4 below.)
===
My response to two recently published LTE's in the local paper:
"I was amused by two recent LTE's.
One suggested FOX is more dangerous than ISIS and the other suggested we leave the pan and jump into the fire, ie. chuck Hillary C. and embrace D. Wasserman.
Dick
As so happens, Fox reports on matters most liberal media and news folks will neither explore nor even investigate and many Fox reporters are talented, attractive and multi-degreed from some our most revered colleges and universities. They even had the good sense not to hire Brian Williams.
Since FOX has eaten the lunch of NBC, CBS, ABC , MSNBC and CNN, it is no wonder the long liberal knives are out to get them.
As for Wasserman,Obama wanted to dump her until she threatened to accuse him of being anti-Semitic as well as anti-feminist. She is as partisan as they come and seldom has an original thought.
Either your paper posted these LTE's for the purpose of revealing those who are clueless or for their humorous content. If the latter, they might have been more suitable if relegated to the comic section. If the former, FOX is far more believable and trustworthy than our president whom, I assume, the two voted for, not once but twice.."
===
Professor Deborah Lipstadt speaks out. (See 5 below.)
===
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
Star Parker: Why Black Christians love Israel
In April 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. landed in jail in Birmingham, Alabama for violating a local ordinance
Sitting in jail, he learned that local white clergy advised against “outsiders coming in,” calling King’s activities “unwise and untimely.”
Sitting in jail, he learned that local white clergy advised against “outsiders coming in,” calling King’s activities “unwise and untimely.”
In response, King wrote his famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.”
In the pages long, handwritten letter, he lays out the logic and theology of his activities. He explains that, like the prophets and apostles, he was compelled “to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my home town.”
King concludes saying that “...when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in the formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.”
We are witnessing today a bizarre role reversal of those events in 1963.
We live in a dangerous world and America has enemies. We must have a clear sense of the nature of these threats so we may act properly.
In this spirit, House Speaker John Boehner has invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress to convey his thoughts about the dangers of a nuclear- armed Iran.
But members of the Congressional Black Caucus are protesting, saying they will not attend.
Black members of Congress, those allegedly carrying on the civil rights movement that Dr. King led, are now the ones protesting “outsiders coming in” and saying that expression in the pursuit of truth, in our free country, is “unwise and untimely.”
The U.S. State Department has listed Iran as a State Sponsor of Terrorism since 1984. Freedom House in Washington, D.C. designates Iran as an “Unfree” country.
In a new Gallup poll, 77 percent of Americans call development of nuclear weapons by Iran a “critical threat.”
All Americans should welcome with enthusiasm the thoughts of the Israeli prime minister, who leads a nation that has fought for its survival in the Middle East every single day since its founding.
Black caucus members walking out on the prime minister violate the principles of freedom of our nation, for which Dr. King fought.
They also betray the unique relationship of black Christians, and America in general, to the Jewish people and the state of Israel.
In a Pew Research survey in 2013, in answer to the question “Was Israel given to the Jewish people by God?”, 40 percent of Jewish Americans said yes, 44 percent of all Americans said yes, and 51 percent of black Protestants said yes.
Dr. King was outspoken in his support of Israel and today there is a street named for him in Jerusalem.
The civil rights movement was animated by imagery from the Book of Exodus in the Old Testament. Historian Taylor Branch’s biographic trilogy about Dr. King’s movement are called “Parting the Waters,” “Pillar of Fire,” and “At Canaan’s Edge.”
The words inscribed on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia — “Proclaim liberty throughout the land to the inhabitants thereof” — are from the book of Leviticus.
Welcoming the Israeli prime minister is by no means partisan. Two prominent Democrat senators, New Jersey’s Robert Menendez, former chairman of the House Foreign Relations committee, and New York’s Chuck Schumer, have co-sponsored a bill, which President Obama opposes, to tighten sanctions on Iran if current talks do not succeed by March 24.
The Black Caucus is out of step with black Christians by not welcoming this visitor bringing the “gospel of freedom” from abroad.
