Monthly Archives: November 2006

Greenway Wins the LCE of the Day Award

HDS Greenway, who is one of the Boston Globe’s resident Liberal Cognitive Egocentrists, has tackled the problem of radicalized Muslims in the Britain with predictable results.

H.D.S. GREENWAY
British Muslims on the move
By H.D.S. Greenway | November 21, 2006
MANCHESTER, England

When the head of Britain’s secretive internal security service moves out from the shadowy world of counter-terrorism to publicly warn of an impending threat, Britons take notice. Recently, MI5 chief Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller said that more and more British Muslims are “moving from passive sympathy toward active terrorism through being radicalized . . . Young teenagers are being groomed to be suicide bombers.” MI5 has identified more than 200 terrorist networks in Britain. It is a growing threat, she said, that will “last a generation.”

Britain is emerging as the country most vulnerable to Islamic extremism in Europe. The suicide bombings of the London transportation services last year were followed by the foiled plot to blow up America-bound aircraft over the Atlantic this past summer.

“My service needs to understand the motivations behind terrorism to succeed in countering it, ” she said. And part of the problem was a perception that British foreign policy was anti-Muslim, “in particular, Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Interesting that she left Israel off the list.

But the very formulation is astonishing and shows the lack of psychological sophistication of MI5. This complaint about foreign policy has little to do with what turns Muslims radical, although the radicals regularly make the complaint. They do so, not because if England changes their foreign policy these folks will be more responsive to the demands of civil society. On the contrary, the very threat of turning to violence if Britain’s foreign policy doesn’t align with their demands is a form of blackmail which defies the very basis of the civil society they pretend to be willing to join, if only Britain would comply; and Britain’s compliance would show them that Britain isn’t willing to fight for its civil rules.

By those rules, terror as a response to political disagreement is inadmissable, and by failing to stand by that, the Brits will assure their Muslims that their aggression pays, that Britain is weak. And just as one could predict that the Gaza withdrawal would lead to more violence, so one can predict here that concession will lead to further demands. For the British “Intelligence” — allegedly the best in the world — to take such an obvious smokescreen seriously is pretty amazing.

What would M say? I know what Mrs. Favors, my fifth grade civics teacher would say.

I came to this industrial city in the Midlands as a guest of the British foreign office to meet with British Muslims. Zahid Hussain, the director of an organization called Social Enterprise Development Initiative, said that Muslim young were assaulted by TV and Internet images of Muslims being mistreated in Chechnya, Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, and also the Kashmir, where one-third of British Muslims have roots. The Internet has opened up new worlds of agitation and radical chat rooms into which the young and impressionable can wander.

This is the core of the problem as far as I can make out. The Europeans have no idea how powerful an impact the imagery they run on their TVs has on Muslim Europeans. It may make the BBC and French media ideologues of anti-American and anti-Zionist ferver feel good to seize any occasion to make their rivals look bad — to show exaggerated images of Israeli and American aggression and talk of war-crimes and disproportionate responses. But they clearly don’t realize that the same images have a much more disturbing influence on others.

What comforts the Europeans — these negative images of Israel and the USA make us feel more moral, we are against war, we are for peace and dialogue — enrages others for whom the obvious answer to such images is not to prefer war but to nourish implacable and violent hatreds. And rather than running images of Muslim aggression to show the disapproval of things far more vicious, like real genocide, like Darfur, they obsessively run the images of Western aggression. What Muslim, looking at the images of mayhem from Qana this summer, presented as the fault, even the intentional fault of the Israelis, could not feel outraged and vindictive about Israel and anyone else who helps them.

“A million people marched in the UK, yet we are still in Iraq,” he said. “It’s a feeling inside people and they look for solutions. The Palestine is an issue that absolutely needs to be resolved,” he said “People feel totally powerless.” And Britain’s close alliance with the United States wasn’t helping. “If only there was a perception that the United States was trying to solve the issue,” he said.

I’m not calling Mr. Hussain’s integrity into question. He may well believe what he says. I’m calling Greenway’s intelligence into question for taking these statements at face value and reporting them without either challenging the speaker or offering his readers any analysis.

The language here is classic demopathic discourse. We must solve the Palestinian problem before anything can work out. The claim is ludicrous — until a virtually insoluble problem has been solved by active British and US involvement, Muslims cannot be expected to deal with real, immediate, and local problems. Apparently, repeated constantly with no challenge, it has now risen to the status of axiom. This aside, there arises the obvious question, “What needs to be done?” My guess is that Mr. Hussain wants Britain and the USA to force the Israelis to make major concessions to the Palestinians. (What else would appease militant Muslims?)

Greenway, of course, doesn’t ask. (He agrees.) Nor does he ask the man why he faults the US (which has done more than any country to try and solve the problem). So he doesn’t probe what Hussain thinks are the legitimate rights of the Palestinians (river to sea?) as well as legitimate means to achieve those rights (suicide terror), as well as what “trying” might consist of.

Of course the answers to such questions would map quite neatly onto the map of domestic radicalism for which Mr Hussain offers a false solution. Give in to my demands, no matter how much they are not in your self-interest, or we’ll start doing more suicide bombing. More blackmail. Just as Israel now suffers for every concession — leaving Lebanon, trying the Oslo process, leaving Gaza, cease-fire in Lebanon — so will the Europeans suffer for every concession they make to these kinds of demands.

Wouldn’t it be nice if Mr. Greenway, a veteran reporter and a supposedly shrewd man with a good record of wanting nice things to happen, were to probe these demopathic complaints. (Note. I’m not saying Mr. Hussain is a demopath — he may be a very shallow thinker and just take this dishonest rhetoric at face value, giving a sympathetic account of the motivations of radical, and radicalizing Muslims to Western media.) But dream on if you expect reflections of this sort from Greenway. Even without believing that Mr. Hussain is misleading us, our journalist could just ask them to find out if his interlocutor is sincere (we want a solution), or a demopath (we want you to weaken Israel so we can destroy her). But, alas, Greenway would never give someone like Mr. Hussain a hard time.

“When I was a child I believed that Muslims were united all around the world. (Non-Muslims) don’t understand that feeling. We feel an affinity for Muslims abroad. It’s a sense of belonging,” said Samer Salam, an orthodontist.

In the 19th century, outrages against Christians in foreign lands would inflame British public opinion, but in modern, secular Britain this feeling for co-religionists across the seas has lost its power among Christians. But not for Muslims.

Fascinating. There are two reasons why the British (and other liberal Westerners) have “lost” their sense of solidarity: 1) they’ve worked hard to overcome the tribal values of “my family/tribe/religion/nation right or wrong”, and 2) they’ve lost any real sense of being Christian. What’s striking about Greenway’s formulation is that he presents this split with complete neutrality. No value judgments here, certainly not of the tribal Muslims who would never break their solidarity with Sudanese Arab Muslims to denounce their genocide of black Sudanese Muslims, even though he almost surely approves of the first reason for European and Western lack of concern for the outrages against Christians around the world (primarily committed by Muslims), and possibly the second as well. Muslims get a pass.

Moreover, Greenway doesn’t even hint that this sense of solidarity — in particular its current intensity — is a relatively new phenomenon, the product of both the media of international cable/internet, and the emergence of a pan-Muslim Islamism that reformulates Muslim identity as global. The earlier generation of Muslim immigrants to France did not have this kind of global identity. The massacres and outrages against Muslims in Bosnia in the 1990s raised scarcely an eyebrow among European Muslims (the most I can find is a 1200-person demonstration in 1999 in Paris by Albanians and their supporters), whereas al Durah (2000) and the Danish cartoons (2005) aroused passion the world over. I would date the shift not to the Iraq war or the Serbian-Muslim conflict, but to al Durah and the October 7, 2000 demonstrations all over the world. But that’s just my obsession. I will accept correction of readers can offer prior evidence.

It is not just foreign policy, however. Muslims constantly complain that they are being demonized at home in the British press.

Again, no analytic comment from our alleged journalist. No remark on how much the British press has muzzled itself from any criticism of the Muslims lest it provoke angry responses; no comments on the extraordinarily thin skin of British Muslims who find any criticism “demonizing.” Just a flat statement that gathers weight with the reference to constant complaints… as if, by constantly complaining about something made the complaint true. Maybe it’s a sign of just how ill-suited to a free society these Muslims are. After all freedom demands free speech for all — and an ability to self-criticize.

Some second- and third-generation Muslim youths, feeling not quite accepted in British society, are finding solace in religion. “The young are saying their parents aren’t real Muslims,” said Zahid Hussain. One of the great fallacies seems to have been the perception in the host countries of Europe that when Muslim youths went to European schools, adopted Western dress, listened to Western rock, and played football they would become more secular, as have most Europeans.

The point about mistaken expectations among Europeans is, I think, correct. It reflects the exceptionally shallow understanding of what democracy and civil society consist of that seems to characterize the European appreciation of what they have finally accomplished (largely after WW II). The very consumerism that they criticize Americans for emerges as the essence of the socialization process they assumed would work on their Muslim immigrants.

Today, as a political statement, many Muslim girls are wearing veils that their mothers never wore.

No single statement in this essay marks Greenway as an apologist more than this one. One gets the impression that a) it’s a political statement, and b) it’s the choice of Muslim girls. And while that may be true of some (few), others do so because they are under terrible pressure by their communities (largely the alpha males) to do so. If they don’t wear the veil, they are in danger of being considered assimilated sluts and therefore, rape-bait. To present the choice of the veil as a political choice of young women is a perfect illustration of a Western journalist serving as an unfiltered channel of Muslim propaganda.

Former foreign minister and parliamentary leader Jack Straw, who represents another midland town, Blackburn, said recently that he thought Muslim women wearing veils made positive relations between Muslims and non-Muslims more difficult. Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed, saying veils were a “mark of separation.” Holland is considering a total ban on wearing the all-concealing “burqa” in public.

Yet Afzal Khan, who finished his term in May as the first Muslim lord mayor of Manchester “in 700 years,” wrote that “there is an implication in Jack’s statement that difference is wrong. Britain has always had a strong tradition of different people coming together and living in this country.” Recently a judge in London ruled that female lawyers could appear in court fully veiled as long as they could be heard properly.

Once again we get Muslim apologetics unfiltered, as if the veil — really the Niqab which covers everything but a slit for the eyes — represents mere “difference,” and anyone expressing discomfort at dealing with someone so dramatically concealed from view was opposed to difference.

There can be little doubt that strains between Muslims and non-Muslims are growing in Britain, which for so long, and rightfully so, prided itself on its tolerance. The entire concept of multi-culturalism is being questioned here as never before.

Home Secretary John Reid is crafting a “script of British values” to include “respect for the law, freedom of speech, equality of opportunity and taking responsibility for others” as a way to win Muslim hearts and minds.
“There are some that believe that we’ve lost a generation,” a Whitehall official told the Independent. “Now we’ve got to make sure we don’t lose the next one.”

It’s not clear whether Greenway is aware of how lame this formula is, and that’s directly related to his soft-pedaling of what has brought about the strains between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain. The Brits are (very) slowly awakening to a population of people who can get enraged over just about anything — like Jack Straw’s comments or Danish cartoons — who produce people who openly call for a European holocaust of infidels on the one hand, and slick PR folk who “explain” and justify these responses to credulous journalists eager to give the Muslim communities a positive spin.

london protest signs

Instead of tackling the real problem — the radical illegitimacy of an ideology that says, “if I don’t like your foreign policy, I’ll blow up your civilians until you change it in my favor” — it’s “how can we win your hearts and minds?”

Now this is nice. And where Muslims are concerned, the British are definitely trying to be nice. But think about their formula for a second:

    respect for the law, freedom of speech, equality of opportunity and taking responsibility for others

Respect for the law, that is the British law as opposed to Muslim law, will not fly very high.

Freedom of speech will work as long as they can use it; anyone else who uses free speech to criticize Muslims will not be tolerated.

Equal opportunity means not only equal chances to succeed but also to fail. The French schools have melted down in the ZUS (zones urbaines sensibles) because, given equal opportunity to get an education, the Muslim immigrants’ children preferred to trash the system in which they did so badly.

Taking responsibility for others… no comment.

This list illustrates better than almost anything how clueless the British authorities and Greenway are about the nature of the problem. It is the implications of this very list, and in particular the granting to “others” of the rights one wants to use to gain one’s own ascendancy that represent the very anathema that Western civilization constitutes to Islamists.

David Pryce-Jones’s New Book: Betrayal

If anyone wants to have an idea of the workings of the French Fifth “Republic,” and the inordinate impact that the Quai D’Orsay (equivalent of the US State Department) has on policy, and the ways in which their Eurabian policy essentially destroys the very France whose “grandeur” they work so hard to advance, David Pryce-Jones’ new book, Betrayal: France, the Arabs and the Jews is the book for you. (It also helps explain how the Al Durah affair could be immune to correction.)

Mr. Gurfinkiel is the president of the Jean-Jacques Rousseau Institute in Paris.

The World as Seen Along the Seine
By MICHEL GURFINKIEL
November 15, 2006; Page D14

How is it that France, the first country in Europe to grant Jews equal rights as individuals, has come to be seen as a place less and less hospitable to Jews and, more particularly, a place hostile to Zionism, the project to emancipate Jews as a people? Why has France, which voted for the creation of Israel at the United Nations in 1947, shown such marked unfriendliness ever since, except for a brief period in the late 1950s and early 1960s? According to “Betrayal,” by the British writer David Pryce-Jones, the main villain is the Quai d’Orsay, the French ministry of foreign affairs.

I would be even more blunt, especially about the situation today. The French government pursues policies — foreign and domestic — that essentially encourage the Jews — 1% of their population that provides 20% of their cultural elites — to leave, and encourages the Muslim immigrant population — 10% of their population that provides a hefty majority of their prison population and their school dropouts — to act out and make themselves at home in their own peculiar way. And, informed exactly wrong by their media, the French people neither know about it, nor realize that in their ignorance, anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism, (and cowardice) they contribute mightily to this disastrous trend.

Mr. Pryce-Jones’s primary sources are the archives of the Quai itself. Although he thanks French friends for having “showed him the way through” this material, he deserves immense credit for unearthing incisive quotations and vignettes and then reconstructing the intricate network of affiliations within the Quai itself and within the French political establishment at large. The portrait he draws of French officialdom makes for vivid and devastating reading.

The origins of the French foreign ministry’s hostility to Israel — and its repercussions.

What first emerges out of Mr. Pryce-Jones’s investigation is the Quai’s enormous influence in modern France. Under the Third and Fourth Republics — from 1870 to 1940 and then from 1945 to 1958 — the foreign ministry took advantage of a succession of weak cabinets to impose its own idea of France’s role in the world. Under the Fifth Republic — i.e., the current, presidential regime founded by Charles de Gaulle — the Quai d’Orsay virtually seized the executive’s diplomatic powers. A near monarch, the French president has to be a larger-than-life protagonist in world affairs, which turns him into a hostage of the Quai’s professionals. The Quai also exercises a strong influence over public opinion, as Mr. Pryce-Jones shows, through France’s semi-official newspaper, Le Monde, and through the theoretically independent news service Agence France-Presse (AFP).

Note carefully that this impact on AFP extends well beyond that, and includes France2. When one considers the ways in which Chirac used the al Durah incident to humiliate the Israelis, scuttle Clinton’s initiatives, and encourage an Intifada which he thought would put Europe — France at the lead — back in the Middle East equation, one begins to understand why he would give Charles Enderlin awards and write letters in his praise.

To what purpose is all this power directed? Ever since Waterloo, the French foreign service’s self-imposed mission has been to restore French grandeur and to resist Anglo-Saxon “hegemony,” whether British or American. This goal has repeatedly pushed aside more mundane concerns, such as preparing to meet the threats of German expansion and Russian imperialism. In the 1890s, as Germany embarked on the policies that would lead to World War I, Gabriel Hanotaux, France’s foreign minister, devoted his energy obsessively to creating a French-German-Russian “continental Alliance” against the British Empire and the U.S.

This will be France’s downfall. In her rivalry with natural allies who outstrip her in the pacific arts (economic development, cultural influence, global leadership), she makes “allies” with belligerent regressive forces that do not share her democratic commitments. Indeed what France and her “allies” have in common is a politics of resentment and envy on the one hand, and a readiness to betray allies whenever it suits their purposes, on the other.

A corollary to this grand sense of national mission is the Quai’s conception of France as “an Arab power” or “a Muslim power.” During the heyday of European colonialism, such a self-conception meant carving out of Egypt, North Africa and the Levant an equivalent to British India. Today it means nearly the opposite: either serving the interests of radical Arab or Muslim governments or promoting the fusion of Europe and the Muslim world into an Islamic-dominated “Mediterranean” civilization. But perhaps such a reversal is not so striking: Even in the predatory 19th century, French diplomats entertained a romantic idea of Islam. To Hanotaux, France was the only European power “capable of acting without fatal contention but side by side with Muslim monotheism.”

This brings up one of the more salient problems with Edward Saïd’s Orientalism. Although he wants to make Orientalism a form of racism (and hence a reprehensible expression of hatred and contempt for Arab culture), it’s full of examples of the opposite, of an almost love-blind romanticism in which Frenchmen in particular, disgusted with the soulless machine of modernity, seek redemption and salvation from the mysterious world of the Orient, especially from the Islamic Arab world.

Such outreach was accompanied by insular prejudice. In the course of the 19th century, French Jews were gradually accepted into industry, finance, politics and the arts, and even the military. But the Quai was a different matter. In October 1893, Louis Herbette, the Quai’s secretary general, tersely remarked of one applicant (in a note quoted by Mr. Pryce-Jones): “I saw M. Grunebaum who spontaneously withdrew his request. He is indeed someone distinguished and highly to be recommended. He bowed with good grace to the motives dictating the Department’s decision.”

As the Quai grew in size in the early 20th century, it finally admitted some Jews, but anti-Semitism remained rampant, as if ingrained in the bureaucracy’s culture. In the 1890s, most French diplomats had been ardent anti-Dreyfusards, contending (wrongly) that Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish military officer, had committed treason on behalf of Germany. After World War I, French diplomats took a special interest in “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” circulating in Europe for the first time, and ascribed both Bolshevism and Zionism to “Talmudic atavism.” In 1938, the Quai sabotaged the Evian conference on European refugees, the only diplomatic effort to alleviate the fate of now “stateless” German and Austrian Jews. Even after the Holocaust, anti-Semitism was all too common in the French foreign service.

Under such circumstances, it was only natural for the Quai to adopt an anti-Zionist stand. De Gaulle famously cast aspersions on Israel in 1967, encouraged by his foreign minister, the former Vichy official Couve de Murville. (The Jews, de Gaulle declared at a press conference, are “an elite people, self-assured and domineering,” a people who show “a burning ambition for conquest.”) Any number of bitter episodes have followed since, right down to the one involving Daniel Bernard, the French ambassador to London who in 2003 called Israel a “shitty little country.”

Note how in both remarks the part of projection far outweighs the part of describing accurately reality (with the exception of “self-assured”, which describes what De Gaulle and the French wished they were).

And it isn’t only rhetoric. Mr. Pryce-Jones describes how, immediately after World War II, senior officers in the French foreign service conspired to rescue Haj Amin Al-Husseini, the former mufti of Jerusalem, who had taken up residence in Nazi Germany during the war and who was answerable, upon Germany’s defeat, for various war crimes, including active support for the extermination of the Jews. The French, having sheltered him in Paris for months, eventually let him escape to Egypt in 1946 carrying a forged passport.

And, as in the case of al Durah, were instrumental in unleashing some really devastating evil upon the world, largely in their eagerness to stick it to the Jews and Israel.

True, the Quai has suffered setbacks. Some political leaders, rejecting its biases, have undertaken more balanced policies. But the Quai’s ill effects persist, especially in the form of what Mr. Pryce-Jones dryly calls “the harvest.” The Quai’s flirtation with Islam over the years resulted in official France turning a blind eye to the mass immigration of Arabs and Muslims. The result, today, is street violence, ethnic rioting and terrorist activity.

Mr. Pryce-Jones is right to call his brilliant book “Betrayal.” It is not just Israel or the Jews who have been betrayed, but France itself.

Let’s Talk about Animals: Horowitz on Palestinian Words and Deeds

Ellen Horowitz has written a piece on the contradictions between Palestinian accusations of Israeli brutality and their own deeds from the perspective of an Israeli. One could find fewer illustrations of the Palestinian demopathic mindset at work. I would welcome references to a Palestinian perspective that addresses this problem of the pot calling the kettle black.

This is the definitive, linked and illustrated version of this article, which has been published at Israeli Insider.

Let’s Talk About Animals
November 9, 2006
Ellen W. Horowitz

It’s been a bad week for Arab women and children.

Sunday started out with a horrific report on the grisly discovery of a missing four year old boy. He was found dead in a garbage dumpster in the Beduin city of Rahat.

The father of the young boy reported that one of his wives (he has three of them) had stabbed to death the child of another wife, because she was jealous and unable to conceive.

Police believe that at first the child’s body was stored in the washing machine, but was later dumped in the garbage.

On Monday, a female suicide bomber blew herself up near Israeli soldiers in Beit Hanoun. Lucky for us, she goes to paradise a bit unaccomplished after having only lightly wounded one our soldiers.

That same day the Jerusalem Post reported that an all-women’s cell of Islamic Jihad terrorists was discovered and apprehended. The women were handlers of several terror cells in the areas of Jerusalem and Judea. Among other activities, they were involved in the transferring of funds from Syria to be used for the families of suicide terrorists, and for the funding of terror attacks. One of the arrested women also oversaw the building of an explosives laboratory. The less capable women have been relegated to the position of acting as human shields for terrorists – but hey, it’s a job.

And just when you thought that equal opportunity employment for women had been embraced by the Palestinian patriarchal society (at least in the terror sector), a scathing report from Human Rights Watch on the status of Palestinian women came to the fore on Tuesday.

According to one article, the Palestinian Authority’s Central Bureau of Statistics reported that 23 percent of Arab women living in PA-controlled areas have experienced domestic violence, and sixty-six percent said they were subject to psychological abuse at home.

The report also cited that the situation is exacerbating due to the fact that the abusers are granted virtual immunity under Islamic law.

Which brings us to Wednesday’s accidental artillery shelling, by the IDF, of an alleged civilian area in Beit Hanoun. As of this writing, the jury is still out on who, how, how many, when, and what occurred. And then there’s always the very enigmatic Arab reaction. Based on the Islamic worldview, I’m not sure if the event constitutes wholly bad news. On one hand there’s always a glut of wailing women images and morbid, heartrending photo ops provided to the press – followed by cries for revenge.

doll\'s head
Photograph from Beit Hanoun in al Jazeera (which apparently still has no standards, even after Reutersgate).

But, on the other hand, the mothers of the alleged victims seem rather pleased – at least in the interviews.

Reporters quoted one mother who purportedly lost four children as saying: “I am proud to be the mother of the shahids, it is a great honor and we pray to Allah to compensate us.”

After a week like this, you¹ll forgive me if I thought it was funny – in macabre sort of way – when Palestinian Government Spokesman Dr. Ghazi Hamad said that “Israel is not a country of humans, but of animals”. For the record, he also mentioned that Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth, but that’s not news – we’ve been hearing it a lot lately.

But Dr. Hamad, if we Israeli animals are wiped off the map, then who would care for and treat your wounded that we receive at Israeli hospitals?

I’m not sure why our fuzzy little friends in the animal kingdom get such a bad rap by us human types. Animals are instinctive, not conniving creatures. I suppose the accurate term to describe more-than-barbaric behavior would be “subhuman”. But somehow, when we hear of the carrying out of some ghastly cruelty, we naturally and instinctively gasp and exclaim under our breath, “those animals!”

Throughout the last several years of world-wide carnage, I’ve had a lot of those catch my-breath-at-barbarism opportunities. But the quintessential animal moment for me came on October 12, 2000. Two of our reserve soldiers accidentally took the wrong turn and ended up being more-than-brutally lynched in the Palestinian Police compound of Ramallah (remember the picture with the bloody hands?)

bloody hands

When the wife of one of the reservists called her husband’s celphone, it was picked up by the butchers who informed the woman, “We are killing your husband.”

Since then we’ve watched everything from Arabs playing football with body parts, to beheadings in realtime, to the deliberate and calculated mass immolation of civilians in the name of Allah.

In fact anyone who still has the capacity and sensitivity to gasp, and turn away from the glut of savagery brought upon us by global Jihad, must be a highly evolved individual.

Then there are those, in the international community, who are so good at feigning outrage – it comes with the job. International leaders were leaping to conclusions, before an accurate account of the incident had been reported, or an investigation had been completed. They rely instead on ghastly eyewitness accounts accompanied by images of corpses, funeral pyres, morgue refrigerators, and the operating theater. Normally that would be pretty good evidence to base a report on, but in Pallywood these things require verification by investigation.

In the past, on more than one occasion, these images have been fabricated or arranged for dramatic effect – We saw this theater of lies with Al Dura, Jenin, Rafah, Gaza Beach, and Qana. One can almost assume that the mishap at Beit Hanoun, whether authentic or not, could likely have a good dose of Pallywood mixed in with the tragic facts.

The Foreign Minister of Italy called the incident a “massacre” . He must be taking lessons from the Palestinians who have a tendency to describe everything in those terms or worse.

Back in the summer of 2004 when Israel destroyed some buildings in Rafah which were used as a cover for sophisticated weapon¹s smuggling tunnels emanating from Egypt, the Mayor of Rafah compared the incident to the bombing of Hiroshima.

And instead of the top wire service acting responsibly, by questioning the mayor’s delusional perspective, the Associated Press proceeded to disseminate the report (it’s worth noting that the deputy mayor’s reference to Israel as a Nazi state which perpetrated a holocaust, also went over the news wire).

The European Union described the recent incident at Beit Hanoun as “a profoundly shocking event.” True enough. But it would be a profoundly intelligent move on EU’s part if they would take a real penetrating look into what kind of culture their generous funds to the Palestinians have been fostering. A thorough re-assessment of their policies would be in Europe’s best interest, as the flames of Jihad that the EU has been fueling appear to be spreading in their direction.

global pot

It would be profoundly inspiring if the EU, instead of conveniently pointing the finger at Israel, would challenge and pressure the Arab world to try and raise themselves up from their current monstrous standing, to the level of animals – even primitive ones. Then maybe we would have somebody to talk to. But we’re most likely talking about years of evolution.

It’s profoundly idiotic that Israel continues to use the same repeatedly failed formula when approaching libelous accusations with regards to her defensive actions:

a) We instantaneously issue an apology before investigating the occurrence.
I suppose we do this in order to placate the feeding frenzy of the press – which is so very pressed to be first to deliver the goods to a salivating public.
b) Once the exonerating facts are in, we fall all over ourselves in bumbling attempts to set the record straight.

And how does one gracefully retract an apology?
This kind of foolishness makes re-runs of the Three Stooges look like serious drama.

As Caroline Glick rightfully pointed out, in a Jerusalem Post column covering the Al Dura trials two weeks ago, “When Israel refuses to defend itself from blood libels, it gives silent license to attacks against Israel and world Jewry in the name of those libels.”

But it’s worth noting that despite an incompetent government response to a public relations crisis, the Israeli Defense Forces have a sense of conscious and accountability, and they try ever-so-hard to maintain the moral high ground in an insanely brutal region.

The same cannot be said of the Palestinian leadership. When faced with the prospect of condemning terror attacks, Yasser Arafat used to go through almost humorous verbal gymnastics and conniptions to avoid the task.

If love is defined as “never having to say you’re sorry”, then I guess the Palestinian authority, the EU and the UN must love us a lot – because they never have to apologize.

But remember, Dr. Ghazi Hamad, we Israelis – with all of our faults – are far more human than the rest of you. Because animals wouldn’t treat your wounded, nor sincerely investigate a possible mishap, nor apologize when necessary. It seems you, the EU, and the rest the world should do their best to keep us on the map. Because I have a hunch that without Israel, you men (joined by your women and children) would have torn each other to shreds long ago.

—-

The writer lives in the Golan Heights and is the author of The Oslo Years: A Mother’s Journal (Distributed by Gefen Publishing).

Karsenty’s Decision up in English Translation

I have now made available and English translation of the court’s decision on the case of France2 and Charles Enderlin vs. Philippe Karsenty. I will be following it up with commentary at this blog. The translation is available in a new Al Durah section of pages listed at the right of the blog.

I welcome all reflections on this decision, especially from people with legal experience. As an historian familiar with the details, the reasoning strikes me as remarkably poor. But it may be brilliant from a legal point of view.

Amy Gutmann’s Halloween Fadihah: How to Recover from a Public Humiliation

On October 31, 2006, President Amy Gutmann held her annual Halloween party triggering an image and series of events that demonstrates much of what ails academia these days. While there are conflicting reports as to what actually happened, the photograph and her response to its publication indicates a problem that goes well beyond President Gutmann’s problematic behavior.


A picture to regret: Grinning honkey trying to be generous of spirit.

As far as can be ascertained, the following events occurred:

President Gutmann allowed herself to have pictures taken with student guests at the party one by one, including with a senior student, Saad Saadi, who chose to dress as a suicide bomber with a kafiya around his head, a toy rifle and replica of bombs around his torso. All the photos in question, later posted at Saadia’s website, and still later taken down, were shot at the President’s home, during party she sponsored for her students.

Among the photos taken at the party we find Mr. Saadi and other guests at the party enacting “execution” scenarios that have become the “snuff films” of the 21st century for a wide range of web-surfers.

saadia executes
Not to get too psychoanalytic, but there is something profoundly sado-masochistic about this one that reminds me of the self-flagellating self-loathing that Pascal Bruckner talks about in his latest book.

SNN Podcasts an Interview with Me

Tom Paine, grand fromage of Shire News Network, has a second podcast up interviewing me on the Al Durah trials. If you remember the scene in Fish Called Wanda where Wanda and Otto open the safe, only to find it empty, you may have a sense of how Disappointed! I was when I answered TP’s question.

Between Art and News, Part III: Ellen Horowitz on Enderlin as False Journalist

This is Part 3 of a Three Part Series. Read Part 1 and Part 2. It has also been published at Israel Insider.

hizbullaboard

Billboard in Lebanon, photographed on October 14, 2000, in which the ploy of Palestinian TV to insert the picture of an Israeli firing into the footage of al Durah has become a montage.

Charles Enderlin didn’t simply lay the blame on Israel because of his personal misreading of the situation. Nor can it be that his trusted Palestinian cameraman merely led him astray. There must be another dynamic at play here, because what’s most disturbing is not what Enderlin didn’t know, but what he did know — and what he felt comfortable doing.

Three years after the Al Dura incident, Charles Enderlin was reviewing the raw footage taken by Talal Abu Rahma, on the day of the alleged shooting, with historian Richard Landes. Enderlin responded to his guest’s exclamation at how much of the material was obviously (even ludicrously) staged, ‘action footage’ with a nonchalant, “Oh, they do that all the time. It’s their cultural style. They exaggerate.”

Enderlin knew of this cultural phenomenon in the Arab world. He knew that it was a prevalent tendency among the actors, players and photographers in the field; and if he did not realize how much his very own Palestinian cameraman, Talal, engaged in such practices, it would constitute terminal naïveté and gross negligence.

MSM Silence on “Wild West” in the Paris Subway

[Texte français à la fin.]

There is an article, now scanned and on the web, in the Parisien, a journal already with a record for publishing what the MSM papers won’t, that recounts the attack of some 100 “youths” from the “difficult neighborhoods” who attacked and robbed of their personal possessions passengers on the Metro inside Paris to the point that the police had to evacuate the station Chateau-Rouge, a site already on some people’s “dangerous sites in Paris” list.

This incident, which had people fleeing the subway in panic, and the police closed off the station to arrest the youth is not unprecedented. Last spring, just before the riots — in the daytime — passengers were jumped and relieved of their goods. Said one:

“They took my laptop and I didn’t move. I just tried to hide my bag,” said Thierry. “We went through ten minutes when we felt as insignificant as a straw in the wind.”

And that’s just what you were supposed to feel. You’ve been humiliated. And you took it lying down. Double victory for them.

And that double victory is then turned into a triple victory when the French MSM avoid any mention of the incident. Thus the French slowly but surely let some of the Metro stops and lines become “lost territories,” taken over by gangs whose information network is excellent, and the losers don’t even know it’s happening.

Why no report? Because it’s too embarrassing? Because if the tourists knew they wouldn’t come? Because if the French knew, they’d vote “right wing”? All apparently compelling reasons for the French MSM; all very bad reasons for the future of the French Republic.

The French text of the article, posted here, with shrewd commentary, runs as follows:

Une centaine de vandales s’attaquent aux voyageurs

Des rames surbondées où les agressions se multiplient, des voyageurs qui fuient le métro complètement paniqués et pour finir, des policiers contraints d’évacuer une station. C’est une sorte d’attaque à la diligence version moderne qu’ont subie mardi soir les usagers des lignes 4 et 12. Un racket en règle qui s’est déroulé en deux entre les stations Marcadet-Poisonniers et Chateau rouge. Hier, cinq majeurs agès entre 18 et 22 ans étaient jugés en comparution immédiate par le tribunal correctionnel de Paris et trois mineurs originaires du Val-de-Marne devaient être convoqués devant un juge des enfants de Créteil.

Tout a débuté mardi, peu avant 21 heures, quand plusieurs centaines de jeunes ont quitté la salle Dock Haussmann près de la porte d’Aubervilliers, où ils venaient d’assister au spectacle spécial Halloween “Big aprem infernale”. “Ils étaient entre 300 et 400. Ils ont commencé à jeter des projectiles vers notre voiture avant de converger vers les transports en commun” raconte un fonctionnaire de police en faction ce soir l) boulevard Ney (19e). Immédiatement en alerte, les forces de l’ordre escortent les bus PC surbondés et répondent à un premier appel d’urgence à la station de métro Marcadet-Poissonniers. “Quand nous sommes arrivés, des voyageurs choqués sortaient de la bouche de métro en courant. C’est là que 4 victimes nous ont dit qu’elles venaient de se faire dépouiller par plus d’une centaines de jeunes” raconte ce policier de la compagnie de sécurisation.

La station Chateau-Rouge entièrement évacuée.

Dans la station où la rame a été immobilisée, les policiers inspectent les wagons et découvrent différents objets qui jonchent le sol. “Il y avait de tout : des téléphones portables, des pass Navigo, des baladeurs numériques, on a même retrouvé un marteau” dévoile ce fonctionnaire. Mais lors de cette tournée de prospection, les victimes terrorisées ne reconnaissent pas leurs agresseurs. La rame pleine à ras-bord peut donc repartir. Les vols avec violence recommencent. Le signal d’alarme ne tarde pas à retentir et le métro s’immobilise à nouveau entre Marcadet-Poissoniers et Chateau-Rouge.

“Nous avons décidé alors de faire sortir tout de monde de la rame et de procéder à des palpations sur des personnes qui nous paraissaient suspectes. Sur l’une d’elle, nous avons retrouvé les papiers d’identité d’une victime” raconte ce policier. A l’issue de cette procédure, 12 jeunes gens dont des mineurs seront finalement interpellés. Les forces de l’ordre choisissent alors d’évacuer entièrement la station et d’encadrer le reste de la bande, laissé libre, qui peut rejoindre la gare du Nord à pied. “Dans cette affaire, nous avons eu l’avantage d’être au courant de leur présence avant la commission des faits. Mais si nous n’étions pas intervenus très rapidement dès la première station, les exactions auraient continué” commente ce fonctionnaire.

Un précédent dans le 19e

Le même type de racket en bande dans le métro s’était déjà produit le 28 mars en pleine crise du CPE. Une heure avant le début d’une manifestation, plus d’une centaine de jeunes s’en étaient pris aux voyageurs de la ligne 7 entre les stations Porte de la Villette et Corentin Cariou. “Ils se sont mis à voler tout ce qu’ils pouvaient… Une femme a même été tirée par les cheveux sur plusieurs mètres” racontait à l’époque Thierry, un des usagers présents au moment des faits. Cette fois là, les forces de l’ordre n’avaient pu devancer les intentions des agresseurs et n’avaient pu procéder à la moindre interpellation. “ils m’ont pris mon portable et je n’ai pas bougé, j’ai juste tenté de cacher ma sacoche” évoquait Thierry. On a vécu dix minutes où on ne se sentait pas plus important qu’un fétu de paille.

John Rosenthal on the Al Durah Trials

One of the best discussions of the trials on al Durah is the relatively short piece by John Rosenthal at World Politics Watch. It is especially good since in a relatively short space it covers the full range of issues — from the historical background to details of the trial to the larger implications. I cite some of the choicer passages below.

France: The Al-Dura Defamation Case and the End of Free Speech

John Rosenthal | Bio | 03 Nov 2006
World Politics Watch Exclusive

In the title of an article that appeared in the French weekly Valeurs Actuelles in December 2005, the journalist Michel Gurfinkiel asked “Is Freedom of Speech under Threat in France?” Gurfinkiel’s question was prompted by threats of legal action against French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut. In an interview with the Israeli paper Haaretz, Finkielkraut had made observations on last fall’s riots in the French banlieues that his detractors denounced as racist “incitement.” Nearly one year on, and following the judgment of a Parisian court in a high profile defamation case, there is no longer room for doubt. Public discourse in France is increasingly subjected to restrictions incompatible with a free society.

Les procès Al-Durah, acte II : Portrait d’une culture de l’honneur en crise

Le deuxième “procès Al-Durah” a pour objet une manifestation qui s’est déroulée en octobre 2002 devant les locaux de France 2. Un documentaire de la chaîne ARD, l’homologue allemande de France 2, venait de montrer la désinformation spectaculaire par Charles Enderlin et la malhonnêteté criante de son caméraman Talal Abou Rahmeh. France 2 en bloqua la diffusion en France, alors que celle-ci aurait du être quasiment automatique, s’agissant d’un sujet qui concernait la France. Il en résulta une manifestation de protestation, à l’appel d’un vaste regroupement d’associations, juives ou pas, qui décerna, à France 2 et Enderlin, le “prix de la désinformation”. Parmi les divers appels, un site web appela à manifester contre “les mensonges et l’énorme manipulation” de France 2. Pour défendre sa réputation, France 2 a entamé des poursuites contre celui qu’elle accuse d’être responsable du site web, pour “atteinte à l’honneur et à la considération de M. Charles Enderlin”.

Sans doute, Américains ou Israéliens jugeront tout cela complètement fou, et je serai d’accord avec eux. Une des raisons pour lesquelles les juges de ces affaires de diffamation ne consacrent qu’une après-midi à l’audition des témoins et aux argumentaires des parties est qu’il y en a plein d’autres en attente. Alain Finkielkraut, une des rares voix sensées et courageuses de la France d’aujourd’hui, a cinq procès sur le dos, pour des propos qui, aux États-Unis, seraient débattus ouvertement dans les médias.

Mais la législation française sur la diffamation favorise grandement les plaignants, et de tels propos tombent sous le coup de ces lois. On pourrait alors supposer que la question sera de savoir si c’était vrai ou faux, si la cour prend en considération des éléments de preuve. Était-il exact de parler de mensonges et de manipulation ?

C’est cet espoir qui avait rendu si optimistes ceux d’entre nous mêlés à cette série de trois procès en diffamation autour de l’affaire Al-Durah à la sortie de la première audience. Le procureur l’avait dit clairement, les allégations étaient infamantes. Mais, ainsi qu’elle l’avait exprimé clairement, la justice voulait que l’on se demande “est-ce exact ?” et si oui, il s’agirait alors de critiques légitimes.

Dans la mesure où je m’intéresse tout spécialement au rôle central que jouent la critique publique et l’autocritique dans la mise en place et la pérennité de la “société civile”, cette question – la possibilité pour les citoyens de critiquer des personnages de la vie publique – me semble vitale à un moment de son histoire où la France est confrontée au défi culturel si grand que représente l’absorption de millions d’immigrants musulmans, généralement aussi mal disposés envers la société civile française que peu enclins à l’autocritique.

L’étonnant retournement du tribunal lors du premier procès contre Philippe Karsenty, après la recommandation du procureur d’abandonner les charges (car l’accusé avait fourni suffisamment d’éléments à l’appui de ses dires, et la gravité du sujet autorisait une certaine rudesse de ton) m’a clairement fait comprendre qu’il s’agissait moins des faits que de la réputation des acteurs de premier plan, France 2, première chaîne publique, et son correspondant vedette, Charles Enderlin.

Le jugement – qui sera prochainement traduit et commenté sur ce site- maintient la fiction de s’en tenir aux faits, mais les considérants, l’argumentation et l’accent sont mis sur Karsenty et visent à protéger Enderlin. J’ai acquis le sentiment que les juges ont fait leur le langage biaisé de France 2, dans leur document de 19 pages. Et la même équipe juridique développe les mêmes thèmes dans le deuxième procès : la réputation sans tâche de France 2 et d’Enderlin, le silence des autorités israéliennes, la personnalité louche de l’accusé et suspecte de ses témoins.

Je ne peux m’empêcher, malgré les nombreuses différences, de penser au dilemme de l’affaire Dreyfus — honneur ou vérité ?

Et si l’affaire Dreyfus était franco-française au départ, puis internationale par sa dimension antisémite et sa signification pour les Juifs, nous sommes ici en présence d’une affaire internationale qui a des implications pour la France, de par le rôle de ses médias dans la diffusion de l’accusation Al-Durah, et en raison de sa spécificité culturelle (et maintenant juridique) qui empêche la vérité de se faire jour.

En fait, les conséquences sont incalculables. Si vous voulez comprendre comment le jihad mondial – une idéologie de haine qui ne le cède en rien à la haine génocidaire des nazis – a pu se développer à ce point ces dernières années, il faut analyser comment les médias français (et au-delà les médias du monde occidental) ont à la fois, d’un côté, diffusé et accrédité les discours les plus hostiles contre Israël et les Juifs, et de l’autre minimisé les violences antijuives qui en ont résulté.

Comment le monde occidental pourrait-il déceler dans l’affaire Al-Durah un appel au jihad mondial, quand le New York Times, par exemple, en 2002, cite un prédicateur jihadiste palestinien qui appelle à l’extermination des Juifs dans le Monde entier en ces termes : “Les travaillistes, le Likoud, ils sont tous les mêmes, ce sont tous des Juifs…” en omettant un appel au génocide qui termine avec la phrase “…tuez-les tous partout où vous les trouverez” ?

Comment les Français pouvaient-ils savoir qu’en oblitérant la culpabilité de l’Holocauste avec l’image Al-Durah, ils agitaient le drapeau du jihad devant leurs immigrés musulmans ? Leurs médias leur ont dissimulé les actes mêmes qu’ils ont largement contribués à provoquer. Le 2 octobre 2000, au lieu de rendre compte des violences antijuives à travers la France et l’Europe qu’avait déchaînées la diffusion, deux jours plus tôt, de la séquence Al-Durah, le journaliste de France 2, à Paris, annonçait que des “colons” à Naplouse avaient tué une petite fille de 2 ans, une information qui est apparue dénuée de fondement même à des sites pro-palestiniens (donc tout à fait crédules). On peut retracer le cheminement de la diffusion des images Al-Durah à l’irruption quasi immédiate d’une “rue arabe” violemment antisémite dans les lieux publics et les universités d’Europe, jusqu’à l’Intifada des banlieues qui hante la France, avec en perspective des cauchemars inimaginables.

Et d’ailleurs, alors que je suis à Paris pour assister à ce procès (22-27 octobre), les banlieues s’échauffent à nouveau. Avec cette nouveauté, l’incendie de bus. S’emparer d’un autobus, faire sortir (ou pas) les passagers et le brûler. Un pas de plus dans la bataille pour les territoires qui oppose les “racailles” de ces quartiers d’immigrés à la République française. Il y a désormais en France des zones où ne sont plus garantis la scolarisation, la loi et l’ordre, représentés par la police ou les pompiers (ce sont aussi, et non pas par hasard, des zones de trafic de drogue) et maintenant, les transports en commun qui permettent aux habitants de ces quartiers qui travaillent d’en sortir. Et ces “territoires perdus de la République” se dégradent et s’étendent à la fois, à mesure que les bandes maffieuses gagnent constamment en agressivité. Encore un écart grandissant entre territoire avec culture productive, d’abondance et un territoire de culture auto-appauvrissante, de carence, qu’on se plait à appeler l’apartheid quand il est question d’Israéliens et Palestiniens.

Et les Français semblent incapables de seulement comprendre, et encore moins répondre, à ce à quoi ils sont confrontés. Leurs médias et leurs élites répètent avec insistance que c’est un problème de pauvreté et de racisme (c’est à dire la faute de la société française), qu l’islam n’a rien à y voir (nonobstant, par exemple, les cris Allahou Akbar, et la survenue des troubles pendant le Ramadan). Pendant mon séjour à Paris, un reportage télévisé relatait l’affreuse histoire d’Ilan Halimi, un Juif français torturé à mort par un gang de barbares (c’est le nom qu’eux-mêmes se donnaient) qui téléphonèrent à ses parents pour leur lire des versets du Coran alors qu’ils pouvaient entendre les cris de leur fils en arrière-plan. Cette histoire en dit long sur l’organisation culturelle de ces quartiers, sur l’étendue de l’empathie ou le poids de la loi du silence qui empêcha, pendant plus de deux semaines, les voisins, qui entendaient les hurlements, de prévenir la police. Et pourtant, pas une seule fois le mot “islam” ne fut prononcé dans ce reportage.

Un ami sociologue a emmené une fois une équipe de CNN dans ces territoires perdus (connus sous l’euphémisme de quartiers difficiles) et un gamin évoqua devant eux le Hamas. Un autre le fit taire. Cache-t-on quelque chose d’important ?

Pour des raisons très différentes, mais tout aussi mauvaises, tant les élites intellectuelles françaises que les gamins des cités souhaitent relativiser l’énorme attirance du jihad mondial pour cette sous-classe. Cet attrait n’est pas celui de la discipline de la religion musulmane, mais d’un culte de mort, haineux, destructeur et nihiliste qui séduit une population enragée de son impuissance humiliante dans le monde moderne. Que ces quartiers où fermente ce ressentiment soient actuellement musulmans ou pas, l’histoire des révolutions suggère que, le moment venu, des reculades françaises surgiront, sous une forme violente, les ambitions millénaristes de l’islam. Comme le note le sociologue James Scott*, dans son livre, Domination and the Arts of Resistance, le millénarisme est une “expression cachée véhémente” qui n’attend que l’occasion de faire irruption dans le débat public.

On pourrait comprendre que les “racailles” veuillent apparaître comme des damnés de la terre légitimement courroucés, qui ne cherchent qu’à s’insérer équitablement dans le jeu républicain, des opprimés qui réclament plus d’argent, plus de programmes d’aide, moins d’exclusion. Mais que l’élite universitaire française privilégie cette interprétation et jette l’anathème sur quiconque a le front, ou le courage, de les contredire me semble bien suicidaire. Une société civile, démocratique/républicaine, libre, ne peut se maintenir avec de telles alliances de démopathes (les émeutiers qui invoqueraient des “revendications” démocratiques) avec leurs dupes (les intellectuels qui s’en font l’écho).

Prenons le cas Finkielkraut. Il est poursuivi pour avoir déclarer que les émeutes dans les banlieues ont des motivations antirépublicaines, et que ces “jeunes” sont nihilistes. Ses détracteurs considèrent ses propos comme de l’incitation à la discrimination, comme quand le ministre de l’intérieur Nicolas Sarkozy les a qualifiés de “racailles”. Les faiseurs d’opinion accusent les Cassandre d’être responsables des problèmes qu’elles décrivent.

Et derrière ça se trouve ce que les Français vigilants appellent l’esprit munichois (en référence à la politique conciliante avec les nazis mise en œuvre en 1938 à Munich par Daladier et Chamberlain). Un ami qui réside dans un des faubourgs les plus calmes me rapportait sa conversation avec un policier. Les ordres sont “surtout pas de bavures !” Pas de vagues, pas d’erreurs. Ils redoutent que la mort d’un “jeune” de banlieue remette le feu aux poudres, comme l’électrocution des deux adolescents l’an dernier. Les autorités françaises vivent dans la crainte d’une nouvelle flambée aussi dure que la précédente. Aussi n’interviennent-ils pas tant que les “jeunes en colère” ne vont pas trop loin.

Ces jeunes, en dépit de leur peu d’instruction (ils ne parlent pas l’arabe, et, bien souvent, à peine le français) ont instinctivement assimilé les leçons de l’Intifada palestinienne : attaquer l’ennemi juste assez pour lui nuire, mais pas au point de provoquer de véritables représailles ; pousser toujours au-delà de ce que les autorités tolèrent (ordinairement, l’incendie de voitures, maintenant, embuscades de policiers). En attendant le martyr espéré, que la France les gratifie d’un enfant innocent massacré par des forces de répression fascistes, un petit Mohammed Al-Durah français, qui leur servirait d’alibi à toutes les violences, y compris l’attentat suicide.

Au final, les Français redoutent qu’il leur arrive ce qu’ils ont tant contribuer à faire aux Israéliens.

Ironie de l’histoire, les Français (et leurs amis européens) ont mis tout le monde en danger en reprochant avec véhémence à Israël de tenter de réprimer l’Intifada jihadiste de 2000, dénonçant, du haut de leur piédestal moral, des “représailles disproportionnées”, non seulement illégitimes à leurs yeux, mais même rappelant les atrocités nazies. Quand les attentats suicides se sont multipliés, les médias français et européens, les dirigeants et les manifestants les ont tous excusés, ou glorifiés, comme pleinement justifiés par la perversité (supposée) des Israéliens. Mais ces derniers, dont les forces armées ont une énorme capacité de retenue, ont placé la barre si haut qu’il serait bien difficile, et dangereux, aux Français de les imiter. Et maintenant, les populations musulmanes de la France (les Français ne savent même pas combien de musulmans vivent parmi eux, ni même qu’ils ont une population “musulmane”) ont intégré l’idée que tuer un de leurs enfants autorisait à faire exploser les civils français.

C’est ainsi. Si Israël est un poste avancé de l’occident à l’âge du jihad mondial, par la violence et par la démographie, la France, elle, fait tout son possible pour faire pencher la balance du côté du jihad. Abusés par des médias de mauvaise foi, pleins de bonne conscience, les Français diabolisent la société civile qui tente de résister au jihad, discréditant tout ce qu’ils font pour se défendre, et idéalisant une société sous l’emprise d’un culte de mort nihiliste, justifiant tous les actes visant à étendre leur guerre d’annihilation. Si Sartre était encore vivant, n’en aurait-il pas la nausée ? (Hélas, j’en doute.)

Aujourd’hui les Français sont pris à leur propre piège, mais ils ne s’en rendent pas encore compte.

Il faut à Dieu une bonne dose d’humour pour placer les Français dans une position où ils devront reconnaître, pour leur survie qu’”Israël est notre alliée, et nous avons beaucoup à apprendre des Israéliens, envers lesquels nous avons été particulièrement injustes.”

Une civilisation peut-elle se perdre par manque de sens de l’humour quant à ses propres défauts ? J’espère toujours que non, mais pour le moment, ce n’est pas gagné !

Note :
* James C. Scott sociologue américain spécialiste des modes d’expression des minorités opprimées