NEXT DECEMBER 7 will be 75 years since Pearl Harbor. Yet, based on commentary about the terrorist attacks in Belgium, one would think that we still validate the pre-World War II fallacy: We are safe because we are separated by oceans. In Europe they may fight to the death century after century, but its not our problem. We are separated by oceans. We are not as vulnerable to terrorism as Brussels, Istanbul and Paris.
As if ISIS may infiltrate Europe, but not the US.
As if fatal intelligence failures may wreak havoc in France, Belgium or Turkey, but not in the US.
As if the influx of more than a million immigrants from the Middle East affects Europe, not the US.
As if holes in airport security revealed by last weeks attack in Brussels pertain to airports in Europe, not in the US.
As if ISIS ideological quest and methods of malice stretch to Europe, but not to the US.
The oceans don’t make a difference.
That was disproven 75 years ago.
In the US, the need to act against the latest terrorist mutation is now. What to do? The answers are not easy, partly intrinsically, partly due to extremist thinking. We need nuanced thinking.
IN MY view, it is one extreme to say that if gun control were dramatically intensified, the problem would be solved. It would not. It is another extreme to say that guns are not a big part of the problem. They are. The best, nuanced policy is to dramatically intensify gun control, such as universal, no-loop-hole background checks for the purchase or exchange of any gun, anywhere, any time, in the US, knowing full well that this will not solve the problem. It will mitigate it. That is worth doing for the benefits it will bring. These benefits will not be sufficient.
In my view, it is one extreme to say that if every potential Muslim immigrant were rejected, it would solve the problem. It would not. Terrorist inspiration crosses oceans. It is another extreme to say that there is no need for enhanced vetting measures of potential Muslim immigrants, since they are already in place. They are not. The best, nuanced policy is to dramatically enhance vetting measures for potential Arab and Muslim immigrants, knowing full well that this will not solve the problem. It will mitigate it. That is worth doing for the benefits it will bring. These benefits will not be sufficient.
In my view, it is one extreme to say, as Ted Cruz does, that to single out Muslim neighborhoods would prevent radicalization in American Muslim communities. It would not. It would alienate the law abiding citizens there. It is another extreme to say that, in sensitive circumstances, all profiling of people based on ethnic background should be rejected. It should not! The best, nuanced policy is to increase profiling when appropriate, just as El Al security does, knowing full well that this will not solve the problem. It will mitigate it. That is worth doing for the benefits it will bring. These benefits will not be sufficient.
Collectively, the benefits of a loophole-free gun control, of enhanced vetting of potential immigrants and of selective ethnic profiling (such as at airports) will make a difference. Needless to say, other methods, such as those that reduce radicalization, are necessary.
IN MY view, it is one extreme to say, as President Obama does, that terrorism is not Americas biggest problem with violence. He is right, it isnt. That dubious distinction belongs to traffic accidents, criminality and racist violence. The reason this view is extreme is because the conclusions that Obama draws from it are wrong and dangerous, based on a lack of nuance.
There is a vital distinction between racist violence in the US and radical Islamic terrorism. Lethal racist violence is the violence we know, the problem we have stigmatized, the problem we have lived with, the problem whose dimensions we have dramatically reduced.
Lethal terrorism on American soil, compared to the centuries-long arc of racism, is new. We have not yet stigmatized it for what it virtually always is: an expression of radical Islam. We have lived with it for a mere two decades or so. Its dimensions have grown around the world. It has the potential to displace racist violence in scope and danger, both socially and politically. It can disrupt our daily living and undermine our political system.
It is wise to fight radical Islam (such as ISIS, Taliban and Hezbollah) and to defeat it while it is still relatively contained. It is wise to give the battle against terrorism priority, just as it would have been wise to prioritize the battle against the slave trade when it began when it was relatively contained.
It is superficial to compare the number of traffic or domestic terrorist deaths to the current number of deaths from radical Islamic terrorism. The issue is not the current number of deaths. It is the potential number. It is myopic for Obama to take pride in not getting caught up in the terrorism frenzy.
It is also inconsistent. After all, Obama is, as he should be, caught up in the domestic terrorism frenzy the deaths in the US from lone killers from Oregon to Newtown, Connecticut. Just because these deaths do not come anywhere near the number of deaths in traffic accidents does not mean that we do not have a new, dramatic, dangerous threat to our public safety in domestic terrorism. We do.
The threat, potentially, from radical Islamic terrorism is even greater. This is not a numbers game. It is an idea game. Radical Islamic terrorism is an idea. It knows no borders. America is next if we dont face it, stigmatize it and decide to fight ISIS full force.
Europe didnt do that when it could.
We still can.
Europes societies may be hopelessly compromised by ISIS-trained sympathizers in their midst.
Ours are not yet.
Hillel Goldberg may be reached via hillel@ijn.com
Copyright © 2016 by the Intermountain Jewish News
