If radical Islamists had been members of an English gentlemen's club, seeking to tone down cartoons depicting the founder of their religion, the Prophet Muhammad, in a negative light, the Jews would have been the first ones to assist them, because that is the way of the civilized world, because being sensitive to others is a mark of successful cooperation, and because the Jews remember all too well what it felt like to see the Nazi newspaper Der Sturmer run cartoons depicting Jews as rats. There is no need to demand, threaten or coerce. All you have to do is ask. Civility goes a long way, and there is nothing wrong with it. On the contrary, it is usually the recommended course of action. Reality, however, is different. Radical Islamists feel fundamentally entitled, believing they are entitled to force the enlightened world to forfeit freedom of opinion, speech and expression. Failure to meet their demands meets violence and murderous terrorism, as was the case in the Jan. 7 attack on the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. These radical Islamists utterly reject the principle guiding all liberal democracies, best put by the philosopher Voltaire, who said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The war currently being waged in Europe, which is expanding to other continents as well -- as seen by North Korea's attempt to quell freedom of speech in the United States over the move "The Interview," and in Germany, where thousands staged anti-Islamization marches over the weekend -- is not between religions, nor is it between the radicals on either side. It is a fight for freedom, equality, and liberty. Humanity has spent too much blood, sweat, tears, and precious years to ensure these rights, to have then stolen away by a group of hoodlums. Circumstances mandate more than just rejecting radical Islamists' demands, they practically bar any compromise. In that respect Israeli bookstore chain Steimatzky's decision to refrain from carrying the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo, whose cover featured a cartoon of a tearful Muhammad, failed to meet the expectations of democracy. The police should have protected Steimatzky, and the public should have volunteered to stand guard in its stores until the very last issue of the satirical magazine would have been sold. After all, it is not the public that defends the magazine, it is the magazine that, in its crass, sometimes radical style, defends the public. Coercion and terrorism must be met with an iron wall, not with capitulation.
