- The Washington Times - Wednesday, November 9, 2005

Modern radicalism

“Radical Islamism is in no way an assertion of traditional Muslim values or religiosity. … In a tractional Muslim society, your identity is fixed by the society into which you are born; only when you live in a non-Muslim environment does it occur to you to ask who you are.

“The profound alienation that results makes poorly assimilated second- and third-generation Muslims susceptible to a pure, universalistic ideology like that of Osama bin Laden. Mohamed Atta and the other organizers of 9/11, the Madrid and London conspirators, and Mohammed Bouyeri, murderer of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, all fall into this category.

“This means that more democracy and more modernization will not solve our near-term terrorism problem. I believe that both democracy and modernization are good things and should be promoted in the Middle East for their own sake. But we will continue to have a serious problem in democratic Western Europe, regardless of what happens in Egypt or Lebanon.”

— Francis Fukuyama, writing on “Defending and Advancing Freedom,” in the November issue of Commentary

Left, right, wrong

“Do you believe something can be wrong and constitutional at the same time? Or do you think that something can be right and unconstitutional?

“This is the fundamental question separating the ‘left’ and ‘right’ on judges. … Conservatives, God love ‘em, think the Constitution means something, which is a nice way of saying it doesn’t mean everything. …

“But the proponents of a living constitution don’t want to get bogged down arguing about the meaning of the Constitution; they want to argue about right and wrong. … This is why liberal justices are now fishing for precedents in foreign countries, because they can’t find what they need in actual precedent or text.

“These justices are lawyering themselves right out of a job. Because if the Supreme Court is there to decide what’s right and wrong, rather than what’s constitutional or unconstitutional, then we don’t need lawyers on the bench at all.”

— Jonah Goldberg, writing in the Nov. 21 issue of National Review

Paris intifada

“If France has these kinds of systemic problems with its Muslim population, then it is time to partition France. It’s time for an independent Muslim state to be created. After all, isn’t that what France and other European nations have determined is the proper solution for Israel? …

“These are not just riots. This is an intifada — just like the one begun in 2000 within and around Israel.

“France and other countries, including the United States, have demanded that Israel meet [Palestinian] attacks with land concessions to the rioters and suicide bombers. That is the only viable, long-term solution, they say. They claim this violence will never cease until those oppressed by Israel are granted an independent, autonomous state of their own.

“Why should the solution be any different in France?

“The global jihad has come home to Paris. Let’s see if French officials impose upon their own population the same solution they demand upon the population of the Jewish state. After all, isn’t the key to addressing the concerns of the jihadists to appease them?”

— Joseph Farah, writing, writing on “The intifada in France,” Nov. 7 in WorldNetDaily at www.worldnetdaily.com

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide