Over the
past week, the news media erupted with reports from France and Belgium, citing
incidents of terror against free speech and the Jewish people. Foremost, I
express my condolences for anyone who has suffered as a result of these
incidents. Still, the unified response against this affront, even as it is
symbolic today, will only serve to divide Jews and Muslims and the East and
West. Media attention, or rather
sensationalism, and widespread reaction towards this event detrimentally affect
prospects of world peace, global security, and the basic principles of
democracy.
Right now,
the world appears aligned with the victims of the attack. What happens, though,
as both politicians and radicals capitalize on the world’s attentions for their
own ideological gain? Already gaining strength in recent weeks from
anti-immigration sentiment, the reactionary, neo-Nazi National Front party
surged in French polls this week. The party whose leader previously described
the Nazi invasion of France as “not particularly inhumane” is favored by about
30% of the electorate. Likewise, the attack allows Prime Minister Benyamin
Netanyahu to emphasize the need for greater security and occupation as we
approach Israeli elections in March.
Acts of terrorism, in their current
fashion, require policy change in the eyes of the public and politicians alike,
but by reacting in such a way, we engage in irrational thinking. Even though an
enhancement of airport security might
protect the American public against a potential threat, terrorists constantly
work outside of established barriers to accomplish their goals. Security and
intelligence, for the most part then, are more elusive constructs than logical
measures to protect the American people.
Perhaps most ironically, this type
of response actually empowers terrorists to accomplish their goals throughout
the world. New policy measures (i.e. greater Internet surveillance, more TSA full-body
searches) can not only elicit widespread “Islamaphobia”, which extremists use
as propaganda for new recruits, but also attack the same freedoms targeted at
the offices of Charlie Hebdo. Terrorists
win not by destroying buildings or killing civilians. Rather, they force us into
an ideological box, parameters for which ideas are to be accepted in a democratic
society and which are to be considered a “threat.”
After these
attacks, however, the expansion of this “box” serves the long-term interests of
the West. Today, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron
jointly spoke to the press. They challenged the European continent to confront
nativism, adapting to an integrated, pluralistic future. In this sense, the
leaders responded to grievance and destruction with creative reconciliation. Rather
than positively reinforce the accomplishments of terrorists with additional
policy, Obama and Cameron laid the foundation to work within the balance of
security and liberty, shaping European society into one that is unprecedentedly
inclusive to Muslims, Jews, and the like.
On the contrary, the Prime Minister
and President adjoined this sentiment with plans to embattle extremism that has
become typical in the post 9/11 era. As Cameron expresses his intention to
fight against “poisonous ideology”, I would warn him to reconsider the
criminalization of ideas. All ideas, from the benign frustration of The Lego Movie’s Oscar snub to hate-inciting
approval of a neo-Nazi agenda deserve a place in a democratic society. Although
Nazism and terrorism prove to be extreme, the presence of these ideas enables active
discourse and a societal progression of belief that is truly the will of the
people. To truly protect the American and British people then, these
governments must pursue threats and actions rather than subvert belief.
Admittedly,
this system may allow for terrorism to persist well into the twenty-first
century, but in the larger course of history, humanity will have protected
itself against preemptive intimidation to preserve or pursue a particular idea,
also known as terrorism.