They should recognize that welcoming Mr. Netanyahu means, in the words of Dr. King, “standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values of our Judeo-Christian heritage.”
Star Parker is president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education.
1a) The Appalling Talk of Boycotting Netanyahu
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
1a) The Appalling Talk of Boycotting Netanyahu
Congress has every right, and even an obligation, to hear the Israeli leader speak about the Iranian threat.
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
As a liberal Democrat who twice campaigned for President Barack Obama , I am appalled that some Democratic members of Congress are planning to boycott the speech of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on March 3 to a joint session of Congress. At bottom, this controversy is not mainly about protocol and politics—it is about the constitutional system of checks and balances and the separation of powers.
Under the Constitution, the executive and legislative branches share responsibility for making and implementing important foreign-policy decisions. Congress has a critical role to play in scrutinizing the decisions of the president when these decisions involve national security, relationships with allies and the threat of nuclear proliferation.
Congress has every right to invite, even over the president’s strong objection, any world leader or international expert who can assist its members in formulating appropriate responses to the current deal being considered with Iran regarding its nuclear-weapons program. Indeed, it is the responsibility of every member of Congress to listen to Prime Minister Netanyahu, who probably knows more about this issue than any world leader, because it threatens the very existence of the nation state of the Jewish people.
Congress has the right to disagree with the prime minister, but the idea that some members of Congress will not give him the courtesy of listening violates protocol and basic decency to a far greater extent than anything Mr. Netanyahu is accused of doing for having accepted an invitation from Congress.
Recall that President Obama sent British Prime Minister David Cameron to lobby Congress with phone calls last month against conditionally imposing new sanctions on Iran if the deal were to fail. What the president objects to is not that Mr. Netanyahu will speak to Congress, but the content of what he intends to say. This constitutes a direct intrusion on the power of Congress and on the constitutional separation of powers.
Not only should all members of Congress attend Mr. Netanyahu’s speech, but President Obama—as a constitutional scholar—should urge members of Congress to do their constitutional duty of listening to opposing views in order to check and balance the policies of the administration.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with Speaker John Boehner ’s decision to invite Mr. Netanyahu or Mr. Netanyahu’s decision to accept, no legal scholar can dispute that Congress has the power to act independently of the president in matters of foreign policy. Whether any deal with Iran would technically constitute a treaty requiring Senate confirmation, it is certainly treaty-like in its impact. Moreover, the president can’t implement the deal without some action or inaction by Congress.
Congress also has a role in implementing the president’s promise—made on behalf of our nation as a whole—that Iran will never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. That promise seems to be in the process of being broken, as reports in the media and Congress circulate that the deal on the table contains a sunset provision that would allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons after a certain number of years.
Once it became clear that Iran will eventually be permitted to become a nuclear-weapon power, it has already become such a power for practical purposes. The Saudis and the Arab emirates will not wait until Iran turns the last screw on its nuclear bomb. As soon as this deal is struck, with its sunset provision, these countries would begin to develop their own nuclear-weapon programs, as would other countries in the region. If Congress thinks this is a bad deal, it has the responsibility to act.
Another reason members of Congress should not boycott Mr. Netanyahu’s speech is that support for Israel has always been a bipartisan issue. The decision by some members to boycott Israel’s prime minister endangers this bipartisan support. This will not only hurt Israel but will also endanger support for Democrats among pro-Israel voters. I certainly would never vote for or support a member of Congress who walked out on Israel’s prime minister.
One should walk out on tyrants, bigots and radical extremists, as the United States did when Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust and called for Israel’s destruction at the United Nations. To use such an extreme tactic against our closest ally, and the Middle East’s only vibrant democracy, is not only to insult Israel’s prime minister but to put Israel in a category in which it does not belong.
