From: Jonathan Gottfried
To: Paul Gottfried
Subject: Where ethnic cleansing is involved, we have a duty to intervene

Dad,

I definitely distinguish between “Clinton’s pummeling of the Serbs” and “W’s reckless invasion of Iraq,” and not only for the ways in which the operations were conducted. While Saddam’s atrocities against Iranians, Kurds, and Shia were abominable, the former leader of the Serbs died too soon to be convicted of some of the most serious offenses against humanity: genocide, violations of the laws or customs of war, and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. You many not be a fan of international tribunals—you may believe that they are kangaroo courts established by the victors to justify their aggression—and you rightly point out that atrocities were likely committed by all sides in the Balkans. Yet where ethnic cleansing is involved—whether in the former Yugoslavia or in Darfur—the United States and the international community have an obligation to intervene.

I don't believe that one can blame the “consolidation of Arab terrorists in European Muslim territories”—to the extent that such a phenomenon exists and is related to the Balkans—on the West’s belated intervention. Muslim grievances about ex-Yugoslavia are related to the Serbian bloodletting, not to Clinton’s attempt to prevent further massacres.

I’m very interested by your comments about American Jews’ “growing anxiety...about militant Christians”. Let’s assume—as you write—that American Jews are more distrustful of their Christian neighbors today than back when you were growing up. Why do you believe that to be the case? What was the catalyst? Is it possible that fundamentalist Christians today are more numerous or more vocal than in previous years? And that certain strands of Christianity are more stridently political than in the past? Or is it that Jews have become politically established and willing to express disagreement with displays of Christian religiosity? Perhaps the Jews in your elementary school did not protest the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer because they were too concerned about being viewed as un-American.

You’re concerned that Jewish anxiety about Christian antisemitism has diverted attention from more virulent Muslim antisemitism. I believe that the threat of Islamist terror has actually brought American Jews closer to Americans of all religious stripes (perhaps including American Muslims). Because of American Jews’ sensitivity to Israel, they were in the past more aware than other Americans of Islamist terror. This changed with the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and 9/11.

These attacks could have divided Jews from other Americans. If Americans had blamed these attacks on an unjustified U.S. policy in the Middle East, then American Jews—who have influenced this policy—could have been a scapegoat. Yet, to my surprise, such a backlash has so far been absent (with the exception of some members of the political left). Instead, American non-Jews seem as inclined as American Jews nowadays to view Islamist terror as a serious danger.

Although I’ve rambled long enough, I have to respond to your comment that: “In France and Germany Islamicism has benefited from the pro-immigration policies and unrelenting attacks on the European Christian heritage that come from European Jewish organizations.” With respect to France, you know as well as I that many of the French Muslims immigrated during France's post-WWII economic expansion: “Les Trente Glorieuses.” The Algerians and others who immigrated to France were seeking labor, and French companies were all too happy to accept their work. That Europe has failed to offer professional opportunities to its Muslim immigrants and has a flawed model of integration is hardly the fault of Europe’s Jews.

Jonathan

Next: A nativity scene is not a pogrom