Wall Street Journal
We live in the age of the sanctified tantrum—the political
and religious furies we dare not name or shame, much less confront.
Students bully college administrators with contrived political
demands. The administrators plead they can do better, then capitulate.
Incompetent writers pen trite racial screeds aimed at the very society that
lifts them above their ability. They are hailed as geniuses. Donald
Trump’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination epitomizes the
politics of the tantrum. He’s angry as hell, and so is his base. We’re
supposed to respect this.
And then there is the tantrum of Islam, another eruption of
rage that feeds off our astonishing willingness to indulge it.
Before Friday’s carnage in the City of Light, the world was
treated to the hideous spectacle of Palestinians knifing Jews in Israel. The
supposed motive of these stabbings was a rumor among Palestinians—fanned by
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas—that the Israeli government intended
to allow Jews to pray on the Temple Mount.
This was a story the Israeli government adamantly denied and
every serious person knew was false. Yet no senior Western leader dared call out
Mr. Abbas to correct the record. Palestinian tantrums are sanctified tantrums.
The violence they breed might be condemned, but the narrative on which they rest
has the status of holy writ. It is no more to be questioned than the Quran is to
“To counteract the radicalization [in Europe],” Swedish
Foreign Minister Margot Wallström said in a televised interview only
hours after the Paris attacks, “we must go back to the situation such as the
one in the Middle East in which . . . the Palestinians see that there is no
future; we must either accept a desperate situation or resort to violence.”
Here was the sanctified tantrum par excellence: People murder
and maim because they have been put (by Israel) to a bleak choice. Rage is not
to be condemned but understood, mitigated and mollified.
Later that day, at the Democratic debate, Hillary
Clinton and the two noncontenders for the Democratic presidential
nomination each refused to use the term “radical Islam” in referring to the
ideological force behind the Paris killings. The furthest Mrs. Clinton would go
to naming the enemy was to say “you can talk about Islamists who also are
Apparently, however, you cannot mention Islamists who are not
yet “clearly jihadists,” lest some other invisible line be transgressed. To
do so might set off another tantrum among people who tend toward violence
whenever they are accused of violent tendencies.
Nowhere are Islamist tantrums so richly indulged as in Europe.
Take the Brussels neighborhood of Molenbeek, which turns out
to have been home to at least one mastermind of Friday’s attacks. “In
Molenbeek, the newspaper Het Volk published a study of the local Muslim
population,” I noted in
this column in August 2006. “The editor, Gunther Vanpraet, described
the commune as a ‘breeding ground for thousands of Jihad candidates.’ ”
For many years the mayor of Molenbeek was a man named Philippe
Moureaux, a Socialist best known as the author of the 1981 Law Against
Racism and Xenophobia. In 2004 he helped pass a law allowing noncitizens to vote
in municipal elections. Roughly a quarter of Molenbeek’s 96,000 residents are
not Belgian citizens.
Mr. Moureaux was also instrumental in engineering the
political marriage of his Socialist Party with Muslim arrivals from Turkey and
North Africa—a Europe-wide phenomenon that accounts for left-wing sympathies
for Islamists whose views on subjects such as gay rights or the equality of
women are less than progressive.
It was under Mr. Moureaux’s indulgent eye that Molenbeek
became what it is. For years, a group called Sharia4Belgium—no prizes for
guessing its goals—was active in the neighborhood until a Belgian judge shut
it down in February. The Muslim fanatic who last year opened fire on the Jewish
museum in Brussels, killing four, also once lived in Molenbeek, as had the man
who tried to open fire on a high-speed train in August. “I notice that each
time [there is a jihadist attack] there is a link with Molenbeek,” Charles
Michel, Belgium’s prime minister, admitted Sunday. Nice of him to connect
I lived near Molenbeek for two years when I worked for this
newspaper’s European edition and used to jog along the canal that cuts through
the neighborhood. It took no special insight to see what was likely to come out
of the place.
Now 129 people are dead in Paris because Europe decided to
make a fetish of its tolerance for intolerance and allow the religious
distempers of its Islamist communities to fester over many years. That’s what
happens when you sanctify political tantrums, explain and appease them, refuse
to name them, try to look away.