So let members of Congress who disagree with the prime minister’s decision to accept Speaker Boehner’s invitation express that disagreement privately and even publicly, but let them not walk out on a speech from which they may learn a great deal and which may help them prevent the president from making a disastrous foreign-policy mistake. Inviting a prime minister of an ally to educate Congress about a pressing foreign-policy decision is in the highest tradition of our democratic system of separation of powers and checks and balances.
Mr. Dershowitz is a professor of law emeritus at Harvard Law School and the author of “Terror Tunnels: The Case for Israel’s Just War Against Hamas” (Rosetta Books, 2014).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)-
Why the Fake Story About the Mossad Contradicting Netanyahu?
Yesterday the headlines in theGuardian and Al Jazeera trumpeted what seemed like a very juicy story. According to leaked South African intelligence cables obtained by Al Jazeera and shared with the Guardian, the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad had come to conclusions that “contradicted” Prime Minister Netanyahu’s assertions about Iran’s nuclear program in his 2012 speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations. The charge was repeated today in a story published by the New York Times. If true, then Netanyahu’s speech, best remembered for the cartoon bomb illustration he brandished, would be exposed as political hyperbole. But a closer look at the speech and the leaked cable shows that the headlines aren’t justified. In fact, they are downright false. That leads us to ask the question why major media outlets are seeking to discredit Netanyahu with misleading stories just at the moment when details about President Obama’s latest nuclear offer to Iran has become public. The answer reveals a great deal about both the bias of the press and the stakes in the Iran nuclear debate.Unpacking the assertions in the Al Jazeera/Guardian story isn’t difficult. As Mitch Ginsburg points out today in the Times of Israel, the crux of that story is that the leaked documents say that in 2012, the Mossad told its South African counterparts that, “Iran at this time is not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons.” That led both papers (dutifully echoed by the Times a day later) to claim that Netanyahu’s “inflammatory rhetoric” and “alarmist tone” about the prospect of an Iranian bomb was not only unjustified but a lie made out of whole cloth.
That is damning stuff indeed. But what exactly did Netanyahu say in September 2012 while brandishing a picture of a Wile E. Coyote-style bomb?By next spring, at most by next summer, at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move[d] on to the final stage. From there, it’s only a few months, possibly a few weeks, before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.Let’s be clear about this. Netanyahu did not say that Iran would have a bomb in a few months. He just said they were enriching enough uranium to create a bomb. That is not a minor distinction. And on that point, there was no disagreement between the Mossad and the prime minister. Which is to say this big story is no story at all. But the much-ballyhooed “contradiction” which was not actually a contradiction is still being reported throughout the world and on cable news networks as a flaw in Netanyahu’s arguments and a blow to his credibility.
It is true that the heads of Israel’s intelligence agencies have at times clashed with Netanyahu. That was particularly true in 2012 when rumors were rife that the prime minister and his former rival and then coalition partner Ehud Barak, serving as defense minister at that time, were thinking seriously about ordering a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The spooks were worried that such a plan couldn’t work, would alienate the United States and, more to the point, might be rendered unnecessary by covert activities such as cyber attacks on the Iranian program and assassinations of scientists. As it turns out, the spy agency and its American counterparts overestimated the damage that their Stuxnet attack on the Iranian computer systems could do. Though Tehran experienced a setback, all indications are that covert action conclusively failed to halt the Iranian program.
But the decision to go big with a story undermining Netanyahu this week is no accident. Yesterday we learned that Israel’s warnings that the U.S. was offering massive concessions to Iran in the nuclear talks were entirely true. The administration told the press that it was presenting the Iranians with a proposal that would not only allow them to keep most of their existing nuclear infrastructure and lift sanctions but that all they were asking them to do was to freeze their development for ten years after which restrictions would be lifted. Combined with the latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency that showed the Iranians were continuing to stonewall efforts to inspect sites that would allow the UN body to discover how much progress had been made toward weaponization, and what you get is a picture of a negotiating process whose only aim is to foster détente between the U.S. and Iran, not one whose purpose is to spike their nuclear ambitions.
