Minarets: Ban Them, or Bomb Them?
Well, the Swiss â€“ or, more accurately, a majority of voters in democratic Switzerland â€“ have gone and done something wrong and dumb, approving a referendum that bans the construction of minarets. Libertarian demerits are certainly in order. But one very wrong, very dumb thing the Swiss have not done is launch any wars of aggression against Muslim peoples, orÂ anyone else, for that matter.
Which makes it all the more cringe-worthy to read this libel on Andrew Sullivan’s blog:
Good God. Why not synagogues? Or did a neighboring country try that already?
Wow. Straight to the Nazi jab, huh? Never let it be said that Harvard doesn’t make ‘em like they used to.
For the record, this is the same Andrew Sullivan who penned this epochal gem eight years ago:
[B]in Laden proves that the best form of persuasion in that part of the world is not rhetorical but military. Pummel them and they will respect you. Talk to them nicely and youâ€™ll end up like Robert Fisk. Best of all, pummel them and then talk. The most persuasive piece of rhetoric yet unleashed in this conflict has been the daisy cutter bomb. Itâ€™s the only argument that much of this clearly depraved culture actually respects.
Expect more Swiss-bashing from some of the very people who have cheered on the most egregious abuses of Muslims. They’re extremely alert to the dangers of isolationism, you know.
UPDATE: This is too rich. Jeffrey Goldberg, Sullivan’s colleague at The Atlantic, gets in on the anti-Swiss sanctimony. Hah! If the United States or Israel were to attack Tehran tomorrow â€“ which just might halt the construction of a minaret or two â€“ Goldberg would leap to his keyboard to defend the decision as regrettable but justifiable. Again, I’m not a fan of bans or bombs, but the former have the distinct advantage of being reversible.