Posted tagged ‘Antisemitism’

Trump’s Latest Education Nominee Steps into the Maelstrom

November 8, 2017

Trump’s Latest Education Nominee Steps into the Maelstrom, American ThinkerRichard L. Cravatts, November 8, 2017

No sooner had President Trump nominated Kenneth Marcus, president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights under the Law, to be assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education than extremist anti-Israel groups mounted an aggressive campaign to derail the appointment.

This is a remarkable affront to a civil rights lawyer who has spent his career fighting for the rights of women, the disabled, and members of many minority groups: black Americans, Hispanics, and Asians, as well as Sikhs, Arabs, and Muslim Americans.  Marcus’s prior tenure at the federal Office for Civil Rights was widely lauded for effective leadership and support for the rights of all students.  For this reason, most civil rights groups have thus far refrained from subjecting Marcus to the vituperation other recent Trump nominees have faced.

Some anti-Israel groups, however, have broken ranks, attacking the administration’s Jewish civil rights nominee with reckless and malicious falsehoods.  One of these groups, Palestine Legal, whose mission is to bolster the anti-Israel movement by challenging efforts to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitism, immediately issued a letter smearing Mr. Marcus as an “anti-Palestinian crusader” and opposing his nomination in terms of the so-called Livingstone Formulation.  Under that formulation, as identified by British sociologist David Hirsch, anti-Semites accuse Jews of fabricating anti-Semitism claims in order to silence decent people concerned about Israel’s supposed human rights violations.  In this way, Palestine Legal’s director, Dima Khalidi, levels the spurious charge that “Marcus is the architect of a strategy to abuse civil rights law to suppress campus criticism of Israel.”  In other words, she contends that Marcus’s campaign to ameliorate campus anti-Semitism is not based on a virtuous desire to end bigotry, but is a disingenuous attempt at “shielding Israel from scrutiny,” consistent with the Livingstone Formulation.  Part of that notion is “the counteraccusation that the raisers of the issue of antisemitism do so with dishonest intent, in order to de-legitimize criticism of Israel. The allegation is that the accuser chooses to ‘play the antisemitism card’ rather than to relate seriously to, or to refute, the criticisms of Israel.”

Those who refuse to acknowledge that their speech or behavior may, in fact, be anti-Semitic normally resist such designations, but the allegation of Palestine Legal against Mr. Marcus is particularly odious because it seeks to impugn his integrity as someone fighting anti-Semitism, suggesting instead that his true motive, carefully hidden from view and masked as benign activism, is actually to serve the interests of Israel by trying to delegitimize and libel Israel’s campus critics.  Moreover, Palestine Legal claims, in order to shield Israel from scrutiny, to insulate its policies and state behavior from critique, Mr. Marcus pretends to be interested in anti-Semitism but is actually creating a smokescreen to shield Israel “at the expense of civil and constitutional rights.”

In addition to the Livingstone Formulation, these groups are also going after Marcus with the classic charge that Jews are attempting to gain control of government power for nefarious purposes.  “Marcus has no business enforcing civil rights laws when he has explicitly used such laws to chill the speech activities and violate the civil rights of Arab, Muslim, Jewish, and other students who advocate for Palestinian rights,” Khalidi charged.  It is not coincidental that a group dedicated to undermining efforts to fight anti-Semitism is aware of the efforts of Mr. Marcus and his colleagues as they attempted to identify the causes and corrosive impact of campus anti-Semitic speech and behavior.

For at least the last decade, the primary source of anti-Zionist, anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic activism on campuses has been anti-Israel individuals and groups, including the Muslim Student Association and the radical Students for Justice in Palestine, among others.  So even as Ms. Khalidi would have one believe that Mr. Marcus launched a campaign to silence pro-Palestinian activists merely as a tactical ploy to insulate Israel from critique and condemnation, the anti-Israel activism she so ardently defends has regularly spawned instances in which agitation against Israel has included speech and behavior that have been considered, and, in fact, often were, anti-Semitic.

Of great concern to those who have observed the invidious byproduct of this radicalism is the frequent appearance of anti-Israel sentiment that often rises to the level of anti-Semitism, when virulent criticism of Israel bleeds into a darker, more sinister level of hatred – enough to make Jewish students, whether or not they support or care about Israel at all, uncomfortable, unsafe, or hated on their own campuses.

That is precisely the type of “hostile environment,” created by generating hostility toward Jewish students over their perceived or actual support of Israel, that may violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of the legal tools Mr. Marcus has used and may well continue to use in his new role to ensure that universities take steps to ameliorate situations in which such prejudice-laced campus climates are allowed to develop.

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), another anti-Israel group that also, not insignificantly, supports the BDS movement, published an open letter denouncing the choice of Mr. Marcus for the OCR appointment as well, repeating the spurious charge that the use of Title VI statutes, and such guidelines as the U.S. State Department Working Definition of Anti-Semitism, would have the perverse side-effect of suppressing the free speech of “pro-Palestinian” activists.

And despite Palestine Legal’s fear that the conflation of “criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism    …  has really serious consequences for those who advocate for Palestinian human rights and are being condemned and censored and punished as a result of the enormous pressure being placed on universities by the likes of Marcus and dozens of other Israel advocacy groups,” the fact that “pro-Palestinian” activists support a minority group does not justify their misbehavior and extremism, even for what they clearly believe to be a noble cause.

Pro-Palestinian advocacy on campus – the very activism Palestine Legal is so intent on preserving – has been shown to correlate directly with an uptick in anti-Semitic speech and behavior.  For example, in two studies it conducted of anti-Semitism on U.S. campuses, the AMCHA Initiative, an organization that investigates and documents anti-Semitism at U.S. universities, found that “[s]chools with instances of student-produced anti-Zionist expression, including BDS promotion, are 7 times more likely to have incidents that targeted Jewish students for harm than schools with no evidence of students’ anti-Zionist expression and the more such anti-Zionist expression, the higher the likelihood of incidents involving anti-Jewish hostility.”  This “anti-Zionist expression” and “BDS promotion” are the central aspects of Palestinian activism.

That is the issue here, and why it is necessary and important that, in the effort to promote the Palestinian cause and help the Palestinians to achieve statehood, another group – Jewish students on American campuses – do not become victims themselves in a struggle for another group’s self-determination.

Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., president emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and the author of Dispatches from the Campus War against Israel and Jews, is also a member of the board of directors of the Brandeis Center for Human Rights under the Law and the AMCHA Initiative.

Why Europe’s New Nationalists Love Israel

October 17, 2017

Why Europe’s New Nationalists Love Israel, PJ MediaDavid P. Goldman, October 17, 2017

(Post-nationalist, antisemitic, anti-Zionist Europe is dying. If, as I consider unlikely, Europe’s new nationalists in Austria emulate them then Austria will probably suffer the same fate. — DM) 

“It’s now or never” (Matthias R’der/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images)

Post-nationalist Europe bears an irrational hatred of Israel, I wrote in this space in 2014.

The flowering of Jewish national life in Israel makes the Europeans crazy. It is not simply envy: it is a terrible reminder of the vanity of European national aspirations over the centuries, of the continent’s ultimate failure as a civilization. Just as the Europeans (most emphatically the Scandinavians) would prefer to dissolve into the post-national stew of European identity, they demand that Israel do the same. Never mind that Israel lacks the option to do so, and would be destroyed were it to try, for reasons that should be obvious to any casual consumer of news media.

It is too early to judge the direction of the new European nationalism, which has some elements that make me cringe, and some that make me release the safety-catch on my Browning. But it also has men and women who do not want to disappear into the dustbin of history and look to Israel for inspiration.

***********************************

“If ponies rode men and grass ate cows,” goes the text of “The World Turned Upside Down,” the tune piped by the Continental Army band at Cornwallis’ surrender of Yorktown. Europeans might consider adopting it as their anthem to replace the present European Community hymn, the overused Ode to Joy. The resurgent nationalists who made the Alternative fuer Deutschland into Germany’s third-largest party and the Austrian Freedom Party into that country’s second-largest (and a likely member of a new governing coalition) have an extreme-right reputation, but they are now the most pro-Israel parties in Europe. The world has indeed turned upside-down, and we might as well sing about it.

Most remarkable is the success of the Austrian Freedom Party (German initials FPŐ) in last Sunday’s Austrian elections. It came in second with 26% of the vote, ahead of the governing Social Democrats. Its chairman, Heinz-Christian Strache, rubbed shoulders with neo-Nazis during his early political career, and four years ago posted an anti-Semitic cartoon on his Facebook page, “showing a banker with a large hooked nose and Star of David cuff links profiting from Europe’s financial crisis,” as the Times of Israel reported. Since then Strache has undergone a Damascus road conversion from Saul to Paul (or perhaps the other way round). He has visited Israel several times, defended Israeli settlers in Judea and Samaria, and demanded that Austria move its embassy to Jerusalem.

Strache brings to mind the canonical definition of a philo-Semite, that is, an anti-Semite who likes Jews. It is widely alleged that he is looking for respectability after emerging from the extreme right swamp into the mainstream of Austrian politics, and hoping to burnish his credentials through gestures of reconciliation with the Jewish State. It is also widely believed that the FPŐ as well as the AfD support Israel as the enemy of their enemy, that is, the flood of Muslim migrants that provoked the surge in their support among voters.

I do not know Herr Strache and have no knowledge of his true motives. But I have had the opportunity to speak at length with a leader of  the Alternative for Germany. Both motives–the desire to shed the stigma of neo-Nazi associations and common cause with Israel against radical Islam–are relevant, but something far more interesting is at work.

There are neo-Nazis and other swamp creatures lurking in the new nationalist right. Earlier this year I stated that, deplorably, I would vote for Angela Merkel rather than the AfD in the German elections, in part because the AfD’s Vice-Chairman Alexander Gauland defended a regional AfD leader who proposed to dismantle Holocaust monuments, in part because Gauland is insultingly anti-American, and in part because Gauland is too friendly with the mystical nationalists around Vladimir Putin. But that is not the whole of the AfD, and it is possible that the AfD will go in quite a different direction.

There are European nationalists who support Israel out of conviction rather than expediency. They admire the accomplishments of the Jewish State, moral as well as military or commercial. They observe that Israeli women bear on average 3 children compared to just 1.3 in Germany. They wish that Europeans could show the same love of country and culture that the Jews evince in Israel, and the same willingness to defend themselves.

That really is the world turned upside-down. European nationalism from its inception drew inspiration from biblical Israel. Greece was not a nation but a collection of small, quarreling city-states. Rome was not a nation but an empire–as were the Egyptians, Hittites, Sumerians, and so forth. Israel is the only exemplar of a nation in the ancient world, and the Davidic kingdom the only instance of a national monarchy. As I explained in my 2011 book How Civilizations Die, the first national monarchies in Europe–the 7th-century Merovingian kingdom in France and the Visigoth kingdom in Spain–emulated the Davidic model under the tutelage, respectively, of St. Gregory of Tours and St. Isidore of Seville.

Isidore and Gregory, I remarked elsewhere, were the Bialystock and Bloom of the Low Middle Ages: They sold 100% of the deal to every investor. That is, they persuaded each national monarch that his line was the new Davidic dynasty and his people the New Israel. This form of supercessionism gave rise to anti-Semitism (how could the Merovingians or Visigoths be the new Israel if the old Israel was still wandering about asserting its claim to divine election?). It also gave rise to perpetual warfare among Europe’s national dynasties for the claim to chosenness. The Thirty Years’ War of 1618-1648, Europe’s most devastating conflict, was fought by fanatics in France and Spain respectively who believed in the divine election of their respective lands. National exclusivity and hatred had the same roots as anti-Semitism.

There is another path, taken by the United States, which allows that every nation can be “almost chosen,” in Lincoln’s memorable phrase. It can emulate Israel without seeking to supercede it. What distinguishes American culture is the radical Protestant belief that the City of God cannot be realized in the City of Man, that life is a pilgrimage whose goal is ever beyond the horizon. This concept defines and shapes American literary as well as popular culture, as I tried to show in this essay.

The existence and success of the State of Israel changes everything. It is not merely a promise, spiritualized by Christianity into a vision of another life beyond this one, but a living, breathing people that punches above its weight in every field of human endeavor. Perhaps the people of Israel will help fulfill their mission to be a light unto the nations by example. Europe’s new nationalists may attempt to emulate Israel not but superceding it or by asserting their claims for election against each other, but by seeking to identify its virtues.

Post-nationalist Europe bears an irrational hatred of Israel, I wrote in this space in 2014.

The flowering of Jewish national life in Israel makes the Europeans crazy. It is not simply envy: it is a terrible reminder of the vanity of European national aspirations over the centuries, of the continent’s ultimate failure as a civilization. Just as the Europeans (most emphatically the Scandinavians) would prefer to dissolve into the post-national stew of European identity, they demand that Israel do the same. Never mind that Israel lacks the option to do so, and would be destroyed were it to try, for reasons that should be obvious to any casual consumer of news media.

It is too early to judge the direction of the new European nationalism, which has some elements that make me cringe, and some that make me release the safety-catch on my Browning. But it also has men and women who do not want to disappear into the dustbin of history and look to Israel for inspiration.

Stupidity or malice? The US plans to return stolen Jewish artifacts to Iraq

September 12, 2017

Stupidity or malice? The US plans to return stolen Jewish artifacts to Iraq | Anne’s Opinions, 12th September 2017

Looted Jewish artifacts from Iraq

When the news hit the headlines this week that the US plans to return Jewish artifacts to Iraq – artifacts, it should be noted, that were stolen from the Iraqi Jewish community by the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and rescued by US forces – I thought the story sounded familiar. A quick search on my blog revealed that this decision had already been discussed 4 years ago! To be honest, I thought that this absurd decision to return the artifacts to their unlawful owners had been shelved once Donald Trump became President. Sadly this is not the case.

The JTA reports:

NEW YORK (JTA) — The United States will return to Iraq next year a trove of Iraqi Jewish artifacts that lawmakers and Jewish groups have lobbied to keep in this country, a State Department official said.

A four-year extension to keep the Iraqi Jewish Archive in the U.S. is set to expire in September 2018, as is funding for maintaining and transporting the items. The materials will then be sent back to Iraq, spokesman Pablo Rodriguez said in a statement sent to JTA on Thursday.

Rodriguez said the State Department “is keenly aware of the interest in the status” of the archive.

“Maintaining the archive outside of Iraq is possible,” he said, “but would require a new agreement between the Government of Iraq and a temporary host institution or government.”

Detail of Tik (Torah case) and Glass Panel from Baghdad, 19th-20th centuries, part of the Iraqi Jewish Archive. (National Archives)

The archive was brought to America in 2003 after being salvaged by U.S. troops. It contains tens of thousands of items including books, religious texts, photographs and personal documents. Under an agreement with the government of Iraq, the archive was to be sent back there, but in 2014 the Iraqi ambassador to the U.S. said its stay had been extended. He did not say when the archive was to return.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers and Jewish groups have lobbied to renegotiate the deal, arguing that the documents should be kept in the U.S. or elsewhere where they are accessible to Iraqi Jews and their descendants. JTA reached out to lawmakers who have sponsored resolutions urging a renegotiation of the archive’s return but did not hear back in time for publication.

Iraq and proponents of returning the archive say it can serve as an educational tool for Iraqis about the history of Jews there and that it is part of the country’s patrimony.

Addressing the points that I highlighted above in bold, Caroline Glick scathingly attacks the “State Department’s strange obsession” while also answering the question in my headline:

The law of Occam’s Razor, refined to common parlance, is that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

If we apply Occam’s Razor to recently reported positions of the US State Department, then we can conclude that the people making decisions at Foggy Bottom have “issues” with Jews and with Israel.

The books and documents were looted from the Iraqi Jewish community by successive Iraqi regimes. They were restored by the National Archives in Washington, DC.

Before Treatment: Passover Haggadah, 1902. One of very few Hebrew manuscripts recovered from the Mukhabarat, this Haggadah was hand-lettered and decorated by an Iraqi youth.

The Iraqi Jewish community was one of the oldest exilic Jewish communities.

It began with the Babylonian exile following the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem 2,600 years ago. Until the early 20th century, it was one of the most accomplished Jewish communities in the world. Some of the most important yeshivas in Jewish history were in present-day Iraq. The Babylonian Talmud was written in Iraq. The Jewish community in Iraq predated the current people of Iraq by nearly a thousand years.

It was a huge community. In 1948, Jews were the largest minority in Baghdad.

Jews comprised a third of the population of Basra. The status of the community was imperiled during World War II, when the pro-Nazi junta of generals that seized control of the government in 1940 instigated the Farhud, a weeklong pogrom. 900 Jews were murdered.

Thousands of Jewish homes, schools and businesses were burned to the ground.

With Israel’s establishment, and later with the Baathist seizure of power in Iraq in the 1960s, the once great Jewish community was systematically destroyed.

Between 1948 and 1951, 130,000 Iraqi Jews, three quarters of the community, were forced to flee the country. Those who remained faced massive persecution, imprisonment, torture, execution and expulsion in the succeeding decades.

When US forces overthrew the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003, only a dozen or so remained in the country.

Today, there are none left.

As for the current Iraqi government that the State Department wishes to support by implementing its 2014 agreement, it is an Iranian satrapy. Its leadership and military receive operational orders from Iran.

The Iraqi Jewish archive was not created by the Iraqi government. It is comprised of property looted from persecuted and fleeing Jews. In light of this, it ought to be clear to the State Department that the Iraqi government’s claim to ownership is no stronger than the German government’s claim to ownership of looted Jewish property seized by the Nazis would be.

On the other hand, members of the former Jewish community and their descendants have an incontrovertible claim to them. And they have made this claim, repeatedly.

To no avail. As far as the State Department is concerned, they have no claim to sacred books and documents illegally seized from them.

When asked how the US could guarantee that the archive would be properly cared for in Iraq, all State Department spokesman Pablo Rodriguez said was, “When the IJA [Iraqi Jewish archive] is returned, the State Department will urge the Iraqi government to take the proper steps necessary to preserve the archive, and make it available to members of the public to enjoy.”

It is hard not to be taken aback by the callousness of Rodriguez’s statement.

Again, the “members of the public” who wish to “enjoy” the archive are not living in Iraq. They are not living in Iraq because they were forced to run for their lives – after surrendering their communal archives to their persecutors. And still today, as Jews, they will be unable to visit the archives in Iraq without risking their lives because today, at a minimum, the Iraqi regime kowtows to forces that openly seek the annihilation of the Jewish People.

And the State Department knows this.

The question then arises, surely this new American administration under President Donald Trump would be more sympathetic to Jewish concerns, and would overturn this surreal decision made by the Obama administration?

Apparently it’s not so clear-cut. It appears that Trump’s Chief of Staff John Kelly has been blocking most conservative news sites from reaching Trump, thus limiting his awareness of what is happening outside of his immediate circle (h/t Dan Miller in Panama).

Daniel Greenfield reiterates his call to the President – which he made in 2013 to Barack Obama (and which I quoted in my blog post at the time) – and demands that Trump should block Obama’s move to return these stolen artifacts to Iraq: (emphases are added):

… The archive doesn’t belong to the Iraqi government, but to the Jewish population that was ethnically cleansed from Iraq.

The United States recovered the archive and should have turned it over to the Jewish community. Instead we had a bizarre Kafkaesque process in which the archive was restored to be turned over to the thieves who stole it.

Jewish political leaders have invested a lot of energy into looted art in Europe. And that’s a worthwhile cause. Yet this is a far more compelling issue. The archive contains the history of a Jewish community. It matters far more than a Klimt painting. Sadly, the priorities are those of a secular Ashkenazi leadership that is uninterested in the Iraqi Jewish archive because it’s Sephardi and religious.

“This is Jewish communal property. Iraq stole it and kept it hidden away in a basement. Now that we’ve managed to reclaim it, it would be like returning stolen goods back to the thief,” Urman told JTA on Friday.

It’s exactly like it. Meanwhile here’s the bizarre anti-Semitic justification on the Iraqi side for wanting the archive. Here’s Al Arabiya’s explanation

Experts add that Israel is keen on obtaining the manuscripts in order to prove their claim that the Jews had built the Tower of Babel as part of its attempt to distort the history of the Middle East for its own interests.

Wonderful.

Harold Rhode, who discovered the trove while working as a Defense Department policy analyst assigned to Iraq’s transitional government, said he is “horrified” to think the material would be returned when it had been “stolen by the government of Iraq from the Jewish community.”

“It would be comparable to the U.S. returning to the German government Jewish property that had been looted by the Nazis,” he told The Jewish Week.

It’s exactly like it.

I don’t expect Tillerson to care. Between McMaster at the NSC, Mattis on Defense and Tillerson, foreign policy is under the control of the usual Islam Firsters who are very concerned with Muslim feelings, particularly in the oil states, and very little else. And so the old Obama plan to turn over stolen Jewish religious items to a hostile Islamic regime is moving forward.

But President Trump can and should block the move. It’s the right thing to do. And Jewish activists should make that case.

If at the end the State Department’s decision cannot be overcome by President Trump’s executive veto (or whatever it is called in American politics), we can safely say that this decision is motivated more by malice than stupidity.

As before in 2013, there is a petition (possibly still the same one) which you should all sign, demanding that the artifacts do not return to Iraq.

Please sign and share the petition.

The Jewashing of George Soros

July 21, 2017

The Jewashing of George Soros, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, July 21, 2017

George Soros hates Jews.

He collaborated with the Nazis during the Holocaust and insisted that helping confiscate property from Jews brought him no guilt. “There was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in markets that if I weren’t there of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would.” He described the season of these horrors as “the most exciting time of my life.”

Soros grew up in a “Jewish, anti-Semitic home”. He called his mother a “typical Jewish anti-Semite” who hated his first wife because she was “too Jewish”. After undergoing psychoanalysis, he was able to understand that his shame was rooted in his Jewishness. He had a special contempt for Jewish philanthropies after a failed attempt to defraud a Jewish charity in London.

He was booed when he undermined the presentation of an award to a Holocaust survivor by comparing Israeli Jews to Nazis. Elie Wiesel had declared in disgust, “I heard what happened. If I’d been there—and you can quote me—I would have walked out.”

That same year, Soros blamed the Israeli government for a “resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe”. He might have been more honest if he took responsibility considering his funding of groups that traffic in anti-Semitic smears. And his own anti-Semitic allegations that “attitudes toward the Jewish community are influenced by the pro-Israel lobby’s success in suppressing divergent views.”

Soros has defended Hamas and Hezbollah who have called for the extermination of the Jews. He championed the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt despite or because of its support for Hitler. Yusuf al-Qaradawi had claimed that Hitler had been sent by Allah to punish the Jews. “Allah willing,” the Brotherhood’s spiritual leadersaid, “the next time will be at the hands of the believers (Muslims).”

There’s no denying that George Soros is a warped and twisted man. Especially when it comes to the Jews. But he’s also the money man behind a great deal of leftist activism. Especially anti-Israel activism.

And so he must be defended.

An editorial at New York Times by a figure linked to the +972 anti-Israel hate site decries “Israel’s War Against George Soros”. That’s right up there with Poland’s war on Nazi Germany.

What does this war consist of? Has Israel sent drones to the Soros estate? Did Mossad agents drag George out of his featherbed to face the justice of those injured through his actions?

No.

The “war” consisted of one statement. The Israeli Foreign Ministry condemned Soros for “continuously undermining Israel’s democratically elected governments,” and backing hate groups “that defame the Jewish state and seek to deny it the right to defend itself.” Not only is it true, but it’s underwhelming.

Even by the low fake news standards of today’s extremist media, you expect something more from a headline screaming “Israel’s War Against George Soros” than a single restrained criticism.

Do the thousands of hit pieces from the New York Times count as a “War on Israel? That includes the aforementioned Mairav Zonszein screed on Soros which in true Sorosesque fashion pivots from defending an anti-Semite to launching bizarre and hopelessly factless smears at the Jewish State.

Mairav claims that Israel is now aligned with “illiberal, autocratic states like Russia, Turkey and Egypt.” That would be news to Turkey which just accused Israel of a “crime against humanity” and backs Hamas. Or to Russia, which backs Iran and whose S-300 missiles guard Iran’s nuclear program against an Israeli strike. But using the stopped clock principle, getting one of three right isn’t bad for the New York Times.

Soros and the Times were aligned with the illiberal autocratic Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover of Egypt under a leader who had urged Muslims to “nurse our children and grandchildren on hatred” of the Jews.

But there’s nothing anti-Semitic to see there.

According to the New York Times, criticizing an anti-Semite whose Jewishness can only be found with a DNA analysis is anti-Semitic, but attacking millions of Jews defending themselves against genocide isn’t.

The government that represents millions of Jews is anti-Semitic for calling out a left-wing anti-Semite. And the millions of Jews, and even the recently deceased Elie Wiesel, probably are too.

According to Mairav Zonszein, Israel’s criticism of Soros aligns it with anti-Semites. “It takes some gall on the part of Mr. Netanyahu to choose this moment to kick Mr. Soros while he’s down — not only because Mr. Soros is, once again, a victim of anti-Semitism,” Mairav fumes.

By “down”, Mairav means he’s the world’s 22nd richest man and dictates policy to entire governments.

Mr. Soros has not refrained from kicking Israeli families when they were being shot and stabbed by Islamic terrorists. He hasn’t stopped funding hate against Jews or blaming Jews for anti-Semitism.

George Soros funds BDS, an organization run by a terrorist and one that defends the murder of Jews. But there’s mean ole Mr. Netanyahu kicking the 22nd richest man in the world when he’s down.

This shameless Jewashing is despicable and typical. The left shrugs at the murderous anti-Semitism in the Muslim world. And at times it even defends it. It loves Jewashing its hatred of Jews by putting activists with a Jewish last name up front in its anti-Semitic activities. And it will defend anti-Semites like George Soros as victims of anti-Semitism at the hands of the government of millions of Jews.

When it’s convenient, George Soros takes a break from fond recollections of the most exciting time in his life, helping rob Jews, to play a victim of the Holocaust. And if it’s useful, he’ll even take a break from defending Hamas and Hezbollah, from funding the types of terrorists who call the murder of Jews “resistance” and from supporting Islamist groups that praise Hitler, to play the victim of anti-Semitism.

George Soros hates Jews. So do his apologists and supporters. They just can’t say so in public. Yet.

There are a thousand euphemisms. They’re not anti-Semites, they’re anti-Zionists. Yes, they just happen to be reviving the Nazi boycott against the Jews. And their favorite Muslim Brotherhood hate groups drew organizational inspiration from the Third Reich. But they’re only concerned for social justice. The social justice they’re concerned with just happens to require the persecution of the Jews. They just happen to disrupt Holocaust memorial events and Jewish holidays to bring attention to the cause of the oppressed Muslim terrorists whose heroic figures had egged on Hitler to wipe out the Jews.

And if you doubt their commitment to opposing anti-Semitism, watch them defend George Soros. Then when the Jewashing is done, they can go back to demanding that we fund the terrorists murdering Jews.

George Soros is not a Holocaust survivor. He has spent much of his life collaborating with totalitarian movements whose goal is the extermination of the Jewish people.

He is not a victim of anti-Semitism. He is a perpetrator of anti-Semitism.

The only thing more despicable than the left’s obsessive hatred of Jews is its Jewashing of anti-Semites. Hating Jews is anti-Semitic no matter what your last name might be. Collaborating with the murderers of Jews is attempted genocide no matter what your DNA may say. When you defend Hamas, fund BDS and defend anti-Semitism, no amount of lies and spin will Jewash your hatred and guilt away.

Jewish Voice for Peace: Fatal Jerusalem Terrorist Attack “Grim,” But Gaza

July 16, 2017

Jewish Voice for Peace: Fatal Jerusalem Terrorist Attack “Grim,” But Gaza, Investigative Project on Terrorism, Ariel Behar, July 16, 2017

(Please see also, Nothing is sacred. — DM)

Friday’s terrorist attack at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem provided yet another example of how apologists avoid acknowledging the reality of Palestinian violence.

Qatar-based Al-Jazeera television’s first headline made it seem like three Palestinians were shot dead for no particular reason. “At least three Palestinians killed in shooting in Jerusalem’s Old City,” the network posted on Twitter.

The three were killed after they shot and killed two police officers and wounded a third in an unprovoked attack.

In the United States, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), which claims to want a safe and secure state for both Israelis and Palestinians, reacted to the terrorist attack by sharing a Facebook post posting a video about the electricity crisis in the Gaza Strip. “The news today of armed Palestinians killed by Israeli occupying police near Al Aqsa mosque is grim, sad and frightening but won’t include the backdrop of Gaza in the dark, its undrinkable water, children suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder… each day becoming more unlivable,” JVP wrote.

This apparent rationalization of a terrorist attack that killed two Israeli police officers by Israeli Arabs who opened fire after prayer on the Temple Mount is not a surprising move by Jewish Voice for Peace.

A Palestinian activist at a JVP conference earlier this year urged the audience to become “freedom fighters” by utilizing “guerilla disobedience” because activism against the occupation was not enough.

At another panel on Zionism, JVP argued that Israel is an apartheid state ignoring equal rights and opportunities of Israeli Arabs, while also pushing the notion that Zionism should not exist. Zionism was a movement aimed at the reestablishment of a Jewish state.

JVP championed the case of convicted terrorist Rasmieh Odeh, who was responsible for a 1969 grocery store bombing that killed two Israeli students. JVP invited Odeh to speak at its conference in April, just after she pleaded guilty to naturalization fraud and agreed to be deported. Odeh claims her Israeli terrorism conviction resulted from weeks of torture. Though she has no evidence to support this, JVP embraces it as truth.

For a group supposedly inspired by their faith to work for justice and equality for both Israelis and Palestinians, Jewish Voice for Peace is disturbingly quiet about condemning terrorist violence targeting Israelis.

Apologists Gear Up for Rasmieh Odeh’s Last Hurrah

July 12, 2017

Apologists Gear Up for Rasmieh Odeh’s Last Hurrah, Investigative Project on Terrorism, July 12, 2017

Her followers appear to have no second thoughts about whether their hero is an honest person, let alone an unrepentant killer. While it’s one last hurrah for Odeh, the Aug. 12 event offers yet another example proving that, for Israel haters, facts really aren’t important.

*********************************

Palestinian terrorist Rasmieh Odeh likely will be deported shortly after a federal judge formally sentences her next month for naturalization fraud. Her supporters are planning one final bash in her honor featuring radical political activist Angela Davis.

A promotion for the Aug. 12 event in Chicago notes it costs $5 – $6.17 with service fees – and promises “a night of music, poetry, and struggle.”

Edward Joffe and Leon Kanner

Odeh pleaded guilty in April, admitting that she failed to disclose her arrest, conviction and 10 years spent in an Israeli prison after being convicted in connection to two 1969 Jerusalem bombings. One bombing targeted a grocery store, killing college students Edward Joffe and Leon Kanner.

Her plea agreement with federal prosecutors calls for no additional jail time, but it includes a stipulationstripping Odeh of her American citizenship and says “she will not be allowed to remain in the United States” and can never return.

Her supporter blindly accept Odeh’s claim that her Israeli conviction resulted from weeks of vicious torture, even though the only evidence to support this claim is Odeh’s word. A Red Cross monitor declared her Israeli trial fair, and her father was in contact with U.S. diplomats at the time and reported no such abuse.

Further, her sworn plea agreement included language that renders the torture claims moot:

“At the time she made the false statements, [Odeh] knew the statements were false,” the plea agreement says. She “also admits that all of these false statements were material … She made the false statements intentionally and not as a result of any mistake, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or any other psychological issue or condition or for any innocent reason, and not withstanding any other statement or testimony Defendant Odeh may have made at any other time regarding those answers.”

Nevertheless, Odeh stood by her story days later, calling the government’s case “a phony immigration charge” and blasting “the racist nature of the justice system in this country.”

Her followers appear to have no second thoughts about whether their hero is an honest person, let alone an unrepentant killer. While it’s one last hurrah for Odeh, the Aug. 12 event offers yet another example proving that, for Israel haters, facts really aren’t important.

UN Secretary-General Launches Slanderous Attack on Israel

June 7, 2017

UN Secretary-General Launches Slanderous Attack on Israel, PJ MediaP. David Hornik, June 7, 2017

(If Mr. Guterres gets kicked out as the UN Secretary General, which won’t happen, a job may well await him at the Washington Post. Please see also
Washington Post Peddles Palestinian Propaganda, Part Two. — DM)

06/01/2017 Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, at a meeting with Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov on the sidelines of 2017 St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. Evgeny Biyatov/Sputnik via AP

“This occupation,” Guterres writes:

… has imposed a heavy humanitarian and development burden on the Palestinian people. Among them are generation after generation of Palestinians who have been compelled to grow up and live in ever more crowded refugee camps, many in abject poverty, and with little or no prospect of a better life for their children.

Further, he writes:

Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will remove a driver of violent extremism and terrorism in the Middle East and open the doors to cooperation, security, prosperity and human rights for all.

**********************

At this time 50 years ago, Israel was fighting the Six Day War and conquering territories. Since then it has returned the Sinai to Egypt, withdrawn from Gaza, retained control of the Golan Heights, and created a self-governing Palestinian entity in part of the West Bank while retaining overall security control there.

This 50-year anniversary has seen a flood of statements lauding or lamenting the Six Day War and its outcomes for Israel. Statements of the former kind emphasize that the war gave Israel defensible borders, a close alliance with the United States (by showing that Israel was a regional power), and, eventually, peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan.

Among the best in this vein were op-eds by Michael Oren and Bret Stephens.

Statements of the latter kind bemoan Israel’s “occupation” of the Palestinians and describe it as a disaster that has to end — fast. And UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres offers some of the most egregious remarks in this vein.

“This occupation,” Guterres writes:

… has imposed a heavy humanitarian and development burden on the Palestinian people. Among them are generation after generation of Palestinians who have been compelled to grow up and live in ever more crowded refugee camps, many in abject poverty, and with little or no prospect of a better life for their children.

Further, he writes:

Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will remove a driver of violent extremism and terrorism in the Middle East and open the doors to cooperation, security, prosperity and human rights for all.

Let’s start with Guterres’ first claim about the alleged misery of Palestinian life since Israel took over the territory.

A few days before Guterres posted his statement, popular Israeli columnist Ben-Dror Yemini published a piece called “The truth about the occupation.” Yemini is not a right-winger; he wants Israel to eventually withdraw from most of the West Bank and separate from the Palestinians. But he also wants the discourse to be based on truth and not propaganda.

Yemini looks at some key elements of Palestinian life and compares the situations before and after the “Israeli occupation” (I use the scare quotes because Israel has withdrawn from Gaza and — except for anti-terror operations — Area A of the West Bank):

Education: Before the Six Day War in 1967, there was not a single university in the West Bank (under Jordanian rule) and Gaza (under Egyptian rule). “Today, there are more than 50 higher education institutions in the territories.”

Infant mortality: According to a Palestinian study and World Bank figures, the rate has gone from 152-162 per 1,000 live births in 1967 to: 132 in 1974, 53-56 in 1985, less than 30 in 1993, 25 in 2002, and 18 at present.

Yemini notes:

“The sharp drop, from 1976 to 1993, took place under direct Israeli rule. The drop continued under the Palestinian Authority, but at a more moderate pace.”

” … [The] infant mortality rate among the Palestinians is much lower than the global average of 31.7, and is significantly lower than the average in the Arab world — 28.”

Life expectancy: “[F]rom 48.6 in 1967 to about 73 (or 75, according to different sources) today.”

Writes Yemini:

“I can touch on more and more areas in which an objective examination will reveal an amazing improvement in the past 50 years. For example, in the area of water. In 1967, only four of 708 Palestinian towns and villages were connected to running water. Today, 643 communities are connected to running water (97% of the population).”

From the UN secretary-general’s description — “a heavy humanitarian and development burden on the Palestinian people … with little or no prospect of a better life for their children” — one would think Israel is mercilessly grinding the Palestinians down. The truth is very different.

Guterres’ description of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — “a driver of violent extremism and terrorism in the Middle East” whose resolution would “open the door” to some sort of utopia — is even more shockingly at variance with the truth.

Before the “Arab Spring” erupted in 2011, such claims about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being the cause of Middle East strife were par for the course.

Since then, the region has seen six years of apparently endless warfare — among Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites, and Kurds, among Islamists and non-Islamists, and among armies, militias, and terror organizations of every conceivable stripe — from Yemen to Iraq to Syria to Egypt to Libya, accompanied by the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people.

To say that all these disparate groups are bombing, shooting, besieging, and even gassing each other because of the Israelis and the Palestinians is to make a mockery of reality.

None of Yemini’s work implies that most Palestinians favor the current situation on the West Bank. They’ve been taught from the cradle that Jews are demons, that Tel Aviv and Haifa are “settlements,” and that the only just fate for the Israeli endeavor is to be annihilated.

Yet Westerners, including the UN secretary-general, are not required to adopt the viewpoint of a brainwashed Middle Eastern people.

The Palestinians not only hate Jews but — in classic Middle Eastern style — are riven by violent internal animosities between the Islamists of Hamas and the nationalists of Fatah, and between different Fatah factions.

Awareness of facts, as opposed to anti-Israeli canards, suggests that Israeli security control of the West Bank is — for now — better than the alternatives, and is in fact preventing another Middle Eastern hellhole from erupting.

Congress to Host Anti-Israel Forum, Sparking Outrage on Hill

May 30, 2017

Congress to Host Anti-Israel Forum, Sparking Outrage on Hill, Washington Free Beacon, May 30, 2017

The US Capitol is seen in Washington, DC, April 28, 2017. / AFP PHOTO / SAUL LOEB (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

Congress is scheduled to host an anti-Israel forum that takes aim at the Jewish state’s military, accusing it of “systematic discrimination” against those living in the “occupied Palestinian territory,” according to an invitation for the event circulating on Capitol Hill that has sparked outrage among pro-Israel lawmakers.

The event, which is sponsored by a member of Congress who has chosen to remain anonymous, will feature several anti-Israel organizations that back boycotts of the Jewish state and distribute propaganda accusing the Israeli military of human rights violations, according to an invitation to the June 8 briefing obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The event, “50 Years of Israeli Military Occupation & Life for Palestinian Children,” has riled several pro-Israel offices on the Hill and sparked a search for the anonymous lawmaker who has provided the organization space in room 122 of Capitol Hill’s Cannon House Office Building, according to conversations with multiple sources.

A number of anti-Israel groups have attempted to hold briefings on Capitol Hill in the past months, with one group of Israel-boycott backers being forced to cancel a briefing after news of the event spilled into public following a report by the Free Beacon.

That event was sponsored by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D., Texas), who only stepped forward publicly after House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) learned about the forum and demanded it be cancelled.

Sources who spoke to the Free Beacon about Thursday’s event—which is being sponsored by a network of anti-Israel activists and boycott supporters tied to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and other Christian groups known for their anti-Israel activism—said that the event seeks to spread anti-Israel propaganda aimed at undermining the Jewish state.

“This event is textbook propaganda aimed to perpetuate anti-Israel falsehoods and misconceptions,” said one senior congressional source familiar with the event and its sponsors.

The member of Congress who is sponsoring the event should publicly step forward and proclaim their support, the source said.

“Any member willing to sponsor this event should do so publicly,” said the official. “Come forward and defend your decision to host this Israel-bashing forum.”

Supporters of these groups are being asked to contact their senators and congressman to “urge them to attend this important briefing to learn more about the struggles of Palestinian children,” according to the event invitation, which further urges activists to ask lawmakers “to work for an end to 50 years of military occupation.”

Groups involved in organizing the event include several advocacy organizations known for their criticism of the Israel Defense Forces, or IDF. They include the Defense for Children International-Palestine and American Friends Service Committee, which operate an affiliated advocacy group dedicated to accusing the IDF of various crimes against humanity.

These organizations have been cited by pro-Israel organizations and watchdog groups for their promotion of anti-Israel propaganda and false information about the IDF.

Speakers scheduled to attend the event include: Omar Shakir, the Israel and Palestinian director for Human Rights Watch, which routinely criticizes Israel; Brad Parker, the staff attorney and international advocacy officer for Defense for Children International-Palestine, a group that backs Israel boycotts; Nadia Ben-Youssef, director of the Adalah Justice Project, which has accused Israel of “genocide”; and Yazan Meqbil, a Leonard Education Scholar and student at Goshen College.

The panelists, several of whom have been cited by experts for their vocal anti-Israel activism, are tasked with examining “how persistent human rights violations, systematic impunity, discrimination, and a hyper-militarized environment affect the lives of the Palestinian children growing up under a military occupation with no end in sight,” according to the invitation for the event.

One senior official at a D.C.-based pro-Israel organization told the Free Beacon that lawmakers are being alerted about the event and its agenda.

“It wouldn’t be surprising if whoever is backing this disgraceful event in Congress chose to stay anonymous,” said the source. “Usually lawmakers scramble to take credit for whatever they can. But on an issue like Israel, where there is overwhelming public support for a strong relationship with a critical ally, it’d be understandable if someone didn’t want to put their name on it.”

An email to the American Friends Service Committee, one of the forum’s main organizers, seeking further information about which lawmaker is sponsoring the event was not returned by press time.

Writer For Official Saudi Daily: The Jews Have An Eternal Plot To Destroy Mankind

May 16, 2017

Writer For Official Saudi Daily: The Jews Have An Eternal Plot To Destroy Mankind, MEMRI, May 16, 2017

(Have a pleasant trip to Saudi Arabia, Mr. President. — DM)

In a February 4, 2017 article in the official Saudi daily Al-Watan, Hala Al-Qahtani wrote that the Jews are eternally plotting to bankrupt the world and weaken its societies in order to facilitate their takeover of it and realize, at any cost, their dream of establishing a Jewish kingdom in Jerusalem. As evidence she claimed that three of the world’s five richest families are Jewish families that are also members of Free Masons movement and have been pursuing this goal since the 18th century. These families, she said, are willing to do anything to advance their own interests, including starting world wars and toppling countries. It should be mentioned that of the three families she lists, only one, the Rothschild family, is actually Jewish.

The following are excerpts from her article:

Hala Al-Qahtani (image: khabir.net)

“The ‘fanatical’ Jewish mind has throughout history lived in isolation, disconnected from the surrounding society, busy with the details of the grand eternal plot that aims to destroy the life of the surrounding societies in various ways, weaken them, degrade them and fragment them so as to strengthen [the Jewish mind] and enable it to control the world – and all this in order to realize at any cost its dream of establishing its Jewish kingdom in Jerusalem.

“Whoever follows Jewish history notices that [the Jews] work in close unison with the Zionist leadership that helps them realize the Jewish dream, [which is] first of all to control the money. They believe with all their heart that the only source of power is control over money, and that once the world is bankrupted the task of taking it overt will be easier for them. This control plan, which is as old as history itself, obviously had to begin with the U.S. and the [other] superpowers. Despite being difficult, this task has already been completed, in part of or in full, for today the world’s money is in the hands of five families that are considered the richest, three of which are Jewish and belong to the Free Masons and have been expanding their activity since the 18th century.

“At the head of the list is the leader of the Free Masons movement, the Rothschild family, which began amassing its wealth when Mayer Amschel Rothschild managed to found a very large global banking empire. This empire expanded as the father [of the family] installed his five sons in Europe’s main financial centers: Frankfurt in Germany, London in Britain, Naples in Italy, Vienna in Austria and Paris in France. The family bolstered its status by financing the royal houses and the governments [of these countries], to the point that it controlled the decision-makers in Europe.

“Today the Rothschild family controls all the capital of the World Bank, which passes from father to son [within this family]. It controls and manipulates gold prices across the world, raising or lowering them at any given moment according to its interests. It also controls the central banks all over the world, most of which are covertly owned by it, for there is not a single bank in the world that is not wholly or partly owned [by this family] – to the extent that [its members] have been dubbed ‘the Masters of Money.’ Their fortune is measured in trillions and equals a third of the budget of [all] the world’s [countries put together], if not more than that. Hence this family goes to great lengths to hide this [fact]. The Rothschilds were also the first who managed to create a mechanism that links the price of a barrel of oil to the dollar. The main source of their money is wars, and the greatest threat to their stability and wealth is a monetary slowdown which enables launching peace initiatives in the [Middle East] region. It’s enough to know that this family controls a large portion of the U.S. [monetary] reserves, and that [former U.S. president] George Bush was very close to it, in order to understand the full picture. Many countries have fallen because of this family’s influence, but there are eight countries that have not submitted to it: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Syria. If we want to find out who stole ‘Iraq’s gold,’ I think the answer is now obvious.

“The story of the Rockefeller family’s wealth began when John Rockefeller founded Standard Oil and thus became the richest man in history, with a fortune estimated at $400 billion. This gave him great power and enabled him to create a shadow government in the U.S. at the time.

“The wealth of the third family – the Morgan family – started to grow when John Morgan and the Rothschild family lent the U.S. treasury over 2.5 million ounces of gold during the [1929] Depression in the U.S. [The family’s] control over the gold reserves enabled it to found America’s largest companies, such as General Electric, AT&T and the U.S. Steel. Later the U.S. administration accused the Morgan family that it had forced it to join World War II in order to protect the loans the Morgans had granted Russia and France.

“As for the fourth family, du Pont, its wealth began to grow when Éleuthère Irénée du Pont founded in the state of Delaware a gunpowder factory that supplied 40% of the world’s bombs and explosives during World War I and produced plutonium for the American nuclear bombs during World War II.

“The Bush family is regarded as the fifth richest family, after its [founding] father, Prescott Sheldon Bush, staged an unsuccessful coup attempt against president Franklin Roosevelt, [a coup] that was funded by the du Pont, Rockefeller and Morgan families. The unity among the Jewish families enabled him to become director of the Union Banking Corporation and bring his son and [later] his grandson to the position of U.S. president so they could complete the family’s plan. After the [2003] war in Iraq, the Bush family’s private companies, such as Halliburton, KBR and others, profited from this country’s natural resources.

“Whoever follows the policy of today’s financial market knows full well that the Rothschilds’ financial empire is one of the major arms that secretly control the making of political decisions. [He also knows that this family] in its cunning has led several countries to the abyss and has managed to complete its takeover of other countries and to exert pressure on them by threatening to suck their blood until they died, and that [this family] will stop at nothing to pursue its interests, even if it means toppling the very pillars of the world.”

French Elections: Emmanuel Macron, a Disaster

May 1, 2017

French Elections: Emmanuel Macron, a Disaster, Gatestone InstituteGuy Millière, May 1, 2017

In the next election, in 2022, Catholic France may well see a Muslim candidate run — and win.

******************

Anti-West, anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish diatribes were delivered to enthusiastic crowds of bearded men and veiled women. One hundred and fifty thousand people attended.

Emmanuel Macron promised to facilitate the construction of mosques in France. He declared that “French culture does not exist” and that he has “never seen” French art. The risk is high that Macron will disappoint the French even faster than Hollande did.

On the evening of the second round of elections, people will party in the chic neighborhoods of Paris and in ministries. In districts where poor people live, cars will be set on fire. For more than a decade, whenever there is a festive evening in France, cars are set on fire in districts where poor people live. Unassimilated migrants have their own traditions.

Paris, Champs Elysees, April 20, 8:50 pm. An Islamic terrorist shoots at a police van. One policeman is killed, another is seriously wounded.

The terrorist tries to escape and shoots again. The policemen kill him. One hour later, the French Ministry of Interior reveals his name and his past. His name is Karim Cheurfi. He is a French Muslim born in an Islamized suburb of France. In 2003, he was sentenced to twenty years in prison for the attempted murder of two policemen. He was released before the end of his sentence. In 2014, he targeted a policeman and was sentenced again. And released again. In March, the police were informed that he was trying to buy military-grade weapons and that he contacted a member of the Islamic State in Syria. An inspector discovered that he had posted messages on jihadist social media networks expressing his willingness to murder policemen. The police searched his home and found several weapons and a GoPro video camera similar to the one terrorists use to film their crimes. The police and members of the French justice system did not think they had sufficient evidence place him under surveillance.

The Champs Elysées attack clearly shows that the French justice system is lax regarding dangerous people and that the French police pay only limited attention to suspects who are communicate with terrorist organizations and who seem to be hatching terrorist projects.

This terrorist attack summarizes everything that is broken in terms of security in France today.

Men with a profile similar to that of Karim Cheurfi have, in recent years, been responsible for most of the terrorist attacks in France and Belgium: Mohamed Merah, who killed three Jewish children and the father of two of them in Toulouse in 2012; Mehdi Nemmouche, who attacked the Brussels Jewish Museum in 2014 ; the Kouachi brothers, who committed the Charlie Hebdo massacre in 2015; Amedy Coulibaly, who murdered four Jews in the Saint Mandé grocery Kosher store Hypercacher; Samy Amimour and others who maimed and murdered 130 innocent people in the Bataclan theater in November 2015; Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, who drove a truck into the crowd in Nice in July 2016, killed 86 people and wounded many others, and, among others, those who beheaded a priest in Normandy a few weeks after the attack in Nice.

The successive French governments under the presidency of François Hollande showed themselves to be appallingly weak and impotent.

A climate of fear has overtaken the country. Attendance at theaters has declined. The particularly targeted Jewish community — two-thirds of the attacks in France in the last five years targeted Jews — feels abandoned. When a Jewish cemetery was vandalized on March 30 in Waldwisse, eastern France, neither the media nor the political leaders reacted. A week later, in Paris, a Jewish woman, Sarah Halimi, was tortured and then thrown out of a window by a non-radicalized Muslim, simply because she was Jewish: the French media and political leaders, with the exception of the courageous MP Meyer Habib, also did not react. A silent gathering below the window was organized by some leaders of the Jewish community. Only Jews came; they were greeted by anti-Semitic insults by Arab Muslims in the neighborhood. The implantation of radical Islam in the country is intensifying. The annual meeting of “Muslims of France” (the new name of the French branch of the Muslim Brotherhood), took place on April 14-17 in Le Bourget, ten miles north of Paris. Anti-West, anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish diatribes were delivered to enthusiastic crowds of bearded men and veiled women. One hundred and fifty thousand people attended.

Economically, France is in terrible shape. The unemployment rate remains above 10%. Nine million people are living below the poverty line –14% of the population. Economic growth is stagnant. Government spending accounts for 57% of GDP — 13% more than in Germany, France’s main economic competitor in Europe.

Month after month, polls shows that the French population is anxious, angry, immensely disappointed with current French policies. François Hollande ends his term with a popularity rating close to zero. He was so rejected and discredited that he decided not to run again for the presidency.

The first round of the French presidential election took place in this context, and one could expect that the French population would reject everything that looks like François Hollande’s policies and choose a new direction for the country.

That is not what happened; quite the opposite.

Benoit Hamon, the Socialist Party’s candidate, suffered a disastrous blow and received a mere 6% of the vote. Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a far-left candidate who left the Socialist Party a few years ago and who supported Hollande in 2012, received a much higher score: 19% of the vote. He is an admirer of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and the late Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat. Immediately after the anti-Semitic Islamic attack in Saint Mandé, he claimed that “Jewish extremism is more dangerous than Islamic extremism”. That statement did not hurt him.

Above all, Emmanuel Macron, a candidate close to Hollande won the race and will be elected President on May 7. He was Hollande’s senior economic advisor for more than two years, and the main architect of Hollande’s failed economic policies. He then became Minister of the Economy, Industry and Digital Affairs, and held that post until he entered the presidential race.

Emmanuel Macron, then Minister of the Economy, Industry and Digital Affairs of France, at the Annual Meeting 2016 of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 22, 2016. (image source: World Economic Forum/Michele Limina)

Most of Macron’s speeches are copies of the speeches Hollande made during his 2012 presidential campaign. What is known of Macron’s positions on most subjects show that they are the same position Hollande had during the last months of his mandate.

Throughout the campaign, Macron virtually never spoke about the danger of Islamic terror; when he did, he used words even weaker than those used by Hollande. After the Champs Elysees attack on April 20, he said: “imponderable” events had occured, and they “will be part of the daily life of the French in the years to come”. The next day, when asked what he would do to prevent other killings, he said that he could not “devise a plan to fight terrorism overnight”.

When he speaks about the economy, he sounds like Hollande: he uses vague terms, such as the need for more “social mobility” and “success for all”. He insists that he will maintain all the sclerosis dear to so many, such as the compulsory 35-hour workweek or the legal age for retirement: 62. He said that he would leave the almost-bankrupt retirement system the way it is. He promised additional regulations aimed at “saving the planet” and, in a classically socialist way, tens of billions of euros of government “investments” supposed to finance “ecological transition” and “public services”.

Sometimes, he makes remarks so dismaying that even Hollande would not have said them. In Algeria, in the presence of the National Liberation Front representatives, an organization that came to power by terrorism and massacring hundreds of thousands of “harkis” (Algerians who had chosen France), he said that the French presence in Algeria was a “crime against humanity“, and later promised to facilitate immigration from the Arab world and from Africa to France by preserving an “open and welcoming” France. He promised to facilitate the construction of mosques in France. He declared that “French culture does not exist ” and that he has “never seen” French art.

He quite often has shown that he is a political novice and that it is his first election campaign. He stumbled upon the words of his speeches and admitted to those listening to him that he did not understand the meaning of the sentences he had just read, which showed that he had not read what was written for him before reading it to the public.

How to explain his success in these conditions?

The first explanation lies in the moderate right candidate’s elimination. François Fillon had a credible and coherent program for the country’s recovery, but he could hardly speak about it. His campaign was quickly engulfed in a fake jobs scandal. He presented himself as an impeccable candidate: he appeared not so impeccable. A book recently published revealed that the scandal was meticulously orchestrated from a “shadow Cabinet” in the Elysee Palace. Fillon was never able to recover from it. His excuses were weak and contradictory. He confirmed his weakness by announcing his unconditional support for Macron immediately after the first round results were published. For the first time in more than fifty years, the moderate right will not have a candidate in the second round of a French presidential election. Showing their own weakness, most of the moderate right leaders followed Fillon example and decided to support Macron.

The second explanation for Emmanuel Macron success lies in a very elaborate communication strategy.

Emmanuel Macron continuously benefited from François Hollande support and most of the last five years socialist ministers, but an allegedly neutral and apolitical political structure was created for him. It was called En marche! (“On the Move!”). The socialist ministers who joined him rallied On the Move!, and remained silent. Francois Hollande only announced his full support very late in the race. The communication strategy could work because Emmanuel Macron received the support of left-wing billionaires whom he helped when he was Minister of Economy, and who have close relations with the powers that be: Pierre Bergé, Xavier Niel and Patrick Drahi. These people also own most France’s mainstream media and were able to carry out strong media campaigns in support of Macron. No candidate in the French presidential election history has been on the cover of so many magazines and newspapers. Emmanuel Macron also enjoys main French investment banks support: he is a graduate of the Ecole Nationale d’Administration, which trains all senior civil servants and almost all French politicians since it was established in 1945 and, before joining Francois Hollande, he had a career in a financial institution.

The third explanation for Emmanuel Macron’s success is that the communication campaign in his favor has been largely devoid of any political content, just like On the Move. He was presented as a young man, embodying the “future”, a “renewal”, a “hope”, a “change”. For most of the campaign, Emmanuel Macron had no program. His program was only published on the internet six weeks before the election. The text is often meaningless. Fear is defined as a “daily anguish”. It says that France must offer “opportunities” and Europe must be a “chance”. Emmanuel Macron told socialists he is a socialist, then said that he is not a socialist at all when he addressed other audiences. Opinion polls have shown that many of those who voted for him in the first round were unaware of his proposals on any topic.

Those who designed Emmanuel Macron’s campaign took a lot of inspiration from Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, and the result shows that they were right.

The result is also very distressing, because it shows that a massive communication campaign can be effective, even if it is full of empty words and seems to considers voters as idiots. Emmanuel Macron’s campaign effectiveness is also due to the fact that in France, virtually no media is likely to contradict what is said in the mainstream media: the French economy is a very state-based economy in which creating and sustaining media independence from the government and from government subsidies is almost impossible.

The second round of the French presidential election will take place on May 7. Emmanuel Macron will face the only remaining candidate, populist Marine Le Pen.

During the entire campaign, she was almost the only one to speak clearly about the Islamic terrorist threat (François Fillon did, too, but more discreetly) and to offer credible solutions to fight it. She was the only one to speak of the rise of radical Islam in France and to denounce the Muslim Brotherhood gathering at Le Bourget. She was the only one to stress the increasing perils resulting from uncontrolled immigration, and the risk of French culture disappearing. She was also the only one to mention the demographic change that occurs in France and in Europe because of the new migrants. She was the only one to denounce the Islamic anti-Semitism that relentlessly kills Jews in France. Unfortunately, she has a nearly Marxist economic program, close to that of Jean Luc Melenchon. She is the leader of the National Front, a party founded by her father, an anti-Semite, Jean-Marie Le Pen; although she has excluded her father and virtually all her father’s anti-Semitic friends from the National Front, she is nonetheless the party leader and is regarded as her father’s daughter.

Marine Le Pen and the National Front will be used as scarecrows to urge voters to rally massively behind Macron, in the name of a “Republican front” against “fascism.” The strategy was developed thirty years ago by the French left, under President Francois Mitterrand. It has always worked, and in a few days, it will work again.

Macron now has the support of the entire Socialist party, and the support of virtually all other politicians. He also has the support of all French Muslim organizations. The rector of the Great Mosque of Paris said that Muslims must “massively vote” for him. The Jewish community leaders also rallied on behalf of Macron. On May 7, he will likely get more than 60% of the vote.

Most will not be based on the support for a project; the risk is high that Macron will disappoint the French even faster than Hollande did. The French may quickly discover that he is just a man chosen by the French left to preserve an unsustainable status quo a little longer, and a member of the self-appointed élites who do not care about ordinary people’s problems, who consider that terrorist acts are “imponderable events”, and who believe that national identities can melt in a no-border globalized world. When the French discover who Macron is, there will be nothing they can do to change what they voted in.

The risk to France in the next five years will probably be painful for the French. According to the Police, more than 12,000 radicalized Muslims live in the country and most of them are not under surveillance. The Police do not have the means to do more than they currently are doing, and Macron does not seem to care. The justice system is in the hands of judges who appear lenient to terrorists, and Macron seems to accept it. The flow of migrants will not stop, and Macron apparently does not intend to do anything about that. More and more, Muslims segregate themselves from French society in expanding Islamist mini-states.

Nothing Macron proposes can reverse the decline of the French economy and French society. Terror attacks will undoubtedly occur. Jews and others will undoubtedly be killed. Riots and discontent will undoubtedly take place.

On the evening of the first round of the election, there were riots in Paris and Nantes. On the evening of the second round of elections, people will party in the chic neighborhoods of Paris and in ministries. In districts where poor people live, cars will be set on fire. For more than a decade, whenever there is a festive evening in France, cars are set on fire in districts where poor people live. Unassimilated migrants have their own traditions.

In the next election, in 2022, Catholic France may well see a Muslim candidate run — and win.