The weaponization aspect of that report is significant particularly in light of the attention given the Mossad’s 2012 conclusions. At that time it wasn’t clear whether the Iranians were close to a bomb. Neither the U.S. nor Israel knows the answer to that question today either. But what we do know is that Netanyahu’s predictions about Iran’s capabilities were not only vindicated but may well become accepted by the West in the wake of President Obama’s proposal.
Thus at this moment, damaging Netanyahu’s credibility, even if it means shading the truth or inventing a contradiction when there is none, has become vital for those who believe confronting Iran over its nuclear program is a mistake. No matter how many brickbats are hurled at him by the media or how many tactical mistakes he and his staff may make as they are being outmaneuvered in Washington by the White House, the fact remains that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a deadly threat to the security of the West and the moderate Arab nations as well as an existential challenge to Israel’s existence. But the president’s apologists will have to do better than a misleading Mossad story if they are to succeed in silencing the critics of Obama’s Iran appeasement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
France’s Pain Helps Explain Islamic Extremism’s Causes
The threat isn’t one-dimensional, so neither can be the strategy for dealing with it
Bernard Cazeneuve, France’s interior minister and a man on the front lines in the struggle against Islamic extremism, was in Washington a few days ago, and over dinner he mused about what France has learned in the newest chapter of that struggle. His thoughts are useful in helping Americans come to grips with their own version of the threat—and to get past some of the simplistic debate now under way here.
France has the West’s most painful recent experience in this struggle, of course, in the form of the extremist attack on the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and the associated killings at a Jewish market. But France has a much longer history of dealing with the problem, which is one reason Mr. Cazeneuve was a featured player at an Obama administration conference on battling extremism.
- Mr. Cazeneuve’s analysis presumes that the extremist threat has long and complex
tentacles, and that a variety of historic, religious and social forces come together to create today’s version. The threat isn’t one-dimensional, so neither can be the strategy for dealing with it.
The roots of today’s violence in France, Mr. Cazeneuve says, lie in a spate of Islamic terror attacks there in the 1990s. In that decade, France was rocked by violence, including a notorious bombing on the Paris subway, that was as unsettling as anything that came before the 9/11 attacks in the U.S.
Those terror strikes were engineered by a hardened group of extremists who had formative experiences fighting Soviet invaders alongside Osama bin Laden ’s forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and then in a messy Islamist uprising in the former French colony of Algeria, before returning to France. Many were subsequently convicted and sent to prison.
Attorney General Eric Holder talks with French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve in Washington earlier this month. PHOTO:ASSOCIATED PRESS
There, in prison, Mr. Cazeneuve believes, they have helped radicalize a younger generation of Muslim inmates, many from tough neighborhoods outside of Paris that have been a breeding ground for unrest. Once radicalized and freed from prison, this new generation of terrorists has recruited other disillusioned young Muslims from these slum neighborhoods, gone abroad for training in some cases, and hatched the kinds of plots seen in the Charlie Hebdo attacks.
So what lessons lie in that overview for Americans?
First, that the threat of Islamic extremism has been long in the making, even if some of its more troubling manifestations, such as the incitement to action by the brutal Islamic State organization, are relatively recent. It didn’t start with the American wars in Iraq or Afghanistan—though the Iraq fighting certainly has inspired a wide swath of today’s extremists—or even with the 9/11 terror attacks. If you are looking for a single starting point, you might as well pick the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to squelch an Islamic movement in 1979.
Second, the motivations of extremists are complex. In France, the roots may lie in Paris’s support for a secular government in Algeria that brutally suppressed Islamists, but now extend to grievances over Syria and the Palestinians as well as sheer religious fervor. In the U.S., they include the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also American support for governments such as Saudi Arabia’s.
More countries are trying to crack down on citizens traveling to Syria to join militant groups. How are they doing it? WSJ’s Jason Bellini has #TheShortAnswer.
Related
The Paris attacks on Charlie Hebdo in January have put new focus on recent terrorist propaganda, which features no shortage of jihadists claiming to be from France.
Third, the paths toward radicalization are many. In France, the prison system appears to be one such path, but so are the mosques in the suburban slums that are home to immigrants from Islamic lands. And yes, economic and social dissatisfaction play a role. The recruits come from young men—and women—who see few paths up. Some are wholly religiously inspired, some are adventurers who in an earlier era might have gone off to follow Che Guevara instead of Islamic State. Some undoubtedly are common thugs.
The difference today is that those who become radicalized have both a wider path for receiving training abroad, in the failed states of Yemen and Syria. And, in Islamic State, they have an organization that provides a unified religious justification for turning their alienation into action—and a propaganda machine that makes it all available to them at the touch of a computer keyboard.
To see how that works, just go to the latest edition of Dabiq, Islamic State’s slick, online English magazine. It offers an entire article directly disputing the assertion made by Western leaders that Islam is a religion of peace. No, the article says, a careful reading of the Quran shows that, in fact, “Allah has revealed Islam to be the religion of the sword, and the evidence for this is so profuse that only a zindîq (heretic) would argue otherwise.”
This is the shape of the new Islamic threat, but its complex contours are being missed in much of the stilted current debate that sometimes is reduced to the question of whether its causes are religious, cultural or economic. The answer to that question is: Yes. Yes, its causes are all of those.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)ISIS Burns 8000 Rare Books and Manuscripts in Mosul
By Riyadh Mohammed
ISIS Burns 8000 Rare Books and Manuscripts in Mosul
While the world was watching the Academy Awards ceremony, the people of Mosul were watching a different show. They were horrified to see ISIS members burn the Mosul public library. Among the many thousands of books it housed, more than 8,000 rare old books and manuscripts were burned.
“ISIS militants bombed the Mosul Public Library. They used improvised explosive devices,” said Ghanim al-Ta'an, the director of the library. Notables in Mosul tried to persuade ISIS members to spare the library, but they failed.
The former assistant director of the library Qusai All Faraj said that the Mosul Public Library was established in 1921, the same year that saw the birth of the modern Iraq. Among its lost collections were manuscripts from the eighteenth century, Syriac books printed in Iraq's first printing house in the nineteenth century, books from the Ottoman era, Iraqi newspapers from the early twentieth century and some old antiques like an astrolabe and sand glass used by ancient Arabs. The library had hosted the personal libraries of more than 100 notable families from Mosul over the last century.
During the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the library was looted and destroyed by mobs. However, the people living nearby managed to save most of its collections and rich families bought back the stolen books and they were returned to the library, All Faraj added.
“900 years ago, the books of the Arab philosopher Averroes were collected before his eyes...and burned. One of his students started crying while witnessing the burning. Averroes told him... the ideas have wings...but I cry today over our situation,” said Rayan al-Hadidi, an activist and a blogger from Mosul. Al-Hadidi said that a state of anger and sorrow are dominating Mosul now.
“What a pity! We used to go to the library in the 1970s. It was one of the greatest landmarks of Mosul. I still remember the special pieces of paper where the books’ names were listed alphabetically,” said Akil Kata who left Mosul to exile years ago.
On the same day the library was destroyed, ISIS abolished another old church in Mosul: the church of Mary the Virgin. The Mosul University Theater was burned as well, according to eyewitnesses. In al-Anbar province, Western Iraq, the ISIS campaign of burning books has managed to destroy 100,000 titles, according to local officials. Last December, ISIS burned Mosul University’s central library.
Iraq, the cradle of civilization, the birthplace of agriculture and writing and the home of the Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, Babylonian and Arab civilizations had never witnessed such an assault on its rich cultural heritage since the Mongol era in the Middle Ages.
Last week, a debate in Washington and Baghdad became heated over when, how and who will liberate Mosul. A plan was announced to liberate the city in April or May by more than 20,000 US trained Iraqi soldiers. Either way, and supposing everything will go well and ISIS will be defeated easily which is never the case in reality, that means the people of Mosul will still have to wait for another two to three months.
