What Checks and Balances to the Fourth Estate: Appeal for Charles Enderlin Poses the Question

In response to the court decision, some of the “friends of Charles” have come out in support of him with a petition posted at the Nouvel Observateur‘s website. [The Nouvel Obs is one of France's three major news weeklies run by Jean Daniel, who, along with his daughter Sara, are among the signatories.] I have translated and fisked the peition below.

The petition, which Luc Rosenzweig has denounced as a “petition of shame,” and it is a precious document. It reveals the degree of confusion sown in the minds of the French elite by their quasi aristocratic status, which results in a form of (unconscious?) demopathy. Menahem Macina shrewdly points out that it recalls the “patriotic forgery” of an anti-Dreyfussard, who tried to make the forger of the documents that incriminated Dreyfus into a hero and martyr of Jewish malevolence . Like the right-wing anti-Semites of the turn of the 20th century who paraded their hatreds under the banner of Libre Parole [Free Speech], the signers of this petition present their defense of Enderlin’s reputation and indifference to the evidence as a valorous deed in defense of democracy and a free press.

I have argued that one of the fundamental contributors to the progress of Eurabia is an inertial force of aristocracy among the European elite – what one commentator called their “Olympian complex.” This attitude, and the culture that promotes it, reflect the social dynamics not of modern society, but of prime-divider society, not of a sense of equality and solidarity throughout the society, but a sense of privilege and exceptional status among the elite.

In the context of Eurabia, this means that the professional elite – media and political – that pushes the agenda of the European Union has much more in common with other elites in other countries than it does with its own commoners. It can, therefore, easily countenance a massive demographic transfer of Muslim immigrants to do the manual labor – what difference between a Muslim, a Christian, a post-Christian working in a factory? And it can at the same time dismiss without qualms the complaints of commoners when such a transfer does not work. The fate of Brussels, a city where both the capital of the EU (and hence massive numbers of well-paid administrators live) on the one hand, and one of the largest and increasingly aggressive Muslim populations in Europe on the other, offers both a real and symbolic case in point.

This elitism in the case of Charles Enderlin produces a notion of the journalistic profession that rejects transparency, that considers criticism by the journalists’ audience (their reading and viewing public) as inadmissible attacks on their honor and reputation, which threaten one of the main pillars of democracy[!].

APPEAL
For Charles Enderlin
NOUVELOBS.COM | 04.06.2008 | 15:39

Seven years. It’s now seven years that a obstinate and hateful campaign has tried to tarnish the professional dignity of our colleague Charels Enderlin, correspondent for France2 in Jerusalem. For seven years the same individuals have attempted to present as a “hoax” and a “series of staged scenes” his report showing the death of Mohammed al-Doura, 12 years old, killed by fire coming from the Israeli position on the 30 of September 2000 in the Gaza Strip during a confrontation between the Israeli army and armed Palestinians.

As far as I can make out, they think Charles did no wrong in reporting as he did. Even Larry Derfner admits that Charles got it wrong. But the evidence appears nowhere in this manifesto. Charles is, by virtue of his position, above such suspicion, and any effort to criticism is, by definition, obstinate and hateful. Would it ever occur to these enlightened folk to consider the decades-long campaign of Pallywood — with Al Durah as a signal success — as a “hateful and obstinate campaign to tarnish” the international reputation of Israel?

On the 19 of October 2006, the correctional tribunal of Paris had judged the principle animator of this campagne, Philippe Karsenty, guilty of defamation.

The decision rendered on the 21 of May by the appeals court of Paris, invoked by Philippe Karsenty recognizes that the claims made by him “unquestionably struck at the honor and professional reputations of the information professionnels” but admits, curiously, that the “good faith” of Philippe Karsenty, who “exercised his right to free criticism” and “did not transgress the limits of free speech.”

This is Charles Enderlin’s and France2’s reading. It’s one thing for a lawyer defending his client, or the client, to so misrepresent the thrust and tone of a document, but for journalists to do so calls into question the very issue of “good faith” which they seem to consider so insignificant. As one scholar said to another who had badly misrepresented what he had written: “If that’s how you read, I’ll have to check your footnotes.”

This decision which exonerates Philippe Karsenty both surprises and worries us.

And so it should. The game is up, the free ride of “no transparency, no accountability” is over. Alas for you, good news for your public whom you misinform (how often?), with tendentious reporting similar to what Charles has now gotten caught for doing.

We are astonished, because it grants the same credibility to a journalist known for the seriousness and rigor of his work, who exercises his profession in sometimes difficult conditions, and to his detractors, engaged in a campaign of negation and discrediting, who ignore all the realities of the terrain and have no experience of reporting from a conflict zone.

The idea that journalists should not be criticized by people who are not “in the ranks” is so astonishing that it beggars the imagination. The notion that because we critics have not “been in the field,” means we can’t spot a fake or errors in the reports of journalists constitutes a notion of privilege that only aristocrats could entertain. These “professionals” live in a world where all minds are not equal, and commoners have no right to contradict their superiors. To call this democratic is newspeak.

As for “knowledge of the terrain,” what do we make of this map that Charles Enderlin drew for me (and apparently others), in which he locates the Israeli position on the wrong side of the road (i.e., where the bullets are really coming from).

charles' map

Now Charles told the Canal+ documentarist Stéphane Malterre that shortly after the initial newsreport on al Durah, he returned to Netzarim to view the site. So either he’s memory impaired, or he’s deliberately misrepresenting reality, i.e., lying. What do you “professionals of information” who signed this letter make of his map?

Apparently awareness of “the realities” of the terrain does not guarantee accuracy if the journalist, whatever his reputation for “seriousness and rigor,” is dishonest, then we do not get accurate information. And at that point, someone who has never been to the intersection but has consulted maps, may well have more accurate “take” on what happened than your battle-hardened veteran.

Indeed, anyone familiar with the “terrain” in the Middle East – that is the radical difference between reporting on Israel in Israel and reporting on the Palestinian territories (or any other Middle Eastern country) in those countries, understands that often enough, you’re more likely to get a more honest report from someone not on the scene, someone who is not under the pressures of what one Italian journalist called “the journalistic procedures with the Palestinian Authority for (journalistic) work in Palestine.” (See below.) Indeed, given the serious problems posed by the impact of access journalism on the news we get, these kinds of pieties about brave reporters in “difficult conditions” are the last thing we need.

It worries us, because it gives permission in the future for a “permission to defame” journalists, which would permit anyone, in the name of “good faith” and “the right of free criticism,” to strike with impunity at the “honor and reputation of information professionals.”

This concern derives directly from the misreading of the judges’ decision. They did not give Philippe Karsenty the freedom to defame the reputation of information professionals with impunity. They said that Karsenty had done a credible and serious job, that his criticisms raised serious questions about both the incoherences of footage, and of the responses that Charles Enderlin provided the court. This decision says, rather, that serious criticism is legitimate, that it is the very essence of “the right to free criticism.”

Put differently, it says — as the Law of 1881 intended — that journalists do not have the right to present stories that defame others, public entities and private individuals, that do not live up to the standards of journalism; and that anyone with a prime-time audience has to expect to have his or her work submitted to the scrutiny of both colleagues and co-citizens. They have to live up to standards, and the in-crowd are not the ones who decide who’s been a bad boy. If we count on you folks who have signed this letter, we can wait a long time before you get around to self-criticizing, especially in public.

At a time when the freedom of action of journalists is the object of repeated attacks, we invoke our attachment to this fundamental principle, pillar of democracy and we renew our support and solidarity with Charles Enderlin.

This is real newspeak. One of the reasons that we cannot trust the reporting of journalists “in the field” is that they are systematically intimidated, and in order to move freely in the “territories” — as does Charles — they need to make sure the Palestinians like their work. Trashing the Israelis, on the other hand, is relatively cost-free. As a spokesman for the Foreign Minister’s office said recently, “The Israeli government has a policy not to attack or to sue any media outlet in a court of law, not in Israel and certainly not outside of Israel.”

Compared with the threats that journalists receive from Palestinian sources disgruntled at the coverage from the press, even what the Israelis do not permit themselves is mild. Can anyone honestly imagine a foreign media chief writing the following letterto an Israeli official unhappy with some coverage that hurt Israel’s international image?

    Special Clarification by the Italian Representative of RAI, the Official Italian Television Station

    My dear friends in Palestine. We congratulate you and think that it is our duty to put you in the picture (of the events) of what happened on October 12 in Ramallah [i.e., a savage lynching of two Israeli reservists]. One of the private Italian television stations which competes with us (and not the official Italian television station RAI) filmed the events; that station filmed the events. Afterwards Israeli Television broadcast the pictures, as taken from one of the Italian stations, and thus the public impression was created as if we (RAI) took these pictures. [I.e., by modern standards of journalism, they behaved appropriately by telling the story regardless of whose image got tarnished.]

    We emphasize to all of you that the events did not happen this way, because we always respect (will continue to respect) the journalistic procedures with the Palestinian Authority for (journalistic) work in Palestine and we are credible in our precise work.

    We thank you for your trust, and you can be sure that this is not our way of acting. We do not (will not) do such a thing.

    Please accept our dear blessings.

    Signed,
    Ricardo Christiano
    Representative of RAI in the Palestinian Authority
    (the official Italian station)

Mind you, the Italians who did film and release the footage of real events had to flee the wrath of the Palestinians; Christiano was here trying to avoid being the object of that wrath.

On the on other hand, when “caught” cheating the indignant response of European journalists is to cry out, like Bruno Stevens after the criticism from the blogosphere during the Lebanese war: “They are trying to get us to stop talking about massacres…” as if such was their right whether or not these events were massacres… as if they applied the same harsh standards to both sides. Or, as the head of the British cartoonists asssociation, shortly after giving their annual award to a vicious cartoon depicting Ariel Sharon as Goya’s Saturn devouring babies, remarked to an interviewer asking why they didn’t do similar cartoons about Arafat — who really did devour his own people’s children — “Jews don’t do fatwas.”

Note that one of the original signatories, Sara Daniel, wrote a piece in her father’s journal on Palestinian “honor-killings” which she felt compelled to “balance” by finishing her otherwise well-documented piece with the following comment:

    Palestinian women raped by Israeli soldiers are systematically killed by their own families. Here, the rape becomes a war-crime because the Israeli soldiers act with the sure knowledge of the results of their actions.

For this she offered no proof, because there’s no evidence. On the contrary, the lack of rapes of Palestinians by Israelis represents such an anomaly that it merited a (deeply bizarre) thesis at Hebrew University.

In the meantime, I strongly recommend the Europeans who are waking up to how appalling the values and attitudes of their MSM news providers, reconsider the hidden costs of these attitudes and practices. While the immediate cost to Enderlin of defaming Israel and inflaming the Muslim world were low, and the Europeans delighted in the “bad news” from Israel, the long-term consequences of this media error and cover-up were far more serious, and still operative.

Nidra Poller informs me that Alain Finkielkraut was asked to comment on the above letter on French Radio and that he came out squarely on the side of Enderlin’s critiques. He challenged the signers of this letter:

    They weren’t even at the trial; they probably didn’t read the decision; or view the images. This is a debate that has not yet happened.

My guess is, we’ll be waiting a while for the answer. In the meantime, I predict that the list of journalists who signed this letter, and who persist over the weeks and months to come as the evidence reaches the larger public, will look like the courtiers in the Emperor’s New Clothes after the crowd as begun to openly admit that the Emperor is naked:

    The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He though it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn’t see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle.

But the rumbling of the crowd has already begun. Almost all of the responses to this petition at Le Nouvel Obs are negative. The same thing happened to Larry Derfner. Thanks to the internet, there is now an audience of people better informed than the “information professionals” who pretend to inform them. It won’t do anymore to say, “Hush child, the emperor is wearing magnificent clothes!”

As for the list of signatories, my guess is we should take a leaf from the scholar who said, “if that’s how you read, I’ll have to check your footnotes.” It’s a good starting collection of journalists whose work probably deserves the scrutiny from which they so pitifully seek to protect Charles. X marks the spot. Dig here.

Farid Aïchoune (Le Nouvel Observateur),
Josette Alia (Le Nouvel Observateur),
Claude Angeli (Le Canard Enchaîné),
Max Armanet (Libération),
Association du Prix Albert Londres,
Claude Askolovitch (Le Nouvel Observateur),
René Backmann (Le Nouvel Observateur),
Luc de Barochez (Le Figaro),
Frédéric Barreyre (France Inter),
Nebia Bendjebbour (Le Nouvel Observateur),
Michel Bôle-Richard (Le Monde),
Christophe Boltanski (Le Nouvel Observateur),
Nicolas Brimo (Le Canard Enchaîné),
Hervé Chabalier (Capa),
Alain de Chalvron (France 2),
Patrice Claude (Le Monde),
Sylvain Cypel (Le Monde),
Olivier Da Lage (RFI),
Jean Daniel (Fondateur du Nouvel Observateur, écrivain),
Sara Daniel (Le Nouvel Observateur),
Christian Dauriac (FR3),
Gilles Delafon (Le Journal du Dimanche),
Grégoire Deniau (France 24),
Jack Dion (Marianne),
Mireille Duteil (Le Point),
Kathleen Evin (France Inter),
Didier François (Europe 1),
Pierre Ganz (RFI),
Alain Girard (Ouest France),
Martine Gozlan (Marianne),
Gérard Grizbec (France2),
Jean-Claude Guillebaud (Journaliste et éditeur),
Henri Guirchoun (Le Nouvel Observateur),
Gilles Grandpierre (L’Union de Reims)
Vincent Hugeux (L’Express),
Jean-Marc Illouz (France 2),
Erwan Jourand (AFP),
Jacques Julliard (Le Nouvel Observateur),
Sammy Ketz (AFP),
Serge Kovacs (France 3),
Michel Labro (Le Nouvel Observateur),
Jean Lacouture (Ecrivain),
Serge Lafaurie (Le Nouvel Observateur),
Loïc Lemoigne (France 3),
Gwenaëlle Lenoir (France 3),
Manon Loizeau,
Alain Louyot (L’Expansion),
Guillaume Malaurie (Le Nouvel Observateur),
Jean-Paul Mari (Le Nouvel Observateur),
Robert Ménard (Reporters sans frontières),
Agnès Molinier (Présidente de la Société des journalistes de France 2),
Denis Olivennes (Le Nouvel Observateur),
Claude Perdriel (Le Nouvel Observateur),
Pierre Prier (Le Figaro),
Jonathan Randal (Washington Post),
Philippe Rochot (France 2),
SCAM (Société civile des auteurs multimédia),
Société des Journalistes de France 2,
Syndicat SNJ-CGT de France Télévisions,
Maurice Szafran (Marianne),
Marcel Trillat (Journaliste),
Pierre Weill (France Inter),
Franck Weill Rabaud (RFI),
Wiaz (Le Nouvel Observateur).

• Théo Klein (Avocat, ancien président du CRIF),
Régis Debray (Ecrivain, directeur de la revue Medium),
Hubert Vedrine, (ancien ministre des affaires étrangères),
Guillaume Weill-Raynal (avocat)

soutiennent cet appel de journalistes

65 Responses to What Checks and Balances to the Fourth Estate: Appeal for Charles Enderlin Poses the Question

  1. igout says:

    The betrayal by the elites. Wasn’t that what poor Louis XVI was accused of? “Contre nous de la tyrannie…”.and so on?

    I very much hope that someday soon the aristos of Brussels will share his fate for having let loose on Europe 40-50 million féroces soldats from the Islamic countries.

    Who knows? Maybe the new Robespierres and St Justs will emerge from that very list of hack journalists. The original ones certainly gave no hint of their true talents in their early years.

  2. E.G. says:

    Before making any comment on RL’s brilliant analysis, an update:

    - the petition site is closed for comments;
    - the signing list has increased.

    A remark, though:
    Note that the list is divided into 3 categories…

  3. E.G. says:

    An interesting comment from a colleague and friend of Enderlin (translated excerpt)

    Sylvain Attal:
    We, and above all us – TV journalists, should not avoid thinking about image and reporting. Many recent affairs have shown us that we cannot place total confidence (in an image), especially when it’s been edited.

    I did not want to sign the N.Obs petition despite an old friendship with Charles Enderlin. The will to comfort a man who’s been subjected to odious attacks (he’s been called a Nazi, threatened and harrassed as welle as his wife and children) is not sufficient. Ever since I viewed the report rushes I’m extremely troubled – as should any bona fide person with some knowledge of the situation – and disturbed by Charles Enderlin’s attitude. But I’ll not take part in the manhunt either. I wouldn’t like to be transformed into a preacher either. Let’s try to get beyond the ad hominem attacks.

    Yes the Palestinian practice of staging for TV is a real and confirmed thing. Yes, if a journalist, a TV chain think they’ve been manipulated and driven to present such images as the reality the chain should admit it, even if it is convinced that there is some part of reality – if not truth – in those images. Let this not make us forget that hundreds of Palestinian children have been victims of this conflict. (And don’t make me sound as if I’m not saying that there have also been Israeli child victims!).

    original here

  4. [...] The Augean Stables – What Checks and Balances to the Fourth Estate: Appeal for Charles Enderlin Poses the Question [...]

  5. diane says:

    In the context of Eurabia, this means that the professional elite – media and political – that pushes the agenda of the European Union has much more in common with other elites in other countries than it does with its own commoners. It can, therefore, easily countenance a massive demographic transfer of Muslim immigrants to do the manual labor – what difference between a Muslim, a Christian, a post-Christian working in a factory? And it can at the same time dismiss without qualms the complaints of commoners when such a transfer does not work.

    I have a few problems with this logic.

    1. French elites are fashionably Leftist, aren’t they? Yet you make them sound like modern-day Marie Antoinettes. How are the two different value systems compatible?

    2. Muslims present a greater threat to European elites than the domestic “cannailes.” The latter, when angered, go on strike. The former set fire to the suburbs and beat up police. Surely the elite have noticed this distinction…

    3. How can the elite dismiss “the complaints of commoners when such a transfer doesn’t work”? The resulting non-functioning society will be their own! Are you suggesting that the French elites will just move to the United States when Muslims finally make Europe uninhabitable for them? A stretch, I think.

  6. Cynic says:

    Cynic’s standards are fierce but fair. To the French ear they are harsh and far too demanding. They are so far from franchise — rl

    Sylvain Attal(And don’t make me sound as if I’m not saying that there have also been Israeli child victims!).

    But who generally is responsible for the Palestinian and Israeli child victims?

    This person wants to continue sitting on the fence, too scared to own up to their opinion, fear on the one hand of peer pressure and on the other not willing to admit they are party to a lie, albeit in this one’s case tangential.

    Precisely. That’s where all the French elites are stuck in this affair. Including the Jewish ones. A kind of squeak of integrity surrounded by apology. For those of us used to the parched world of French public discourse, where honesty is regularly punished, this is like an oasis. Sad, but alas, the case. –rl

    But I’ll not take part in the manhunt either. I wouldn’t like to be transformed into a preacher either. Let’s try to get beyond the ad hominem attacks.

    but this does not apply when Israel is at the receiving end.
    What hypocrisy. Imagine if it was a case of “Israeliwood”!

    Precisely. The background to this is that French media, like le monde diplomatique do retrospectives on Sabra and Shatilla 20 years later where they give long testimonies of eyewitnesses that there were Israeli soldiers doing the butchering, without a word of caution about the reliability of these witnesses given the evidence. The European media leaps on every occasion to bring Israeli morality into question, to make ad hominems about Israel.

    But let’s take Attal at his word. No more ad hominems, unless supported by evidence — e.g., Talal lied when he said he had taken 20, or even 6 minutes of footage during the footing; Enderlin lied when he said he cut death throes that would be unbearable to watch. But let’s push of mental processes a little. If the Israelis didn’t do it, what happened? -rl

  7. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    Funny, in a following comment the writer has made the “Israeliwood” argument.

    I believe he’s going through a difficult moment, experiencing cognitive dissonance and emotional conflict.

  8. E.G. says:

    diane,

    I too had some difficulties with this passage.

    1. The difference between Leftist and Marie Antoinette logic is not great. The latter honestly believed that prerogative was a matter of birthright. The former pretend it should never be so. In fact it’s in their interest to keep power to distribute the entitlement to all sorts of prerogatives (e.g., minority groups) while denying any to others. The discourse wrapping the actual behavior is as hypocritical as the one which Versailles was famous for.

    1.1 But there’s a gap growing now between the political and the media parts of the european “elite”: whatever their party’s name, the political majorities go center-right. (Which also indicates that many voters somehow sensed that the former King’s crown of thorns was velvety inside). So now there is quite some tension between 2 different agendas within that “elite”. Furthermore, the political Leftist parties are not in very good shape these days.

    2. The Emperor did not believe his eyes but what his tailors asked him to think (tailor-made for him, which became ready-to-voice for the masses). Not sure media actually made the distinction nor perceived any threat (to themselves, which is the only thing worth noticing and mentioning). Commoners did (and, in the case of the French presidential election, they enraged the media because instead of going on believing the usual Red or the Brown crap, they chose the Right guy!).

    3. How can the elite dismiss “the complaints of commoners when such a transfer doesn’t work”? The resulting non-functioning society will be their own!
    a. Why should they care? In their eyes, the danger is not clear and present.
    b. Most will adapt. Or indeed try their luck elsewhere.

    3.1 The transfer is decades old. The trouble is that a growing part of the population, full citizens, are alienated and demand their share of privileges. The brutal awakening is happening now because it’s becoming obvious that none of the integration mechanisms that had worked for the other aliens has had similar results for these diverse populations who only have one feature in common.

    3.2 It occurs to me that in a few places around the world the working classes are fighting the immigrants that take their jobs.

  9. Cynic says:

    … it’s becoming obvious that none of the integration mechanisms that had worked for the other aliens has had similar results for these diverse populations who only have one feature in common.

    Would you consider the hypothesis that it is because they were sent and did not opt personally for the “freedom of thought and expression” etc., etc liberte, “fraternite ?

    sent by whom? unlikely. that many people don’t go without wanting to. i think this is more a failure than something planned. at least at the individual level. – rl

  10. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    a. If you mean during the 20th century, the vast majority were not sent (like, unwillingly i.e., slavery). They seized an opportunity to earn a better living for their families, often left behind.

    b. For some reason, many workers, both European and non-European freely chose to settle in the European countries of which they were not natives. And to have their families join them. There are also quite a few cases (e.g., Portugese, Spanish) of families moving back to their homeland, especially after some changes occurred there.

    C. So I’d be inclined to hypothetise that when possible, people do opt to live in “fraternite” countries, where this characteristic is usually in the good company of “freedom of expression” etc.

    i agree. where does the expression “fraternité countries” come from? is it another term for what i call civil polities – rl?

  11. oao says:

    i agree with most of what oao has written here. impt points. -rl

    French elites are fashionably Leftist, aren’t they? Yet you make them sound like modern-day Marie Antoinettes. How are the two different value systems compatible?

    Because their leftism is only fashionable. Deep down inside they’re still the M-A bloodline. Do they themselves LIVE by their leftist principles?

    i’m sure there are some, but we didn’t get the expression “la gauche de caviar” by accident.

    Muslims present a greater threat to European elites than the domestic “cannailles.”

    But without the latter, the former would not be in EU, and would not be unassimilated and their sharia and jihad go unaddressed or even protected.

    what makes you say that the european working classes are responsible for the Jihad problem. isn’t it the elites who have ignored it despite their protests?

    Are you suggesting that the French elites will just move to the United States when Muslims finally make Europe uninhabitable for them?

    A few will, and start spitting their leftism here.
    But most of them are either too ignorant of what the ultimate consequences will be or in denial about it, or they delude themselves that they are buying themselves status preservation in an islamized society.

    impt. points: denial is a huge player, and when the anxieties begin to tug at the corners, some of these people think they are going to make friends with the muslims. indeed, if it comes down to an islamic take-over, they will convert. to paraphrase henry iv: europe vaut bien un ramadan.

    What hypocrisy.

    It’s not clear to me that these people have the intellectual ability to realize their hypocrisy. They truly believe in their high morality.

    i don’t think it’s intellectual ability that enables one to see one’s own hypocrisy, but honesty, and that takes not brains but heart.

    The difference between Leftist and Marie Antoinette logic is not great. The latter honestly believed that prerogative was a matter of birthright. The former pretend it should never be so.

    Indeed not great: The lefties have turned their dogma into a sort of birthright. IOW, they are so moral and just that nobody else can or should replace them. A distinction without a difference.

    aristocracy begins with the case for incumbency. come to think of it, the Count of Monte Cristo is about how rapidly revolutionary elites acted like entrenched aristocrats.

    Would you consider the hypothesis that it is because they were sent and did not opt personally for the “freedom of thought and expression” etc., etc liberte, “fraternite ?

    There is no question that some were sent, either as a matter of policy or self-selection. But I think the majority just wanted to exploit the infidel society without integrating.

    which explains at least part of the failure, which i think is best embodied in the attitude of a young arab boy being humiliated (standard french teaching technique in the lower schools) by a jewish woman teacher. the attitude has so much to do with willingness to try, resilience in failure… and many of the arabs had nothing.

  12. E.G. says:

    There is no question that some were sent, either as a matter of policy or self-selection.

    Would you care to elaborate?

  13. oao says:

    what exactly should I elaborat?

  14. E.G. says:

    on the sense of your above quoted sentence, please.

  15. E.G. says:

    Adding a few remarks to RL’s analysis.

    a. The division of the petition signatories (on the N.Obs site) into 3 distinct categories is symptomatic.
    - Category 1: members of the corporation exhibiting “esprit de corps”;
    -Category 2: titled “Personalities”, grouping more or less famous persons;
    -Category 3: Ordinary persons (Commoners, as RL labels them).

    1. The 2nd category is the one supposed to bestow a moral accreditation to the petition’s claims. This is in line with the European tradition, recruiting the intelligentsia to voice its stand on societal issues, in order to enhance an opinion’s authoritative status. Not only does intelligentsia members’ competence to opine on any matter go unquestioned (i.e., what qualifies the opinion of a sociologist specialized in ant behavior to weigh more than that of a retired school teacher on, say, smoking?), but Science is de facto construed as omniscience. Moreover, this category also has the specific privilege to acknowledge being wrong but to persevere in the same line, for reasons they don’t need to share. There used to be a saying “I’d rather err with Sartre than be correct with Aron” (I think it was a propos Communism).

    2. In its attempts to exert influence, this category (or chattering-class, as some call it) has its group mechanisms, similar to all human groups: conformity rules and their inclusion-exclusion corollaries. See, for example, how RL is stripped of his credentials to analyse the situation in Netzarim and the film reporting it. All of a sudden, a scientist’s educated opinion is illegitimate – because he’s not one of “us” (that is: we who support an opponent and another opinion, whatever its veracity)? Or, one psychoanalyst (Elisabeth Rudinesco, petition signatory) is credited with omniscience while her colleague (Gerard Huber) is discredited: is it because she is one of “us” but not he?

    3. The “Personalities” list is short. Philosophers such as Bernard-Henri Levy, Glucksmann, Pascal Bruckner are conspicuously absent. So is social scientist (and compulsive signatory on any tangent issue, let alone quite a few others) Esther Benbassa or Edgar Morin. (BTW, on the “corporation” list, Steven Erlanger of the NYT- formerly based in Israel and now in France is MIAppeal too).

    b. What’s the French word for “accountability”?
    There is none. A “cultural thing”, as some would say.

  16. andrew says:

    To E.G.

    About the lack of French equivalent of “accountability”

    How right you are. At last, I understand Georgina
    Dufoix’s utterance (she was a State Secretary, busying
    herself with questions of national health, while
    Mitterand was President) that the government may have been “responsable, mais pas coupable”. This occurred
    during the contaminated blood scandal.

  17. E.G. says:

    andrew,

    Glad to have contributed something useful.
    Put in English, the utterance is “I’m in charge (i.e.,authority) but bear no responsibility (which – in other governance systems – includes accountability)”.

  18. oao says:

    It’s not clear what is not clear.

    I am sure that moslem govts understand soft jihad and the advantages of infiltrating the infidels with a fifth column and exploiting the achievements that their societies are incapable of, which the ummah has always relied on to sustain itself. There must be policies that facilitate that e.g. exporting risky elements to bother the kuffar rather than create problems at home.

    As to those radicals, some of them select themselves to go and do just that, particularly when they either cannot or will not adapt.

  19. oao says:

    Science is de facto construed as omniscience

    This is one of the consequences of my pet peeve: the collapse of education. Neither the academia, nor the rest of society rely on and appreciate knowledge and reason anymore.

    That’s the only way in which science can become omniscience for the latter, and why the former are not bothered to express “authoritative” opinions on matters they have no clue about.

  20. oao says:

    “I’m in charge (i.e.,authority) but bear no responsibility (which – in other governance systems – includes accountability)”.

    I am not an expert in french culture and I am the last one to defend its govt, but to me ““responsable, mais pas coupable” looks like “responsible, but without culpability”–it happened on our watch but we did not do it.

    But it’s more than likely that it was said in the spirit to which you refer.

  21. E.G. says:

    a. Sorry. A better formulation would have been “couched in Anglo-Saxon terms, the utterance is”…

    b. Re- couched etc., “it happened on our watch but we would not assume responsibility for it.”

    Thanks, oao, indeed it’s the latent sense rather than the literal translation.

  22. E.G. says:

    oao,

    Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. Your comment #18 relies on sources unknown to me.

    Your peeve is not me pet one but I share it.

  23. Richard Landes says:

    reminds me of what the FBI said about Wacko: “we didn’t do anything wrong and we won’t do it again.”

  24. andrew says:

    Yes, finer points of grammar sometimes help to clarify things. But has it been sufficiently reported that, on
    the “Nouvel Observateur” ‘s site, more than 90 per cent of the comments were violently against this petition, and against the idea of equating free thought
    with uncontrolled power of the press ? This certainly
    came as a total surprise to the “Nouvel Obs” people: still, they should be commended for not having totally
    rejected these comments: have a look at menapress.com
    (in French) for interesting developments regarding these comments

  25. E.G. says:

    andrew,

    Allowing the vulgus vent their dissatisfaction, and monitoring it so as it appears democratic, is a well-known procedure. N.Obs will be commended if they do something sufficiently honest about the concerns expressed.

  26. Nicolas Krebs says:

    There is nothing such Eurabia except in the mind of some conspiracy theorists.

  27. E.G. says:

    Intelligentsia: intellectual integrity vs. social conformity.

    Nick Cohen No one wins in modern-day academia

    excerpt:

    a [...] failing of the system is that it creates conformism in supposedly independent minds.[...] There are many honourable exceptions, but as a herd, academics are the most predictable of beasts.[...] Within seconds of talking to an academic, I guess their views on every major political issue.

    Why should I be surprised? To get the academic papers published the judging panels demand, lecturers must engage in the soul-destroying task of sucking up to the editors of learned journals. The funding for their departments and their very livelihoods depend on their ability to please. The government does not ask researchers to produce work of intellectual distinction, however long it takes. They must loyally churn out enough papers to allow their department to claim a slice of the booty.

  28. E.G. says:

    Oops.

    The obsessive-compulsive Benbassa has made her prima donna entry on the useful idiot “Personalities” signatory list.

    Could my yesterday name-dropping number have made someone monitoring this site see to increase the (still) meager “personae gratae” category?

    Even if I cannot be held accountable for it, I won’t do it again.

  29. rl says:

    Nicholas Krebs writes: There is nothing such Eurabia except in the mind of some conspiracy theorists.

    Nicholas, is there any thinking behind your post, or is this just some sound bite? I’d be interested in seeing you elaborate, if the former is the case.

  30. oao says:

    I’d be interested in seeing you elaborate, if the former is the case.

    you dk if the former is the case? interested? why?

  31. Eliyahu says:

    I would add to oao’s comments in #11 above that nowadays, “Leftism” has become an Establishment ideology, an instrument of domination in some societies. It is very sad that this is so in Israel too, where certain dissenting views are marginalized, although we have freedom of the press. But the electronic media seldom mention dissenting views. From Israeli independence until 1977, Israel was dominated by the Labor Party [earlier called MAPAI]. Mapai’s brand of leftism was practically an official ideology and Mapai had ways of recruiting “writers and artists” into their ranks. Although Labor was much reduced in power after 1977, they held on to control of major foci of power in the state, such as the police, state prosecutor’s office, radio and TV media, and education.

    By the way, Barack Obama’s preferred foreign policy advisor, zbig brzezinski, expressed deep dismay when Menahem Begin was elected prime minister in 1977. Zbig was then jimmy carter’s national insecurity advisor.

    In France, we see that the big lie, the al-Durah hoax, is a sacred lie in some circles. If it is refuted, the refutation causes cognitive dissonance endangering the sense of personal security of many of the media elite.
    Their mental well being is challenged and they attack the “messengers,” as it were, that is, Karsenty, RL, Stephane Juffa, etc.

  32. Eliyahu says:

    Last week, the bbc Hard Talk show interviewed Uzi Landau, a leading member of the Likud Party. I admire Uzi but he was not at his best on Hard Talk. He seemed very tired and did not make the best case that could be made or that he himself could make.

    Be that as it may, the bbc Hard Talk hound dog [stephen sackur] brought up a petition or appeal signed by about 250 British Jewish personalities who are deeply ignorant of realities in Israel yet echo the anti-Israel line of the UK media. The Hard Talker asked Uzi, in a form of psychological pressure, Look, What are you going to do? 250 leaders of the Jewish community in Britain [not true at all] are against your policies. So in Britain too we see that appeals and petitions are used as psychological pressure to obtain Establishment goals.

  33. andrew says:

    To Eliyahu,

    In Europe, it has become very difficult for Jews to
    express opinions, or even not to do so. If they express
    a pro-Israeli attitude, this will be dismissed (as has
    been, for instance, Esther Shapira’s treatment of the
    al-Durra affair) as being a partial (not to say
    “communautarist”) point of view. On the other hand,
    if they express reservations about aspects of the
    Israeli politics, it will generally be amplified by
    media by the tacit understanding that “even Jews have
    to recognize that Israelis are wrong”. E.G.’s comment
    #27 rightly points to conformity as the expression of a
    security need (together with the need for acceptation).
    Still, it makes you wonder to see the number of
    jewish signatures in the “Nouvel Observateur” list.

  34. andrew says:

    Oops: I meant “conformism”, not “conformity”

  35. rl says:

    conformism/conformity is the key to the “emperor’s new clothes” effect that dominated al durah coverage for almost a decade.

    it’s linked to “mimetic desire” – you want what others want.

    all the jews on the list, i suspect, fit Shmuel Trigano’s definition of an alter-juif: a jew who sees himself thru the eyes of the hostile “other” — they want the judeophobe’s approval, so they adopt not only his desires, but his dislikes.

  36. E.G. says:

    Elihahu,

    Didn’t Begin refuse, once elected, to purge the media & the administration?

    In France, we see that the big lie, the al-Durah hoax, is a sacred lie in some circles.

    In my opinion, in most circles Al Dura is a non-issue. The whole point in personalizing and polarizing the public’s opinion on the case is to create a diversion. Instead of focussing on the film’s characteristics, eventually enlarging the frame to discuss journalistic practice and ethics (adding other hoaxes, not necessarily related to the M.E.), the media-corporatists single out the messanger and present him as a victim. Just like Jesus was crucified for preaching his divergent view on his own religion.

    I’d argue that rather than “mental well being”, what is challenged is mental and physical comfort (read: laziness):- why stop using/change a dogma and a standard operating procedure that’s been so useful?

    There’s no equivalent to “Hard Talk” program on French TV. Real debate has been missing for decades from the French culture, to the point where debating habits have all but vanished. Presentations of contradicting points of view on a subject quickly turn into personal attacks and/or mutual accusations. You win in these arenas by either using the sharpest formulae (bon mot) to counter the opponent (not facts and figures, nor articulated arguments), or by victimizing yourself (claiming you’re oppressed historically; state you’ve just been unjustly insulted…).

  37. oao says:

    rl,

    i understood the domestic “canailles” to mean the elites. if it meant the working class, then pls interpret my comment accordingly.

    i don’t think it’s intellectual ability that enables one to see one’s own hypocrisy, but honesty, and that takes not brains but heart.

    well, I think some intellectual ability is a pre-condition for honesty, particularly with oneself. one must appreciate the value of truth to be honest even when it’s psychologically difficult.

    come to think of it, the Count of Monte Cristo is about how rapidly revolutionary elites acted like entrenched aristocrats.

    dumas was a favorite in my childhood. i ordered ALL his books from france–quite expensive–and I recall them filling my shelves. i felt a great loss when I had to leave for the US and had to leave them.

    the attitude has so much to do with willingness to try, resilience in failure… and many of the arabs had nothing.

    well, if you have an inshallah culture and religion, with which you are indoctrinated, where everything is allah’s will and he’ll reward you as a moslem by arranging for you to dominate and exploit the kuffar, there is no need for you to be sent. you go to dar-el-harb to concretize these beliefs. your successes are due to allah, your failure to the infidel. you have no responsibility whatsoever for anything .

  38. oao says:

    conformity as the expression of a
    security need (together with the need for acceptation)
    .

    they want the judeophobe’s approval, so they adopt not only his desires, but his dislikes.

    they have not learned much from history, have they?

    Wiselthier said this very thing about judt: that he is essentially reproducing anti-semitism to get approval.

  39. Eliyahu says:

    as far as I know, tony judt grew up and was educated in Britain. One has to wonder just what is taught in UK universities. By the way, have you all noticed the latest attempt by the UK univ teachers’ union to boycott Israel without using the word boycott?? Their recent resolution reflects either deep ignorance or deep hostility to Jews [disguised as "anti-Zionism," the anti-imperialism of fools] or both, not to mention hypocrisy. When saddam Hussein was massacring Kurds, we didn’t hear any calls from these creeps to boycott Iraqi universities. Nor do they call for boycotting Iran, although its government is violating the Nuclear Non-Prolif treaty by developing a bomb and is violating the UN charter by threatening war against a UN member state.

    Talk about Perfidious Albion, these creeps take the cake.

  40. Nicolas Krebs says:

    answer to rl 32: Well, Richard Landes has wrote in his article some sentences including the word “Eurabia”, so i have tell him my opinion about that.

    If you want i demonstrate my claim, it can be difficult because of harder proof of inexistence (than proof of existence). But you can look at book supporting Eurabia theory and find no valid argument in, or look at the 3% muslims in france http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France , or look at critics articles such http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n20/print/jone01_.html .

    If some of you are israeli citizen, notice that the web site jihadwatch.org (owned by eurabia partisan Robert Spencer) has called Ehud Olmert a traitor in http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019570.php .

  41. Eliyahu says:

    EG, I don’t know exactly what Begin promised during his election campaign. After the election, he apparently decided for whatever reason to appease both the US Carter administration and the domestic Israeli “left” who were much put out that the wrong party won the election and the wrong man became prime minister.

    I have been told that there was great enthusiasm among the Israeli youth for Begin when he won. But then, in his urge to appease, he appointed Moshe Dayan [widely hated by then for several good reasons] as foreign minister. This appointment killed off the enthusiasm. The Likud then lost the election for Histadrut [Labor federation] leadership, which Likud had been expected to win.

    As a partial excuse for Begin, you might say that he might have been afraid of the power that the Labor party and the farther “left” still had in the summer of 1977 to control various state institutions, as mentioned above, as well as the media.

  42. E.G. says:

    rl,

    where does the expression “fraternité countries” come from? is it another term for what i call civil polities

    I don’t have such an elaborate concept. I used “fraternité” countries as a proxy for Welfare states, indeed easily exploitable and comforting one’s passivity and lack of will to work (hard) for a better life.
    The Christian notion of charity is based on fraternité while Jewish Tzedaka draws on both franternity and justice (social equity). While the first maintains social unequality, the latter is also égalité-oriented.

    i don’t think it’s intellectual ability that enables one to see one’s own hypocrisy, but honesty, and that takes not brains but heart.

    and some guts too. As well as education.

    all the jews on the list, i suspect, fit Shmuel Trigano’s definition of an alter-juif: a jew who sees himself thru the eyes of the hostile “other” — they want the judeophobe’s approval, so they adopt not only his desires, but his dislikes.

    I’m reluctant to draw this conclusion. Some might fit Trigano’s definition, others – less. One’s identity is complex and at times the professional part is stronger than the confessional one (plus, not all Cohens are Jewish – e.g., Nick Cohen), and ideology plays a big part in one’s worldview (e.g., pre-neocon Podhoretz). The above distinction between the Christian and Jewish notions of charity was made by (signatory) Theo Klein. As andrew stated above, it ain’t easy to be Jewish. Never was, I add (and remind the title of Flavius Josephus opus).

    At any rate, the al Durra case is a particular case, a constellation involving Jews and Israelis and French but, in my opinion, it’s just one instance of a larger phenomenon (coined Augean Stables), involving many people, religions, nations and states.

  43. E.G. says:

    Eliyahu,

    Begin’s campaign promised change. After the 1973 war shock and the cumulated disappointments with the Labor party (involved in too many corruption cases), everybody – not only youth – wanted a more free-market economic orientation and new, cleaner faces.

    He didn’t change the media & administration from the beginnig because it did not fit his ideas (morals) and his experience.

    Interestingly, honor had a prominent place in his vocabulary (often associated with integrity and honesty), and he was notorious for never calling Arafat by his name but nicknaming him (e.g. “the bearded guy”).

    And I wouldn’t call the peace with Egypt “appeasement” with either Carter’s admin. or Israel’s left.

  44. E.G. says:

    oao,

    well, if you have an inshallah culture and religion, with which you are indoctrinated, where everything is allah’s will and he’ll reward you as a moslem by arranging for you to dominate and exploit the kuffar, there is no need for you to be sent. you go to dar-el-harb to concretize these beliefs. your successes are due to allah, your failure to the infidel. you have no responsibility whatsoever for anything .

    May I suggest you get your narrative corrected by less dumaesque accounts? (even though I share your taste for the novelist – who was, BTW, as white/black as Barack).

  45. oao says:

    dk about dumaesque, but what i described is the reality. the muslims who went to dar-el-harb are not even capable to realize that what they came to exploit is gonna get killed by their imposing on it what they left at home.

  46. oao says:

    And I wouldn’t call the peace with Egypt “appeasement” with either Carter’s admin. or Israel’s left.

    Quite. Not only did not carter have anything to do with it, but in fact sadat took the initiative because he realized that the idiot in the white house was not able to do anything.

    it was sadat’s initiative and it was very smartly done.

  47. Eliyahu says:

    as to the deal with egypt, both Begin and Sadat may have been scared at Zbig and carter’s plan for an international conference, which zbig wanted to use of course to carve up Israel, whereas sadat may have feared the disorder that such a conference was likely to entail in his view.

    but the deal with egypt was still done as a reaction to carter-zbig’s policies. I know that some people really believe that we have peace with Egypt. Not so. In any event, real peace is not now possible, not only because of the Arabs but because of Western [US and EU] policy, including the anti-Israel agitprop that is so widely promoted in europe.

  48. oao says:

    i did not say we had peace with egypt. i simply agreed that whatever the arrangement was, carter had no contribution to it, except to convince sadat that he could not expect anything from him.

  49. E.G. says:

    oao,

    How about this narrative?

    Illiterate and unqualified men in the (just or to be liberated) colonies are offered the deal of their lifetime: go to Europe to do the construction and maintenance work that Europeans won’t do, earn money and help support the family left behind. Many seize the opportunity. A few years go by, political changes happen in both homeland and residence-land. The hard-working men’s initial temporary stay gets longer. They appreciate the working conditions – much better than in their homeland and are made aware by their native co-workers union representatives to the natural rights of the world’s working class. Many of them also live in poor areas where the natives (workers themselves) elect Communist local teams to manage their towns. Meanwhile, the government realizes that the foreign workforce is beneficial to the country’s economy and decides to help them stay or even settle. So they are allowed to bring wives and children, and allocated govt.-sponsored housing, as well as welfare of all kinds.
    By virtue of birth, their children are full citizens. Some of these children make the “leap” into the native society. Most of them don’t. The economy gets less industry-based and slows. Unemployment grows. And their children (or grandchildren) still in the now derelict neighborhoods, become hostile to the societal fundamental values and more root-oriented, encouraged by counselors, politicians and teachers.

    Hardly Standhal’s “Le Rouge et le Noir” but more of a “Le Rouge et le Vert”. Could make a setting for Jules Verne (whose Mathias Sandorf surely came to your mind in the early 1990′s).

  50. Eliyahu says:

    ************
    Looking over the list of signatories again, I note the names, among others, of Hubert Vedrine and Association du Prix Albert Londres [association of the Albert Londres Prize].

    first Vedrine [et tout d'abord!!]. Vedrine was the foreign minister in Lionel Jospin’s government, a government representing the French socialist party that was almost constantly in conflict with the “right-wing” president of France, Jacques Chirac [called Chirac d'Arabie on the model of Lawrence of Arabia, in a recent political biography of him].

    Jospin & Chirac were almost always in conflict, but Vedrine and Chirac were in full agreement, as far as I know, about what to do about Israel, about those pesky, stubborn Jews. At this point, we ought to recall that Hubert Vedrine’s father, Jean, was a high official in the Vichy govt. He was the head of Marshal Petain’s secretariat. The Vichy regime was of course a Nazi collaborationist gang which helped round up Jews living in France to send them to get killed in Nazi German death camps. After WW2, Hubert’s father, Jean, found a new career as a friend of the Arabs and Arab nationalism. If we accept the old adage that like goes to like, then Jean Vedrine’s rapprochement towards the fascistic Arab governments and nationalist movements is right in character. So much for Hubert Vedrine.

    Albert Londres, on the other hand, was a respected French reporter in the 1920s and 1930s. He was in Israel in 1929 when the Arab nationalists-cum-Islamic jihadis of the time made their pogroms and massacres against the Jews in the country. 68 Jews belonging to the old Jewish community were massacred in Hebron.

    These events were led by Haj Amin el-Husseini, British-appointed mufti of Jerusalem. The Mufti, as he was usually called at the time, worked in cooperation and coordination with the British police and govt in Israel. This was stated very clearly by Pierre van Paassen, one of the outstanding reporters of the 20th century, who traveled around Israel in that period in a car together with Londres.

    Londres too pointed out British collaboration in and encouragement for the pogroms and massacres. This came in a series of articles that was later collected and published in book form as Le Juif errant est arrive. It is now available as a paperback. How ironic that the name of Londres is now used to slander the Jews and cover up how Western empires in the 21st century encourage Arab attacks on Israel intended to massacre Jews.
    * * * * * *

  51. oao says:

    How ironic that the name of Londres is now used to slander the Jews and cover up how Western empires in the 21st century encourage Arab attacks on Israel intended to massacre Jews.

    Ironic is too mild a word for what is happening, with jews being called nazis in order to get over the holocaust.

  52. [...] who question what we say get a voice, it’s the end of our high standards. Shades of the French Petition. Same thing happened after the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, when rumors, articles, “exposes” and [...]

  53. [...] however, and in response to the corporatist petition circulated by the Nouvel Observateur, Barnavi has come out against France2 and Charles Enderlin, in [...]

  54. [...] in the profession managed to challenge him seriously until now? Why do Charles French colleagues flock to his defense even now, regardless of/despite the [...]

  55. oao says:

    How about this narrative?

    Since I lost track, what exactly is your point?

    I’m sure that the narrative is accurate for a large number of immigrants, particularly in the past. But it seems to imply that:

    * economic and social conditions are the main root of islamization (that’s what the leftists are arguing)

    * that lack of integration is primarily the fault of the host society

    * islam, native culture and active indoctrination are not central components of the unwilling to integrate.

    europe is demographically finished. once the immigration became massive and birth rates being what they are for natives and immigrants, it has increasingly attracted/developed jihadists and exploiters.

    i suggest you spend some time reading sites like Jihad Watch, Dhimmi Watch and Little Green Footballs. there is ample evidence for you there to decide whether your narrative, even if accurate in history, describes the current situation in europe.

  56. E.G. says:

    Since I lost track, what exactly is your point?

    The one you make below. You have argued before that Moslems came to Western lands with the intention to conquer it.

    I’m sure that the narrative is accurate for a large number of immigrants, particularly in the past.

    But it seems to imply that:

    * economic and social conditions are the main root of islamization (that’s what the leftists are arguing)

    No. It’s more the leftist education (including socialisation).

    * that lack of integration is primarily the fault of the host society

    Where have you seen any allusion to this?

    * islam, native culture and active indoctrination are not central components of the unwilling to integrate.

    Niet- Niet- Niet. You’ve really got an interesting way of reading. (Or is it the conspicuous absence of the word Islam in my storyline that makes you infer?)

    i suggest you spend some time reading sites like Jihad Watch, Dhimmi Watch and Little Green Footballs. there is ample evidence for you there to decide whether your narrative, even if accurate in history, describes the current situation in europe.

    Thanks. Reading is fine and sometimes is lots of fun (e.g. compare LGF and le Monde Diplo). First-hand experience and personal interaction help too, as I’m sure you agree (unless you lost track…).

  57. E.G. says:

    oao,
    Thanks for devoting your time and attention.

    Since I lost track, what exactly is your point?

    The one you make below. You have argued before that Moslems came to Western lands with the intention to conquer it.

    I’m sure that the narrative is accurate for a large number of immigrants, particularly in the past.

    But it seems to imply that:

    * economic and social conditions are the main root of islamization (that’s what the leftists are arguing)

    No. It’s more the leftist education (including socialisation).

    * that lack of integration is primarily the fault of the host society

    Where have you seen any allusion to this?

    * islam, native culture and active indoctrination are not central components of the unwilling to integrate.

    Niet- Niet- Niet. You’ve really got an interesting way of reading. Or was it the conspicuous absence of any term refering to Islam in my storyline that got you on this interpretation?

    i suggest you spend some time reading sites like Jihad Watch, Dhimmi Watch and Little Green Footballs. there is ample evidence for you there to decide whether your narrative, even if accurate in history, describes the current situation in europe.

    Thanks. Reading is fine and is sometimes lots of fun (e.g. compare LGF and le Monde Diplo). First-hand experience and personal interaction help too, as I’m sure you agree (unless you lost track… ;-) – RL should allow emoticons!).

  58. E.G. says:

    oao,

    My point is the one you make below. You argued before that Moslems came to Western lands with the intention to conquer it.

    I’m sure that the narrative is accurate for a large number of immigrants, particularly in the past.

    But it seems to imply that:

    * economic and social conditions are the main root of islamization (that’s what the leftists are arguing)

    No. It’s more the leftist education (including socialisation).
    * that lack of integration is primarily the fault of the host society

    Where have you seen any allusion to this?

    * islam, native culture and active indoctrination are not central components of the unwilling to integrate.

    Niet- Niet- Niet. You’ve really got an interesting way of reading.

    Thanks for your reading suggestions. It’s fine and sometimes lots of fun (e.g. compare LGF and le Monde Diplo). First-hand experience and personal interaction help too, as I’m sure you agree (unless you lost track…).

  59. [...] capacities to bear on the al Durah affair. Knowing two thirds of the people who signed the Nouvel Obs petition, she called them up and asked why they had done it. The result… a pathetic and hilarious [...]

  60. [...] pervasive disregard for evidence that contradicts deep-rooted convictions is reminiscent of the journalists who signed the petition supporting Charles Enderlin in June, 2008. Let’s be clear about one thing: Israel will not attack Iran without the full [...]

  61. [...] support of Charles. The text is a monument to the guild mentality of French journalists. It rejects both the principles of journalistic transparency, and the notion that a private citizen has the standing to question [...]

  62. [...] forbid we engage in the same process. Reminds me of Enderlin’s defenders insisting that the court’s listening to Karsenty was infringing on the freedom of the press. I’d sooner say “unaccountability of the press.” I guess that’s a kind of [...]

  63. [...] known as the guild mentality), of us-them thinking about Charles Enderlin and the Al Durah case, drew back the veil on this corporatism in France (and by extension the rest of the MSNM in the West and Israel which chose not to discuss these [...]

  64. [...] is just the kind of thinking that led so many “beautiful French souls” to come to the defense of Charles Enderlin even when his colossal error in judgment became public: “he’s one of ‘us’, [...]

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>