The New French "Résistance": Guy Millière, Gatestone Institute, Dec. 2, 2015 — President Obama sold his nuclear deal with Iran with promises that the accord would be based on “unprecedented verification,” and this week we were reminded of how much that promise was worth.
Sweden’s Blood Libel Against Israel Over the Paris Terrorist Attacks: Shmuley Boteach, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 19, 2015— After the murder of Jews by Muslim extremists in France gave a preview of what the rest of the country could expect…
British Jews Under Pressure: Isi Leibler, Candidly Speaking, Dec. 9, 2015— Reviewing the status of Anglo-Jewry can lead to diametrically opposing conclusions.
Germany’s Choice: Easy or Hard Asylum Integration: Jeffrey Herf, American Interest, Dec. 8, 2015 — The circumstance that Syrians are coming in large numbers to settle in Germany raises a key series of questions, but not in the way one might think.
France's Thousand Year War Against the Jews: Susan Warner, Gatestone Institute, Dec. 7, 2015
“Israel is Behind Isis”: a Fast Mutation of a Major Hate Motif: Manfred Gerstenfeld, CIJR, Dec. 8, 2015
The Swedish Tiger Roars as Synagogues Close: Eric Fusfield, Algemeiner, Dec. 2, 2015
Muslim ‘No-Go Zones’ In Europe?: Daniel Pipes, Daily Caller, Dec. 2, 2015
Guy Millière
Gatestone Institute, Dec. 2, 2015
Several weeks have passed since Islamist attackers bloodied Paris. France's President François Hollande is describing the killers as just "a horde of murderers" acting in the name of a "mad cause." He adds that "France has no enemy." He never uses the word "terrorism." He no longer says the word "war."
France never was, in fact, at war. Police were deployed on the streets. Special Forces had to "intervene" a few days later in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis. That was it. French forces did bomb positions of the Islamic State in Syria; and Hollande traveled the world to find coalition, but could not. Now he says he wants to turn a page. The French public seems to want to turn a page, too.
From the beginning, pacifism and appeasement filled the air. A German pianist came to play John Lennon's Imagine in front of the Bataclan Theater; since then, other pianists have come. On the Place de la République, people assemble every evening to sing more songs by the Beatles: All You Need Is Love; Love Me Do. Candles are lit, and banners deployed, calling for "universal brotherhood." Those invited to speak on TV about what happened allude to "senseless acts." They do not blame anyone. Some spoke of "resistance," but to them, resistance meant listening to music. To others, it meant having a drink with friends in a bar. In a widely circulated video, a man tries to reassure his child. "They have guns," he mutters, "but we have flowers."
Heart-shaped stickers are posted on mosques. Words such as "We love you" and "We share your pain" are written on the hearts. Just after the attacks, French philosopher Michel Onfray said that France for many years had led Islamophobic bombings against the Muslim world, so "it was logical if the Muslims now attacked France." When his words were used in an Islamic State propaganda video, and reporters asked him if he regretted what he said, he replied, "No." A man who lost his wife in the Bataclan massacre said on a talk show that he would live in the future as he did before; that he had no hatred at all against the murderers, just compassion. Another man on a different talk show said he was offering "free hugs."
If some French think otherwise, they are silent. All political leaders in France speak like Hollande. They say the country must show "unity" and "solidarity." All of them know the mood of the vast majority; even those who might want to say more, stay silent. Almost no one mentions radical Islam. Those who do, prefer the word "jihadism," and rush to emphasize that "jihadism" is "not related to Islam."
Hollande, when he still spoke of war, said that France had "an enemy." He avoided the word "Islamic," instead referring to the Islamic State by its Arabic acronym, "Daesh." He knew that "Daesh" could not be defeated without an American intervention that would not take place. With symbolic gestures, he did the best he could. He also seems to know that the main enemy of France is not in Syria or Iraq, but inside the country: France already finds herself defeated.
More than half the Islamists who attacked Paris on November 13 were Muslims born and raised in France. Mohamed Merah, the murderer of Jewish children in Toulouse in 2012, and those who attacked the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and the kosher supermarket in January all were Muslims born and raised in France. Over 750 no-go zones — autonomous areas ruled by radical imams and Muslim gangs — exist in France. Radical imams and Muslim gangs also control most of France's prisons: 70% of prison inmates in France are apparently Muslim. Non-Muslim inmates are attacked and threatened; many are forced to convert to Islam.
A British survey published in 2014 showed that 16% of French approve of the Islamic State. Among people aged 18-25, the proportion rose to 27%. Within the French Muslim population, the numbers are undoubtedly higher. More than 1000 French Muslims have left France to fight for the Islamic State. At least 400 have returned without being stopped or vetted at a border. Thousands of radicalized French Muslims have never left. Many are good, loyal citizens; but many could have learned all they wanted to know on the internet and on Islamic satellite television stations. Still others — hundreds of thousands of French Muslims — are not radicalized but are ready to help the radicalized ones; ready to host them or offer them asylum.
More than 10,000 French Muslims are classified as extremely dangerous by the police and are linked to "jihadist activities". They are registered in what the French government calls "S files," but there is no way to monitor their whereabouts. Placing them all in detention centers would involve a complete break with what is left of the rule of law in France. All of the French Muslims who participated in the November 13 attacks were registered in "S files," but that did not change anything. They were free to act, and they did.
A French judge, Marc Trevidic, in charge of all the main Islamic terrorism cases over the last ten years, said a few days before the November attacks that the situation was "getting worse," was now "out of control," and that "radicalized groups" established in the country could "carry out attacks resulting in hundreds of deaths." He was quickly transferred to a court in Lille, northern France, where he was assigned to petty crimes and divorce cases. All the French political leaders know that Marc Trevidic is right — that the situation is out of control — but not one will say so publicly. Not one has asked the government why it took almost three hours for the police to intervene during the attack at the Bataclan Theater, where 89 people were murdered and over 200 wounded. There are simply not enough well-trained police, and not enough weapons in the hands of the police, and not enough bulletproof vests.
For the next few months, more soldiers and police officers will be placed in front of public buildings, synagogues, churches and mosques, but "soft" targets, such as theaters, cafés and restaurants, are not protected. It is as easy to enter a theater in Paris today as it was on November 13. French police do not have the right to carry a weapon when they are on duty.
In a few weeks, French military actions against the Islamic State will doubtless stop. President Hollande, the French government, and most French political leaders probably hope that the French will soon forget the attacks. They know that the problems are now too widespread to be solved without something resembling a civil war. When more attacks occur, they will talk of "war" again. They are supposedly hoping that people will get used to being attacked and learn to live with terrorism.
In the meantime, French politicians are trying to divert the attention of the public with — "climate change!" The conference in Paris will last a fortnight. President Hollande says he wants save the planet. He will be photographed next to America's Barack Obama and China's Jiang Zemin. French journalists are no longer discussing jihad; they are discussing "climate change." Until December 11, at least, Paris will be the safest city…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
SWEDEN’S BLOOD LIBEL AGAINST ISRAEL
OVER THE PARIS TERRORIST ATTACKS
Shmuley Boteach
Jerusalem Post, Nov. 19, 2015
After the murder of Jews by Muslim extremists in France gave a preview of what the rest of the country could expect, the usual apologists blamed the victims, suggesting these terrorists were reacting to the policies of Israel toward the Palestinians miles away. Now, predictably, Jews are again being libeled by ignoramuses, conspiracy theorists, and propagandists who suggest Israel is responsible for the Paris attacks.
It is not surprising these allegations come from the Arab world. After all, many Arabs still believe the Mossad was responsible for 9/11. In the case of the Paris attacks, Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik of Palestinian Media Watch, reported that the official Palestinian Authority daily newspaper blamed the Mossad for the atrocities.
According to the paper, “It is not a coincidence that human blood was exploded in Paris at the same time that certain European sanctions are beginning to be implemented against settlement products, and while France leads Europe in advising the security council that will implement the two-state solution, Palestine and Israel – which the Israelis see as a warning of sudden danger coming from the direction of Europe…” The article’s author concludes that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu somehow benefits from the carnage.
Marcus and Zilberdik note the PA is spinning similar lies “to draw an imaginary false parallel to Israel’s alleged ‘terror’ against Palestinians and to repeat the allegation that Israel is like the Islamic State terror organization.” Where else but the Middle East could you find the Orwellian formulation that Israel is equivalent to Islamic State disseminated by a Palestinian terrorist organization – Fatah – that has engaged in international terrorism for half a century? Palestinian leaders have become masters of the “Big Lie,” perfected by the Nazis, so I was not surprised to hear one more fabrication emanating from Ramallah aimed at demonizing Israel.
Although many European officials have fallen into the Palestinian trap, and not only believed their lies but repeated them, I was still surprised by the outrageous remarks by Margot Wallström, Sweden’s foreign affairs minister, suggesting the explanation for the Paris violence could be found in the plight of the Palestinians whose desperation, she believes, forces them to resort to violence. This view is inane on so many levels it’s hard to know where to start.
First, the terrorists in Paris were not Palestinians, had nothing to do with their cause and attacked their targets because of their belief that all nations should be ruled by Muslims according to their interpretation of Shari’a law. As the French president said, this was an act of war, not desperation. Second, Palestinians do not resort to terrorism out of desperation. They have alternatives such as negotiations and nonviolence, which they have eschewed. Instead, their leaders incite them to violence through mosques, social and conventional media and the schools. Third, State Department Arabists, as well as ignoramuses such as Wallström, believe all Middle East problems would evaporate if the Palestinian issue were resolved or, better yet, if Israel disappeared.
Islamic State is just one example of the absurdity of this view. If Israel was destroyed tomorrow, Islamic State would still be determined to establish a world-wide caliphate and would still have attacked Paris. Furthermore, Israel’s disappearance would not halt the civil wars in Yemen, Syria and Iraq, stop Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, defeat al-Qaida or erase the enmity between Shiites and Sunnis.
Let’s not mince words. Wallström is no better than the conspiracy theorists who seek to blame the Jews for the world’s ills. If she read the reports of European intelligence agencies or listened to the public remarks by the directors of British intelligence she would know that radical Islamists are a serious threat. Andrew Parker, director of MI5, said last month that plots were being directed from Syria and citizens were being radicalized by Islamic State’s online propaganda. “On top of that,” he said, “in a range of attacks in Europe and elsewhere, this year we have seen greater ambition for mass casualty attacks.”
Parker, a 32-year veteran of the intelligence world, added that “the threat we are facing today is on a scale and at a tempo that I have not seen before in my career.” Parker did not attribute any of this danger to Israel or the Palestinian issue. US President Barack Obama also doesn’t understand or acknowledge the source of the menace we are facing. He refuses to utter the words “Islamist extremists,” and has banned the expression from his administration. At a meeting of world leaders at the UN to develop an international strategy for defeating Islamic State and other terrorist groups, Obama insisted that “violent extremism is not unique to any one faith.”
This prompted a sharp retort from British Prime Minister David Cameron who said, “Barack, you said it and you’re right – every religion has its extremists, but we have to be frank that the biggest problem we have today is the Islamist extremist violence that has given birth to ISIL [Islamic State], to al-Shabaab, to al-Nusra, al-Qaida and so many other groups.” If only the rest of the world’s leaders were as clear-eyed in their assessments. Unlike Obama, whose counterterror policy is indecipherable, if he has one at all, Cameron knows what has to be done. “We need to make sure we don’t allow the incubation of an extremist worldview even before it gets to justifying violence… We’ve got to get it out of our schools, get it out of our prisons, get it out of our universities. I believe in freedom of speech, but freedom to hate is not the same thing.” Obama needs to take Cameron’s advice by acknowledging that there is indeed radical Islam that is endangering our security.
As for the Palestinian propagandists, they should be exposed as inciters of violence who will politicize the tragedies in Paris to demonize Jews. The Swedish foreign minister should be admonished by not just Israel, but her own government. Swedish Prime Minister Kjell Stefan Löfvén should realize that someone so quick to blame the Jews, and so ignorant of the real causes of the terrorist threat in Europe, has no business in the job of foreign minister.
Isi Leibler
Candidly Speaking, Dec. 9, 2015
Reviewing the status of Anglo-Jewry can lead to diametrically opposing conclusions. Residing in a northwest London Jewish suburb, one can easily be deluded that life for Jews in the U.K. is rosy. Jewish cultural and religious life is thriving, as exemplified by the mushrooming of synagogues and kosher facilities, not to mention the highly successful educational initiatives like Limmud. Indeed, insulated from the outside world and living and socializing primarily in a Jewish “ghetto,” it is not difficult to convince oneself that life in this Anglo-Jewish Diaspora is almost idyllic.
But this picture is delusionary and a far cry from reality. The demographic projections reflect snowballing intermarriage offset by the high birthrate of the ultra-Orthodox — which will make them the dominant element in the Jewish community within the not too distant future. More importantly, even though British Jews have not yet suffered from the bloody jihadi violence and murders of their French counterparts, as European Jews they will ultimately face the same threat, and if they believe they are in a different category, they are in denial.
Although Muslim jihadi elements are currently less dominant in the U.K. than in France, they face very similar threats from ISIS followers and homegrown terrorists. Moreover, indigenous anti-Semitism in the form of feral anti-Israelism is as blatant in the U.K. as in France. One need only peruse the vicious anti-Jewish talkbacks to appreciate the extent of the problem. The media, especially the BBC, effectively incites hatred against Israel by its biased and distorted reporting, which at best portrays Jewish victims of terror and the perpetrators with moral equivalence and frequently condemns Israelis for defending themselves.
The regular mass support for anti-Israel demonstrations headed by leftist and human rights groups — for whom Israel-baiting is considered axiomatic — confirm that hatred of Jews has become a central feature of the British political system. Some of the banners and placards at these demonstrations, such as “Jews to the gas,” resemble Nazi anti-Semitic campaigns. The situation at universities is appalling, with BDS being promoted at all levels and pro-Israeli speakers denied the opportunity of expressing their views and frequently facing violence. This has led to the intimidation of Jewish students and the exclusion of lectures or activities relating to Israel. This has led to the atrocious situation in which cowardly Jewish student leaders even justify their refusal to engage in pro-Israel advocacy so as to cater to “non-Zionist” members and avoid confrontation with anti-Israeli student unions.
The most shocking developments are at the parliamentary level, despite the presence of the pro-Israel Prime Minister David Cameron, who consistently displays friendship toward Israel. For over 20 years, until Ed Miliband headed the Labour Party, a tepid but overall bipartisan positive approach toward Israel prevailed. Labour leaders including Tony Blair proved to be among Israel’s staunchest supporters. However, the tide has turned as Labour has now elected as its leader Jeremy Corbyn, who after a visit to the Middle East in 2015, characterized Israeli policies as “immoral” and “illegal” and related to the genocidal terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah as his “friends,” insisting they be recognized as key negotiating partners.
Corbyn was accused by the London Jewish Chronicle and others of links with – and even in one case funding of – Holocaust deniers, terrorists and outright anti-Semites. In July 2015, Corbyn described as “a very good friend” the fundamentalist Islamic preacher Ibrahim Hewitt, who believes apostates and adulterers should be killed and is considered by the U.S government as a promoter of Hamas funding.
The change in attitude by the Labour Party toward Jews was recently reflected by an outburst from the hostile Jewish Sir Gerald Kaufman, a veteran Labour MP who accused the Conservatives of being influenced by “Jewish money” and claimed that the stabbing attacks on Israeli civilians were fabricated by the Israelis in order to “execute Palestinians.” It took a week for Corbyn’s party to respond to protests and then it merely expressed concern over Kaufman’s obscene remarks but failed to condemn or censure him.
Although opinion polls show that under Corbyn’s leadership, Labour would be overwhelmingly defeated in an election, the fact that the alternative party to government could elect such a person should have sent chills throughout the Jewish community. That is particularly so because, in these volatile times, unexpected upheavals could bring about the downfall of the government and the opposition could assume control by default…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
GERMANY’S CHOICE: EASY OR HARD ASYLUM INTEGRATION
Jeffrey Herf
American Interest, Dec. 8, 2015
The circumstance that Syrians are coming in large numbers to settle in Germany raises a key series of questions, but not in the way one might think. The question in months and years to come will not only be whether the refugees become integrated into German society or whether terrorists merged with, or later arose from, the refugee stream of 2015. The more enduring issue is about the terms on which integration either will or will not take place, how easy or hard it will be. The question is all the more pressing given the historical connection between these two countries—and their utterly contrasting approaches since World War II to the conflict in the Middle East and to the State of Israel. How will Germany respond to people from a country that has been at war with Israel since 1948, was a Soviet ally during the Cold War, and which blended antagonism Israel with official hatred of Jews. How will the refugees respond to a Germany in which the memory of the crimes of the Nazi regime, not least the Holocaust, and support for the State of Israel have become core elements of a broad political consensus?…
Following the attacks in Paris on November 13, the discussion in Germany, as elsewhere, has turned in part to whether terrorists used the refugee stream to enter the country. Berthold Kohler, the publisher of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, has criticized German government efforts to insist that the issues of terrorism and migration are not related. Kohler stated the obvious: It is entirely conceivable that there will be Islamists among the approximately 800,000 migrants that the German government expects to receive in 2015. Christopher Caldwell in the Weekly Standard has examined “the bloody crossroads where migration and terrorism meet” in Europe and Germany. Since Chancellor Merkel relaxed border controls in the summer, Caldwell writes, “migrants started pouring into the country without identity check or proper registration.”
Today, the German government does not know for sure who has arrived. It does know that, regardless of how things resolve in the Middle East, hundreds of thousands of Syrians or people claiming to be Syrians will be living in Germany for some time to come. Especially after the Paris attacks, the connection between migration and terrorism is firmly established. What’s done is done. Now the challenge facing Germany is that the country must foster integration on terms that preserve its values and political identity. In other words, it must relinquish its earlier penchant for thinking “easy” about integration and begin to face the reality of “hard” integration…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
CIJR Wishes All Our Friends & Supporters: Chag Sameach, Happy Hanukkah Holiday!
France's Thousand Year War Against the Jews: Susan Warner, Gatestone Institute, Dec. 7, 2015—For French citizens, the Holocaust seems a faded memory. The anti-Jewish sentiment that drove the French Vichy government to serve up an estimated 77,000-90,000[1] French Jews to the maw of Hitler's Jew-killing machine was not driven by anything that looks like today's Islamic jihad, but by the same majority of French Catholics.
“Israel is Behind Isis”: a Fast Mutation of a Major Hate Motif: Manfred Gerstenfeld, CIJR, Dec. 8, 2015—For many centuries Jews have been accused of embodying absolute evil by their most vile enemies. This motif formed the unifying thread passing through blood libels, accusations of poisoning, conspiracy theories involving Jewish financial and military manipulations, and suchlike. The central hate tactic used was frequent emotive, often religion-oriented repetition.
The Swedish Tiger Roars as Synagogues Close: Eric Fusfield, Algemeiner, Dec. 2, 2015 —It was a familiar slogan throughout war-time Sweden: en Svensk tiger, which can be translated as “a Swedish tiger” — or, more to the point: “a Swede keeps secrets.”
Muslim ‘No-Go Zones’ In Europe?: Daniel Pipes, Daily Caller, Dec. 2, 2015—The existence of “no-go zones” in predominantly Muslim areas in Europe has been a major topic of conversation since the latest Paris massacre on Nov. 13, primarily due to the assailants’ many connections to Molenbeek, a heavily Muslim district of Brussels. This discussion brings to mind my visit to a drug– and crime-infested slum of 7,000 inhabitants in Marseilles, France, on Jan. 29, to see the situation for myself.