Until then, Mosul will probably have not a single sign of its rich history left standing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)
7 Axioms of the Copenhagen Terror Attacks
We Must Stand Up to Fear and Fight Islamist Extremists
By Deborah Lipstadt
The news of the attacks on the Copenhagen cafe and synagogue did not surprise us. We may keep hoping this will stop, but the rational parts of our brains know that it will not, at least not for the long term. There have been enough of these attacks that we can now see there are certain things which are axiomatic about them.
Axiom #1: They are part of a pattern. By that I do not mean to suggest that they are all organized by ISIS or ISIS-like groups. They may not be physically connected with one another, but they are ideologically connected. The individuals behind them have been radicalized by a stream of Islam that abhors Western democracy and all it stands for. Some have suggested that the Danish shooter was not “radicalized.” If so, that makes it even scarier. He was not part of a radical group, but he clearly absorbed the message of radical Islamists. How else might you explain his targeting of free speech advocates, police officers and Jews?
Axiom #2: Unless you name something you cannot solve it. We are fighting Muslim extremism, not violent extremism. This violence is directly connected to Islam, though not to all Muslims. To avoid identifying the connection to Islam is not only silly — if one can use that word in conjunction with such a serious threat — but it also pulls the ground out from under moderate Muslims who want to fight this dangerous trend.
Axiom #3: This is not traditional European anti-Semitism. The people who have committed these crimes are convinced that killing Jews is not just acceptable, but a desirable thing to do. In contrast to much of the European anti-Semitism we have seen in centuries past, which attacked Jews for being different from the majority, this form hates both Jews and the majority society and all it stands for, including freedom of religion.
Axiom #4: “Yes, but” comments make room for violence. Muslim extremists pull the triggers, but they have accomplices. They have been given intellectual shelter by those who try to explain these incidents with “yes, but” explanations. In the case of the anti-Semitic actions, they say, “Yes, this is awful, but if Israel only…” (you can fill in the blank) “…this would not happen.” To engage in this kind of reasoning is to rationalize this violence, to make it logical and to render it legitimate. The people who do this — including many well-educated academics — must be called out for what they are doing: justifying murder.
Next time someone makes this link, ask him or her: “Oh, so that makes it acceptable to shoot Jews thousands of miles away from Israel?” They will probably respond: “Of course not. We are just looking for the roots of the violence.” Do they really imagine that if Israel were to pull out of the West Bank these killers would stop shooting Jews?
Axiom #5: There are many liberal voices that did the same thing with the cartoonists (and before them with Salman Rushdie): “If only they had not insulted the Prophet, this would not have happened.” Not only does such reasoning justify the murders, but it is also objectively wrong. Jyllands-Posten, the Danish paper that published the original Muhammad cartoons in 2006, did not republish the Charlie Hebdo ones. That did not stop the attack on the Copenhagen cafe.
Axiom #6: “Violence works.” That is what Jyllands-Posten wrote in an editorial in January explaining its decision not to republish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. The editors were frightened. Jews are also frightened. They do not wear kippot in many European cities. They do not carry anything that identifies them as Jews. In Denmark, a Jewish radio station shut down and a Jewish school closed just in the last few days. In short, the Muslim extremists are winning.
Axiom #7: This is not just a war on Jews. It is a war on Western democratic liberal values. This is a war being waged by people who reject the notion of freedom of speech, press, religion and expression. In the aftermath of some of these killings I have heard people say that these killers are foreign to European society and they “don’t understand” these concepts. I would argue otherwise. They understand them and reject them.
We are waging a war against extremists who are inherently opposed to everything we value about the society in which we live. They want us to live in fear. Doing so grants them a victory and, as the Danes at the cafe learned, doesn’t protect us from future violence.
In sum, we must name the threat, help those Muslims who reject these behaviors, challenge those who would engage in rationalizations and, somehow, refuse to succumb to fear.
Deborah Lipstadt, a Forward contributing editor, is the Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment