In my latest Jerusalem Post article, I asked an uncomfortable question: is the ideology that attacked America on 9/11 winning?

On September 11, 2001, America was attacked by terrorists driven by a radical Islamist ideology.

We promised to never forget.

But "Never Forget" has to mean more than remembering the images of that terrible day.

It means remembering who attacked us and why.

Today, I see a dangerous moral inversion taking hold.

When Islamist extremists commit violence, we are told to examine their grievances.

When America or Israel defends itself, we are told their existence is the problem.

When Islamist extremism is criticized, the conversation turns almost immediately to accusations of Islamophobia.

And increasingly, terrorism itself is excused, minimized, or repackaged as "resistance."

As a Jewish American, I see the same pattern in the way Israel is treated.

The perpetrators become secondary.

The victims are blamed.

And the country defending itself becomes the villain.

Israel is often the first target. It is never the last.

The ideology that hates Israel almost always carries something else with it: a deep hostility toward America and the West.

Twenty-five years after 9/11, we need moral clarity.

"Never Forget" means more than mourning those we lost. It means understanding who attacked us, defending what they attacked, and refusing to let their ideology win.

Read the full article here:
https://lnkd.in/gnRYx3Ke

#NeverForget #FightAntisemitism #MoralClarity The opinion piece published in The Jerusalem Post presents a sharp argument that the radical ideology behind the 9/11 attacks is gaining ground through a cultural shift in how the West views terrorism and self-defense. [1]

Here is a critical analysis and judgment of the article's core claims.

Main Strengths of the Argument

Focus on Rhetoric: The author correctly identifies a modern tendency in some public circles to rebrand violent extremist actions as simple "resistance" rather than condemning them as terrorism.
Highlighting Moral Clarity: The piece pushes back against moral relativism, arguing that democratic societies must clearly distinguish between groups that target civilians and nations that try to defend their borders.
Recognizing Polarization: Extremist groups historically aim to split societies and erode trust in Western democratic values. Pointing out this psychological and cultural pressure is a valid observation. [1]

Weaknesses and Blind Spots

Broad Generalization: The article groups diverse political criticisms of state actions (such as Israel's military policies) together with the fringe defense of actual terrorism. Many critics of military strategies oppose violence entirely, rather than favoring Islamist ideology.
Ignoring Counter-Terrorism Fallout: The text does not examine how aggressive Western military responses ("The War on Terror") over the past 25 years also destabilized regions and contributed to global friction. [1]
Binary Framing: By framing global discourse as a simple choice between "moral clarity" or "letting the ideology win," the article leaves little room for complex legal or humanitarian debates about civilian casualties and international law.

Final Judgment

The article serves as an emotional and urgent warning about the decay of shared moral boundaries in global politics. However, its analysis is overly simplistic. It treats complex, multi-sided geopolitical conflicts as a straightforward cultural battle, missing the broader structural failures of both Western and Middle Eastern policies over the last quarter-century.