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.

31 Responses to David Pryce-Jones’s New Book: Betrayal

  1. Joanne says:

    I just want you to know that I order the David Pryce-Jones book. On your say-so. I hope it’s good. :-)

  2. “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.”

    Another example of how European anti-Semites furthered al-Husseini’s career, at the expence of both Jews and Muslims.

  3. joe blough says:

    Hatred, envy and fear of Jews, at least in those parts of the world with a biblical or koranic cultural history, is always a realiable indicator of rot and dysfunction both at the societal and individual level.

    Not to say that other forms of racism and prejudice are especially wonderful, but as with physical symptoms, so too with mental symptoms, some have have darker prognoses than others.

    What I tell children about racism, is that it is a way to take what is good about a person, and make it sound bad in order to hurt them. So if a person is very strong and healthly, you say they are like a dumb animal — if they are proud and confident you say they are stuck up and conceited — if they are smart you say they are sneaky — if they are logical you say they are cold and unfeeling, and so on. The kids get it right away, and I believe it to be true.

    That said, the reason I point out Jew-hatred as a particularly damning symptom is that the accusations flung at Jews, sneakiness, stinginess, greed, pushiness etc are all readily seen as the inversions of those virtues necessary for success in civilized surroundings, intelligence, ztudy, parsimony, persistence, dedication etc…

    A person or associated group of persons that displays these hostilities is announcing their hostility to the virtues that make it possible for men to live truly good, truly human lives together.

    They have set their hearts against civilization itself.

    And if we obsserve the day-to-day quality of life for ordinary people in those societies, we find plenty else to support this notion.

    BTW: I do not know (I believe Sowell writes about it) but I would expect that Malasian Chinese probably receive very similar forms of abuse to those handed out to european or Iraqi Jews.

  4. Eliyahu says:

    to pursue your point about Said’s “orientalism” argument. Not only the French but the Germans and British too sought to flatter Muslims in general. Kaiser Wilhelm is supposed to have to sought to establish Germany [das zweiten reich] as “the defender of Islam.” This gave rise to a few diplomatic incidents around 1900. It was also one of the reasons for the kaiser’s trip to Jerusalem. The kaiser’s Austrian Habsburg brethren also flattered Islam –such as promoting the Bosnian Muslims– after having successfully diminished Ottoman territories in Europe.

    France & Britain essentially protected the Ottoman empire in the Crimean War and were rewarded afterwards with various gifts of real estate in and around Jerusalem, as well as other privileges. France got what is today St Anne’s Church inside the Lions’ Gate [which also sits on part of the ancient Jewish Bethesda pool {= Beyt Hisda}, now being excavated by the Peres Blancs]. The street in front of St Anne’s leads into the Via Dolorosa. France considers St Anne’s Domaine National, that is, French sovereign territory not subject to Israeli law. PM Jospin met local Arab leaders there in 2000. France now claims four [4] locations in and around Jerusalem as “domaine national.”
    Now, if French litterateurs and diplomats were enchanted by a romantic notion of Islam & Araby [one exception being Cesar Famin: http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/muslim-oppression-of-non-muslims-in.html
    http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/jewish-majority-in-jerusalem-in-1853.html
    http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/barbary-pirates-were-warriors-for.html
    Britishers too fell for this image, such as Richard Burton, Lawrence, and others. After WW One and the Armenian massacres, the khilafat movement of Indian Muslims [proto-Pakistanis] influenced British policy in favor of the rump of the Ottoman empire and the incipient Turkish republic.
    So Edward Said perpetrated a fraud in his whining depiction of the colonialist West always deprecating and humiliating the poor Arabs, Turks, etc. For example, Jews have been a majority in Jerusalem at least since 1853 [selon Cesar Famin, suivi par Karl Marx], yet the British mandatory authorities always appointed Arab-Muslim mayors of the city, despite the Jewish majority.

  5. Eliyahu says:

    Again to counter Said, the German & Austro-Hungarian forces helping the Ottoman armies in WW I, also helped in the Armenian massacres, according to recent research by an Armenian historian.

  6. RL says:

    response to Joe Blough (cute name)

    Hatred, envy and fear of Jews, at least in those parts of the world with a biblical or koranic cultural history, is always a realiable indicator of rot and dysfunction both at the societal and individual level.

    i’m not sure i’d call it rot. it’s so common that it’s almost a chronic feature of both christian and muslim supersessionism. dysfunction only from the perspective of a highly functioning civil society. when you get down to it, these emotions are almost “normal”, certainly from the historical perspective. of course so are authoritarian governments that don’t grant their subjects freedom.

    Not to say that other forms of racism and prejudice are especially wonderful, but as with physical symptoms, so too with mental symptoms, some have have darker prognoses than others.

    What I tell children about racism, is that it is a way to take what is good about a person, and make it sound bad in order to hurt them. So if a person is very strong and healthly, you say they are like a dumb animal — if they are proud and confident you say they are stuck up and conceited — if they are smart you say they are sneaky — if they are logical you say they are cold and unfeeling, and so on. The kids get it right away, and I believe it to be true.

    in other words, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. which is the nature of invidious comparisons designed to make oneself look better by making others looks smaller… again an almost inveterate tendency of people. it’s hard to imagine too many socieities rising above these kinds of emotions for very long (over several generations, for example). that’s the risk of an experiment in civil society. if you can generate high enough levels of generosity and trust, you can get some pretty remarkable results (wealth generation, freedom, security), but if you can’t sustain it, the whole project comes crashing down.

    That said, the reason I point out Jew-hatred as a particularly damning symptom is that the accusations flung at Jews, sneakiness, stinginess, greed, pushiness etc are all readily seen as the inversions of those virtues necessary for success in civilized surroundings, intelligence, study, parsimony, persistence, dedication etc…

    add to that self-criticism, criticism of others, free-speaking, disagreement… all in all, jews can be pretty annoying, esp for people with thin skins.

    A person or associated group of persons that displays these hostilities is announcing their hostility to the virtues that make it possible for men to live truly good, truly human lives together.

    They have set their hearts against civilization itself.

    and hence, a pretty good indicator of belligerence and authoritarianism is hostility to jews. which is why the supposedly anti-authoritarian left’s hostility to the jews, esp to the israelis, strikes me as both revealing and ominous.

    And if we obsserve the day-to-day quality of life for ordinary people in those societies, we find plenty else to support this notion.

  7. RL says:

    response to Eliyahu:

    to pursue your point about Said’s “orientalism” argument. Not only the French but the Germans and British too sought to flatter Muslims in general. Kaiser Wilhelm is supposed to have to sought to establish Germany [das zweite reich] as “the defender of Islam.” This gave rise to a few diplomatic incidents around 1900. It was also one of the reasons for the Kaiser’s trip to Jerusalem. The Kaiser’s Austrian Habsburg brethren also flattered Islam –such as promoting the Bosnian Muslims– after having successfully diminished Ottoman territories in Europe.

    i suspect that if you look at the Europeans who were most admiring of Islam, you probably have a reliable list of authoritarian personalities who find in the bourgeois freedoms of the modern west a source of frustration and irritation, if not humiliation, and who long for the good old days when men were men.

    France & Britain essentially protected the Ottoman empire in the Crimean War and were rewarded afterwards with various gifts of real estate in and around Jerusalem, as well as other privileges. France got what is today St Anne’s Church inside the Lions’ Gate [which also sits on part of the ancient Jewish Bethesda pool {= Beyt Hisda}, now being excavated by the Peres Blancs]. The street in front of St Anne’s leads into the Via Dolorosa. France considers St Anne’s Domaine National, that is, French sovereign territory not subject to Israeli law. PM Jospin met local Arab leaders there in 2000. France now claims four [4] locations in and around Jerusalem as “domaine national.”

    Now, if French litterateurs and diplomats were enchanted by a romantic notion of Islam & Araby [one exception being Cesar Famin: http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/muslim-oppression-of-non-muslims-in.html
    http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/jewish-majority-in-jerusalem-in-1853.html
    http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/barbary-pirates-were-warriors-for.html

    Britishers too fell for this image, such as Richard Burton, Lawrence, and others. After WW One and the Armenian massacres, the khilafat movement of Indian Muslims [proto-Pakistanis] influenced British policy in favor of the rump of the Ottoman empire and the incipient Turkish republic.

    So Edward Said perpetrated a fraud in his whining depiction of the colonialist West always deprecating and humiliating the poor Arabs, Turks, etc. For example, Jews have been a majority in Jerusalem at least since 1853 [selon Cesar Famin, suivi par Karl Marx], yet the British mandatory authorities always appointed Arab-Muslim mayors of the city, despite the Jewish majority.

    it is pretty amazing that such a shoddy book became so popular in academia. i tried unsuccessfully to get an answer from a major player in MESA on whether Said meant any view of the Arabs, good or bad, was Orientalism, or just negative ones. he refused to commit, largely because (i think) he knew that either anwer would get Said into trouble.

  8. chevalier de st george says:

    Creatures from the dark ages have come marching into a western Europe that has become emasculated .
    Those who show an understanding of the new fascism that they bring are not the cosseted western writers of utopian ideology but those who have suffered under totalitarian regimes, those who have been persecuted and experienced oppression first hand. Such is the problem of countries like France, who have no such sufferers left alive.
    The pervasive new age liberal thinking which is France’s undoing, has not dimished antisemitism to any measurable degree than was present say, during the post war years. It has simply become more indirect and veiled and the mindset created that public education has erased it.

  9. N00man says:

    Prof. L—
    Was wondering if you’ve seen Ian Buruma’s and Avishai Margalit’s Occidentalism: The West in the Eyes of its Enemies. A satisfying read, and pitched to the literate general public.

    I saw it several years ago, got it out of the library, tried to read it, but didn’t really connect. What did you find interesting?

  10. RL says:

    answer to the chevalier

    Creatures from the dark ages have come marching into a western Europe that has become emasculated.

    or that has emasculated itself.

    Those who show an understanding of the new fascism that they bring are not the cosseted western writers of utopian ideology but those who have suffered under totalitarian regimes, those who have been persecuted and experienced oppression first hand.

    i have heard that the eastern european NGOs refused to sign the anti-zionism resolution at Durban, not because they were anti-Israel or pro-Arab, but because they knew totalitarian rhetoric when they saw it.

    Such is the problem of countries like France, who have no such sufferers left alive.

    they do. so what’s wrong with the survivors? maybe they didn’t suffer enough? maybe the humiliation of being conquered by the germans wasn’t enough to make a deep impression? after all, they came out of WWII being as offensively arrogant in their foreign policy (including their insistance on staying in Vietnam to maintain “empire”) as ever.

    The pervasive new age liberal thinking which is France’s undoing, has not dimished antisemitism to any measurable degree than was present say, during the post war years. It has simply become more indirect and veiled and the mindset created that public education has erased it.

    not clear what you mean here. my sense is that 2000 unleashed a wave of previously suppressed anti-israeli and anti-jewish sentiment in france.

  11. Eliyahu says:

    sorry, one link above to a piece quoting Cesar Famin went on incorrectly:

    http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/barbary-pirates-were-warriors-for.html

  12. igout says:

    If I understand the argument correctly, the loons who ran France back then and who run it today got the bright idea to turn France into the next superpower by acquiring the moslem world, a kind of imported colonisation. “Give me your teaming fecund masses…” Hence, Eurabia.

    Not that it matters in the end, but even if the French liked the jews and Israel they’d likely throw them under the bus anyway for the sake of their Big Idea. .

    The joke is, of course, that the Republic’s petites freres musulmans have other plans. Duhhhh!

    And yet, what is obvious to you is invisible to the French. again i’m reminded of the emperor’s new clothes. everyone sees what’s not there, doesn’t see what is… all because the prime minister and the court set the tone and no one dares say, the emperor is naked.

  13. Eliyahu says:

    to Joe Blough

    I think along with you that civilization itself is under attack. And what is most dismaying, is that so much of the political leadership doesn’t seem to care, can’t seem to discriminate between an “insurgency” and a civil war conducted through mutual mass murder, as in Iraq. I don’t like or trust Geo Bush, but the situation in Iraq reflects hostilities going back more than a thousand years to the Shi`ite-Sunni split of early Islam.
    Furthermore, many of the supposed or self-styled moral and cultural leaders in the “civilized” countries cannot make rational or decent moral judgements.

  14. Lokki says:

    From the relativist disbled, dupedom unconscious and dimmitude appeasing IHT…

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/21/opinion/edgreen.php

    fancy that you should cite this… and with a sarcastic reference to what i’d say. i’m preparing a fisk of this (sorry for my slowness), and indeed i think it illustrates quite strikingly what happens when you go speaking to muslims and check your critical faculties at the door.

  15. Loki says:

    And something even less palatable from the same liberal glad rag…some bedtime reading to sweep under the carpet…

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/21/africa/web.1121land.php?page=1

  16. Loki says:

    If this posts twice it’s not my fault…news from the merry isle…http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/21/opinion/edgreen.php

  17. chevalier de st george says:

    Eliyahu
    Thank you for those interesting links (and that insightful Jerusalem information!). So much to learn and absorb!

    Will any attempt to strive for a utopian state in the most liberal and politically correct fashion actually result in the elimination of antisemitism?

    well it should, in good liberal principle, strive for that. but utopia is nowhere and most often the path there leads through dystopia. that’s what i argue in my book on millennialism… that the most exalted of transformative millennial styles embrace the jews as brothers, but when disappointed, as inevitably they must be, then turn on the jews, blaming them for the failure.

    I believe not and for Jews

    of all people

    to believe it, is foolish.
    Yes of course France has self-emasculated.
    George Orwell worte in 41:
    ‘Yet it is generally admitted that anti-Semitism is on the increase, that it has been greatly exacerbated by the war, and that humane and enlightened people are not immune to it.’ So does Antisemitism increase in time of conflict?
    It would seem it does, even in the most “civilised” of societies and it does so accross the board. it is not merely the property of the unwashed classes which the intellectual left would have us believe it is.
    Orwell surmised in 1941 that in conflicts that ultimately benefit the Jewish people the mindset of reducing tha conflict to the status of a “Jewish war” is created.(and how many reduced even the Russian revolution to this!)
    During WW2,Even the strong participation of Jewish soldiers is deliberately understated, so as not to offend Arab countries, etc and on the home front to
    “allow the man in the street to go on thinking that Jews are exceptionally clever at dodging military service.”
    It was of course the Jews in Witechapel who suffered the most in the blitzing of the east end of London, yet to mention this was at that time politically incorrect, much as it is today in France’s age of the intifada.
    Even some Jewish elites argued that to mention the suffering of Jews only served the purpose of increasing Antisemitism. The prime example would be the New York times under the Sulzbergers who seriously undereported the Holocaust.
    Orwell again:
    Yet one of the marks of anti-Semitism is an ability to believe stories that could not possibly be true. One could see a good example of this in the strange accident that occurred in London in 1942, when a crowd, frightened by a bomb-burst nearby, fled into the mouth of an Underground station, with the result that something over a hundred people were crushed to death. The very same day it was repeated all over London that “the Jews were responsible”. Clearly, if people will believe this kind of thing, one will not get much further by arguing with them. The only useful approach is to discover why they can swallow absurdities on one particular subject while remaining sane on others.
    ANd i ask you -has anything changed with the advent of the new European utopia?

  18. chevalier de st george says:

    Richard
    many thanks for your comments.
    yes of course, ex Eastern Bloc countries, as yet, seem to have no problem recognising fascism.
    They say you have to be a crook to recognise a crook.
    does that mean the you have to be a victim of or even a bit of a fascist to recognise Fascism when it stares you in the face?
    mmmm?

    what about those with unacknowledged fascist tendencies who somehow can’t/won’t see fascism at work in regimes and cultures they admire for reasons as bizarre as their unacknowledged tendencies? i wdn’t go with the “takes a thief to know a thief.” because so many people are in denial…

  19. Loki says:

    ‘Those who fight monsters should be careful not to become a monster thmeselves” – Some syphlitic German philosopher.

    Following on from St George, there’s just one thing wrong with your project Augean Stables Richard, and that is everything…

    People don’t need to be reminded that there is evil in the world,

    actually, i disagree. one of the most troublesome aspects of the decorticated liberal imagination (not all liberal imagination is decorticated), is that it has no imagination for evil, and tries to explain everything as the tale of well-intentioned people who are misunderstood. again, this is often the case… but when it isn’t one must be able to recognize it.

    but to suggest that Islam itself is the evil, the fascism itself, is ludicrous and wrong.

    have i suggested that? please let me know where. i haven’t, although i admit to being deeply disturbed by the lack of a powerful voice in islam that opposed to the current madness which, for reasons i think of honor-shame, not religion, has taken over far too many muslims’ hearts and minds.

    To demonize Palestinians as an example of this evil is more than mischeivous and ‘morally wrong’ considering the specific historical condition they find themselves in.

    This is where you and i part paths. i can’t imagine anything that can justify the moral depravity of the palestinian leadership with their hate-mongering and genocidal rhetoric. you apparently think either that their “specific historical condition” does, or you are unaware of just how depraved the culture. in the former case you illustrate nicely the point about liberals with no imagination for evil; in the latter case, your ignorance seems to stem from the a priori rejection of criticism as “demonizing.” in my opinion, they demonize themselves.

    Your project is not only wrong, but you are your own worst enemy, infact you are in league with the enemy that you hate. Why? You are polarizing your ‘enemy’.

    Well you cannot ‘placate’ your ‘enemy’ by dehumanizing him, or demonizing him unless it is within your power or intention to cleanse them from this earth. Considering that this is impossible, when your ‘enemy’ comes across hate such as yours all it does is polarize him as you are trying to polarize the West. This is against the European project or the Western project experiment in freedom. In effect you want to stop time. That is impossible.

    i’m really interested in what you’re trying to say here. i think i disagree, but i don’t want to jump to the wrong conclusion. what do you consider to be the western project experiment in freedom that identifying enemies of freedom would contradict?

    and how do you handle a tribal culture in which 70-80% of the population that approves of killing your civilians because their leadership systematically teaches them demonization? you seem to say, “don’t lump them all together” (what i assume you mean by saying i’m polarizing them… driving them all together). that’s okay, but how do you recognize and deal with that portion that is fascist and worse… esp when it’s become the dominant voice? it’s one thing to tell me not to polarize, but how do you tell the difference between the “moderates” and evil ones?

    Rather than engage in a dialogue you want to, I’m not sure what your reasoning is, other than believing that armed conflict on the streets of EUrope is inevitable, in any case it’s counterproductive, you are in effect polarizing and radicalizing the ‘enemy’.

    you attribute too much to me; too little to their own dynamics. PATV has done far more to radicalize and polarize than any denunciation of the Palestinians. by arguing that criticism of Palestinians is polarizing and radicalizing them, you become their dupe — no one dares criticize lest they get worse, so anything short of acquiescence is a form of provocation. this is the european disease right now, and it will kill them if they can’t learn new moves.

    but what i find most curious is that much of what i write is aimed at fighting this battle in the realm of discourse, not real warfare. it’s people like you who say, “don’t criticize” that won’t let the necessary words be uttered.

    To say that France has become emasculated is very very short term thinking, we will see what happens in France and the UK by the way, no one wants to talk about the UK being in the same position…why? And certainly not the US, who many see as a bastion against the Moslem tide, but which is quickly becoming an extension of Latin America.

    i don’t know why such a remark is “short-term.” it’s an observation about the present behavior and attitudes of the french. they are afraid to be forceful, even in the realm of words (no need for violence if you’re firm). and melanie phillips is certainly willing to talk about the UK in the same position. all of europe.

    If this site held an open dialogue where Islam was discussed and critized gently, and you also pointed out our own failings it would have a greater chance of reforming Islam. Islam among many other things (including us) needs constant reformation, all you are doing is making sure this doesn’t happen…you’re project is counter productive.

    that’s your take. why on earth would i gently criticize a religion that generates some of the most outrageous and revolting hatred, demonizing and violence in the history of religious deviance — death cults, child sacrifice, hate-mongering… i just don’t understand what “gentle criticism” is supposed to do. it certainly doesn’t hold them to any standard. i at least treat them as responsible moral agents capable of handling rebuke. you, i suspect (may be wrong) would condescend to them, gently pointing out… what? give me an example of the criticism you’d offer. and give me some idea of what kind of self-criticism you’d like to see.

    Instead you play to the basest instincts of man. Unfortunately you see engagement and dialogue as appeasement. This is the real problem.

    dialogue is not appeasement. dialogue with demopaths who have you afraid to say anything lest they get violent (radicalized) is appeasement.

  20. Eliyahu says:

    Loki, Richard can speak for himself. However, you are laboring under a number a mistaken beliefs from which righteous judgements cannot ensue. As far as Ma`aleh Adumim is concerned, I live not so far away. It was desert until the Jewish settlement was built there. If part of it or even most of it was owned by Arab private individuals, then it was not being used productively. It was not under agricultural cultivation. It was not being used to extract minerals from the soil. At most it served as pasturage from time to time for wandering Badawin. I have seen encampments of Badawin in the area who lead their camels and goats in search of grazing land. Badawin continued to live in the general area even after Ma`aleh Adumim was built. Now, if –and it’s a big if– the real estate that it was built on was under Arab private ownership, the fact that it was unused wasteland means that there was no hardship for Arab inhabitants –who in fact did not exist there. By the way, to the west of Ma`aleh Adumim is the village of Abu Dis. Houses in Abu Dis were very very sparse on the side close to Ma`aleh Adumim before it was built. Don’t forget, Abu Dis and Ma`aleh Adumim are in the desert. Everywhere in the world, by the way, private property is taken for public purposes under what is called eminent domain. I believe that it was quite proper for the Israeli govt to take Arab private property in order to built housing for Jews crowded into the neighborhoods of Jerusalem where even sub-standard was and is quite expensive.
    Then we have the history of the area. It was called Adommim and Maledomnei in Eusebios’ Onomasticon. Jerome’s translation of the Onomasticon calls it Adummin and Maledomnus: “…it is at the border of the tribe of Judah with Benjamin, on the way down to Jericho from Aelia [= Roman name for Jerusalem after defeat of the Bar Kokhba uprising], where also there is a military post situated to help travelers” [Freeman-Grenville translation of Jerome; Jerusalem: Carta, 2003]. It was part of the Colonia Aelia Capitolina from which Rome excluded Jewish residents after crushing the revolt or maybe after the name change which preceded the uprising. http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/05/exile-of-jews-from-jerusalem-polis.html
    http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/05/when-and-why-was-aelia-founded.html
    http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/08/rome-colonized-jerusalem-region-with.html
    By the way, some ten years ago, Israeli archeologists discovered mosaic floors and other remains of the Greek Orthodox monastery of St Martyrius adjacent to Ma`aleh Adumim houses. This site is being preserved by the Israel Antiquities Authority and the local govt. The monastery was apparently built during the late Roman or Byzantine periods.
    Given all of the above, opposition to the building of Ma`aleh Adumim constitutes racism, specifically racist Judeophobia, on the part of Arabs, Western govts, so-called NGOs, etc.
    Next, the source of the claims made about the town being built on Arab private property is the self-styled Peace Now Movement. First, the very same name was used by a pro-Nazi “peace group” functioning in the USA during WW2, the founding of which had been initiated by a German agent who was himself a Norwegian [see the NYTimes index for 1942, 1943, 1944]. Secondly, Peace Now is a partisan body funded mainly by American bodies and persons which are themselves well funded.
    My contention is 1) Peace Now’s claim may or not be true in whole or in part, but the source is dubious because of its partisan nature; 2) even if the claim is true it is unjust, improper, and anti-Jewish racist, for reasons given above.

  21. Eliyahu says:

    Sorry for omissions from text and misspelling, 2 corrections of text:
    1- Loki [is] … laboring under a number OF mistaken beliefs…
    2- I believe that it was quite proper for the Israeli govt to take Arab private property in order to builD housing for Jews crowded into the neighborhoods of Jerusalem where even sub-standard HOUSING was and is quite expensive.

    Thanks and you’re welcome to Chevalier

  22. igout says:

    Engagement and dialog are nothing but the futile squeaks of fat and decadent white elites who want to stay at the top of the heap but don’t want to pay the rent, which is bloodshed.

    ouch! that’s just what Loki has objected to. dialogue is not nothing but… but the current forms of dialogue tend to be nothing more than… as for the bloodshed, it need not be a lot. but we are dealing with people for whom shedding blood is a desideratum.

    Meanwhile other leaner and meaner peoples and nations want their turn, and are more than willing to seize it. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: welcome to the new! improved! 17th century. Cheer up; it wasn’t all bad. We got a Bach out of it.

    i don’t seem much good out of this one. my guess is it looks more like the 14th century… Tuchman’s distant mirror.

  23. Lokki says:

    igout…and gentle readers

    Read this from the Mein Kamf of liberal newspapers the IHT, Oh my god is it, is it dialogue????

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/23/opinion/edryback.php

    “Meanwhile other leaner and meaner peoples and nations want their turn, and are more than willing to seize it.”
    - Hmm do you do stand up? Maybe at Laugh Central?

  24. Loki says:

    Too much Gibbons in your diet I think ppl, try Braudel…Gibbons was a luddite, but a luddite of his times, at least he was of his time…

    Eliyahu, why don’t you say what you really feel….

  25. Gourney says:

    ‘Labouring under a number of mistaken beliefs,’ an nice euph. for thinking…

  26. Eliyahu says:

    Loki, first of all, the discourse of your “cooperating” historians is corrupt since they speak in terms of a “palestinian people” which is a strictly 20th century notion unknown in either Jewish or Arab or Western history, culture, or historiography. The palestinian people notion was an invention of Western Judeophobic psychological warriors. The very use of that notion, which the Arabs don’t accept and the PLO charter doesn’t accept, as explained above, disqualifies the whole effort. And which respected, reliable Israeli historian is going to accept a project that comes out of Shimon Peres’ peace center? If anybody is endeavoring to establish a common truthful narrative, then that notion, rejected by the local Arabs and the Arab League in the 1940s, cannot be part of it. Then Kofi Annan, about as corrupt as they come, oozing the stench of the oil-for-food program, making up his own version of international law at the UN in order to hurt Israel, does not lend any decency to this project.
    Other facts that should be mentioned but probably won’t be in this project, are 1) Arab –particularly palestinian Arab– participation in the Holocaust, in the person of Haj Amin el-Hussein, mentioned by me above. 2) In the night of 29 November 1947, the Arabs –not the Jews– began terrorist murders against Jews in “protest” against the UN Gen’l Assembly’s partition recommendation. The first people in the country driven out of their homes were Jews. This happened both in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in December 1947. Consider south Tel Aviv and the Shimon haTsadiq quarter of Jerusalem, which was harassed by Arab terrorists [then called "irregulars"] in Dec. 1947. The Arabs held on to this and other Jewish neighborhoods in what became “East Jerusalem” after the war, WITH BRITISH MILITARY HELP. That is, British forces helped Arabs hold onto Jewish neighborhoods from which the Jewish population was driven out or terrorized out [choose what you like]. In fact, Jews were driven out of their homes in Israel, with British collaboration, or encouragement, or acquiescence [choose what you like], in 1920, 1929, 1936-39, etc.
    3) Will this “cooperating” group of historiographers admit that British forces helped the Arabs, sending tanks and planes into the battle of Jaffa, and planes into the air over el-Arish.
    4) Wiil this group admit that the UN and the EU and other international bodies and powers have deliberately or knowingly exacerbated conflict between Jews and Arabs? The EU funds the terrorist entity called the palestinian authority, which aims to murder Jews.

    to gourney — I am saying, less politely, that Loki believes in lies. I think that he sincerely believes these lies. Hence, because he is sincere, I don’t want to call him a liar. However, his false beliefs do not indicate thinking at all, nor do they indicate a desire to truly research the relevant history, or to hear divergent views. Let us politely call him closed minded.

  27. chevalier de st george says:

    ‘Will this group admit that the UN and the EU and other international bodies and powers have deliberately or knowingly exacerbated conflict between Jews and Arabs? ‘

    One has to conclude that is has perhaps never been the true intention of those powers to “solve” the Palestinian problem.
    Any ideas why?

    i have discussed this somewhat in my essay on contributors to Palestinian Suffering. at it’s most primitive level, i think this reflects a deep-seated feeling of anxiety among many europeans at the thought of a jewish state… whether the result of residual theological concerns (Jewish sovereignty calls into question Christian supersessionism), or fears of reprisal (armed Jews could take vengeance for centuries of Christian and Muslim attacks on Jews), or fears of Jewish success (the Israeli economy, under conditions of radical insecurity, endemic warfare, and boycott by neighbors, is nonetheless a competitor with any European country’s economy). Add to that some basic nastiness and the Schadenfreude that Europeans derive from viewing Israel in pain — moral or physical — and you have a formula for suicidal European idiocy.

  28. Battal Agha says:

    The result of all this is the de facto blocs with the french cities where French authority is not applicable. These Sensitive Urban Zones (around 751 as per last official count) are ruled by muslim mobs and the French will soon be paying dearly for their government’s stupidity. See list below

    http://i.ville.gouv.fr/divbib/doc/chercherZUS.htm

  29. Cynic says:

    One has to conclude that is has perhaps never been the true intention of those powers to “solve” the Palestinian problem.
    Any ideas why?

    Can it be that all along they agreed with the Nazis and in their bitter disappointment, may one use the term choler, they took advantage of every effort to kick the feet of those stereotypical Jews from under them?

    RL comment: That’s a good deal harsher than necessary. I don’t think most Europeans approved of the Nazis, so much as they shared some degree of that vastly successful ecumenical movement of the first half of the 20th century, anti-semitism. That doesn’t mean that they wanted to see Jews slaughtered the way the Nazis did it, or even that they wanted Jews killed. Mostly, my sense, is that they wanted Jews to be humiliated and debased, according to the same need for honor (I’m up because you’re down) that motivates the Dhimmi laws in Islam. Part of what has them acting again in ways that encourage even more rabid paranoids (this time Muslim Jihadis) is the inexplicably large and pervasive success of Jews in the modern world.

    I agree that it was never the intention of the Europeans to “solve the Palestinian problem.” They, like the Arab states, had their reasons to want it to fester. In their case it was based on a) a need for a proxy to harry the Jews, now that they could no longer legitimately do it; and b) an underestimation of the fire they were playing with. Assuming the Jews to be powerful enough to keep the Palestinians at bay, it seemed relatively harmless to encourage Palestinian irredentism. Instead they have created conditions for the hatching of the most terrifying and destructive religious sentiments imaginable, active, cataclysmic, apocalyptic Jihad. And it’s coming for them.

  30. Eliyahu says:

    Dear RL and Cynic,
    this discussion and the various views expressed by you two, by me and by Chevalier are really reaching towards a profound understanding of the problem in the Middle East, which as you explain also has deep roots in the West, while Western policy harms the West itself. I have long intended to write on this matter but never seem to get around to it, at least not to write on it at length.

    looking forward to your post on this. i have further reflections that might be useful in my essay on judeophobia, esp the last two parts on the Arab-Israeli conflict and post-modern judeophobia.

  31. David Pryce-Jones: Betrayal: France, the Arabs and the Jews

    Conversative British author and contributor of National Review has just released a fascinating new book, Betrayal: France, the Arabs and the Jews.

    He views the changes in Iraq and the Middle East with the fall of
    Saddam Hussein as great…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>