Terrorist attacks on India: “Here in this Parliament, which was itself targeted because of the democracy it represents, we honor the memory of all those who have been taken from us.” Mr. Obama is referring to the December 2001 terrorist attack on India’s parliament, in which six policemen and one civilian were murdered. But he is also taking aim at the idea, common among his progressive friends, that terrorists object to what free societies do—whether in Gaza, Iraq or Kashmir—rather than to what they are. To take the opposite view, as Mr. Obama now seems to have done, is to recognize that terrorists can never be mollified by political concessions, and that democracies live under a common threat. If that’s true of the U.S. and India, why not of the U.S. and Israel as well? ~Bret Stephens

Stephens is at his tendentious best here. There is nothing in this remark that tells us whether Obama was or was not “taking aim” at the blindingly obvious truth that terrorists launch attacks to force changes in policy. Jihadis from Kashmir don’t care whether India is a democracy. They care very much that India refuses to give up control over Kashmir. They targeted the parliament because they wanted to strike at a symbol of the Indian government. The effect of the attack was to harden Indian opinion against them, so in that respect it was a total failure, but the goal was not to strike at a Symbol of Democracy.

Inasmuch as the Indian government considers the status of Kashmir to be settled and unqestionable, Indian policy will never change, but that doesn’t mean that Kashmiri militants hate India because of its freedom. Of course, terrorists can be mollified by political concessions. This is another annoying truth that hegemonists never like to admit (at least when it involves countries they like). If Chechnya were independent and recognized by Russia tomorrow, Chechen attacks on Russians and Russian interests would disappear. Russia is not willing to accept this, and so violent Chechen resistance continues. Sometimes the price for ending resistance is too high, so people tell themselves stories that making concessions never works anyway. Of course, concessions will seem pointless if you assume that they will fail before they are even offered, which is the reason why Stephens and those like him keep claiming that nothing can ever come from making concessions.

It’s also worth emphasizing that “democracies” don’t live under a common threat. Democracies that rule over or occupy disputed territories face the threat of terrorist attacks from the people whose land they occupy and their sympathizers. Brazil, Malaysia, Japan and Taiwan do not really live under a common threat, nor do Sweden, Greece and Lithuania have anything to fear. U.S.-Indian military cooperation is good for strengthening relations with India, and a good relationship with India is in the American interest, but it really has nothing to do with India’s form of government and has very little to do with the security threats it faces. Fortunately, the U.S.-Indian relationship is based on much more than a shared loathing for jihadism and the experience of terrorist attacks.