The Problems With Peter King’s Hearing
And why the ADL objects to it, too
There are two problems with Rep. Peter King’s congressional hearing into “Muslim American radicalization” (and no, neither is that King is a supporter of and apologist for the Irish Republican Army—hypocrisy is heinous, but it is not proof of wrongness).
The moral argument was nicely made by the Anti-Defamation League, which decided that this week it would indeed live up to its nearly century-old mission, “to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” “We strongly urge you and other Members of Congress to explore this serious issue without creating an atmosphere of blame and suspicion of the American Muslim community,” Abraham Foxman and the ADL’s chief counsel wrote King and other members of the Homeland Security Committee. “Congressional efforts to explore legitimate security concerns should not be overwhelmed by the kind of unfair stereotyping and prejudice that has too-frequently accompanied recent public debates. Singling out the Muslim American community for special scrutiny or suspicion would be discriminatory, offensive, ineffective and counterproductive.” (The Reform movement, the National Jewish Democratic Council, and J Street have also expressed reservations about the hearing.)
Then, the practical argument. “King risks helping to promote precisely the narrative Osama bin Laden and his sympathizers try to promote, namely dividing the world between Muslims and non-Muslims,” said a former top Pentagon counterterrorism expert. A number of folks, including Attorney General Eric Holder, have expressed concern that the panel could deter American Muslims from cooperating with law enforcement—a far more important counterterrorism tool than, y’know, a Congressional panel could ever be.
Anyway, your required reading today is Tablet Magazine columnist Michelle Goldberg’s review of King’s supremely self-aggrandizing novel, Vale of Tears. It is a romp (the review, not, apparently, the novel).
King Defends Domestic Terrorism Hearing [NYT]
ADL Letter to House Committee on Homeland Security [ADL]
Peter King, IRA Supporter and Enthusiastic Counter-Terrorism Advocate [WP]
Jewish Groups Criticize Hearing on Muslims [JTA]
King’s Muslim Probe Needs ‘Semantic’ Adjustment to Avoid Maligning Islam [Bloomberg]
Related: The ‘Hero’ of the War on Terror [The Nation]
Islamophobia or Reality? [Tablet Magazine]
Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180
WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.
I NEED TO BE HEARD! BUT I DONT WANT TO PAY.
Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at email@example.com. Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.
We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.