There is a peculiar sort of courage flourishing across the West: the courage to denounce those who are unlikely to murder you for doing so.

You can see it on campuses, in newsrooms, outside theatres, beneath the windows of synagogues and throughout that sprawling theatre of borrowed conviction known as social media. The participants are fearless. They scream at Jewish students, deface Jewish businesses, drive Jewish speakers from public events and demand that Israelis be removed from respectable life. Then they congratulate themselves on having confronted power.

Power, in this instance, being a nineteen-year-old student wearing a Star of David.

The same heroism is rather harder to locate when writers are threatened, teachers forced into hiding, women intimidated, gay people persecuted, apostates marked for death or Muslim reformers denounced as traitors. Confronting an ideology capable of answering criticism with violence carries certain inconveniences. Careers may suffer. Friendships may evaporate. Police protection may become necessary.

Far safer to confront the Jews.

Jews will argue. They will write letters, contact lawyers, complain to university authorities and ask the police to enforce laws already on the books. They may produce a report, organise a panel discussion or request a meeting. Such terrifying reprisals.

And so the moral exhibitionist can enjoy all the excitement of persecution without any of its actual danger. He can spit venom at Jews while imagining himself to be standing before the tanks in Tiananmen Square.

This is fear displaced onto a safer target.

The psychology is not especially obscure. Western societies can see the growth of radical Islamism within their borders. They see the intimidation, the sectarian organising, the contempt for liberal institutions, the hostility towards women, Jews, homosexuals and dissenting Muslims. They see grievance converted into political pressure and religious identity used to place certain ideas beyond scrutiny.

To describe the problem plainly is to risk the accusation of Islamophobia. The term has become remarkably elastic. It can mean hatred of Muslims, which is contemptible, or it can mean criticism of a political ideology, which is necessary. The confusion is useful. It allows Islamist organisations to present scrutiny of their ideas as an attack on an entire faith community.

Many institutions have accepted the bargain. They will tolerate intimidation rather than risk appearing intolerant. They will abandon Muslims who resist Islamism while congratulating themselves on their........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)