From the desk of Ron Weiser.Je suis Charlie,je suis Ahmed,je suis ?

Je Suis Charlie, Je Suis Ahmed, Je Suis ?????

I was waiting for another Je Suis to spontaneously erupt from the good people of France.

But it did not come, maybe tomorrow, maybe not………..not the French word for Jewish or the names of even one of the innocent people going about their erev Shabbat shopping in a kosher store in France.

Je Suis?????

And no, the real problem is not the Moslem population of France, nor even the Jihadist element of that population.

Blaming them allows the French an excuse.

The real problem is France.

Even before this latest atrocity French Jews were making aliyah in record numbers.

Thousands and thousands – 8,000, 9,000 in 2014 alone.

For the first time in the history of the modern state of Israel, more Jews are coming on aliyah by choice from a democratic country than from your typical country of distress.

Is this because French Jewry is more Zionistic than say the Jews of Australia?

Is this because the aliyah shaliach in France is so effective?

It is because something is so broken within French society – the non Moslem 90% of the population – and within the leadership of France, that Jews are fleeing for their lives – literally.

A France that is rotten to the core.

A hypocritical country that thinks that mouthing slogans of liberty and equality make it so.

A country that snobbishly looks down on the State of Israel and waves its wand of moral equivalence over her. Where an Israeli Arab is safer walking any street in Israel dressed in any religious garments he or she chooses, than a Jew in France walking around in a kippah.

A France that only a few days ago voted in the UN Security Council for a Palestinian State without any safeguards or guarantees at all that a Jewish State alongside it would be part of the deal.

A France whose actions do not immunise it from the Jihadists in any case.

Thank G-d for Australia.

And what a delicious and fitting irony.

That of all people, of all people, Bob Carr must be kicking himself for pushing so heavily for Australia to have a seat on the UN Security Council and then for that seat to be used by Australia to demonstrate the moral clarity Prime Minister Abbott and Foreign Minister Bishop did with that magnificent vote, the final vote of Australia’s term as a Security Council member.

I wrote in an earlier piece of my disbelief when during a debate I heard in Israel last year on the situation of French Jewry which included one of their leading representatives, he stated that there was no antisemitism in France.

I was equally shocked two years earlier when another leader of French Jewry publicly blamed Israel for causing French Jewry’s problems (the problems they claim they do not have), more or less along the same lines as a so called leading light of British Jewry.

There are many lessons to be learnt.

Not the least of which is to recognise a problem when it exists.

And to not excuse an act of fundamentalist terrorism as that of a crazy criminal.

U.S. President Barack Obama said he wants the people of France to know that the United States

“stands with you today, stands with you tomorrow”

after this week’s terror. He told a crowd in Tennessee that

“we stand for freedom and hope and dignity of all human beings, (and) that’s what Paris stands for.”

He is wrong – that is not what Paris stands for at all.

The kidnapping and torture of Ilan Halimi in 2006; the terrorist murders of Jews in Toulouse in 2012; and the attack in May at the Jewish Museum of Belgium, in which four people were murdered and for which a man with French and Algerian citizenship was arrested tested Paris.

What did Paris stand for then?


A few nice words.

Does French Jewry feel safer today?

French President Hollande summed it all up so so terribly wrong.

He called the attack on the Hyper Cacher supermarket an act of antisemitism.

Of course it was, but in French terms that is not so horrible after all and has happened before.

Until the French leadership and the French people regard the attack on the kosher deli just as they regard the attack on Charlie Hebdo AND use the same terms – an attack on French values, on the French way of life and on France itself – we should call them out on their moral failings.

And until then, goodbye France.

Dr Ron Weiser AM



Check Also

Yes, truly, Israel is not Canada- Opinion

We, like you, treasure democracy, humaneness, justice, and civil and human rights. We are not …


  1. Leon Poddebsky

    A major cause of terrorism against Jews in Europe is the constant stream of European slanders, blood libels, half-truths, insane conspiracy fantasies that are directed against Israel.
    Also, Europe’s flouting of international law, convention and custom to collaborate in the Arab campaign for the phased destruction of Israel, has given the enemy the impression that it can act lawlessly at will.
    This European propaganda terrorism has given jihadists the impression that there is open season on Jews.
    Australia is not free of this either.

    A historical parallel occurred in The Land of Israel when it was ruled by the British;
    British anti-Jewish propaganda and policies gave the “Palestinian” Arabs the impression that they could murder Jews with impunity, and that’s why the rampaging Arab mobs used to shout, “Butcher the Jews; the government is with us.”

  2. I do fully agree with Dr Weiser’s lamentations about the French government’s attitude towards Israel. I fully understand where he is coming from.
    However, I take issue with his contention that France is “rotten to the core” and I challenge his assertion that aliya has not been precipitated by Islamic antisemitism.
    Of course, Jews have much to be grateful to France for: the Revolution emancipated them, and Napoleon confirmed that emancipation. True, rightwing clericalist forces and rightwing nationalists persecuted Alfred Dreyfus, but the pro-Dreyfusard forces, who ultimately triumphed, were the heirs of the Enlightenment that preached liberty, equality and fraternity (the same values that are under threat from – let’s not resile from the truth, let’s call it by its real name – Islamofascism – now.) True, the rightwing nationalistic Charles Maurras and Action Francaise were during the 1930s hateful antisemites (they also loathed Freemasons and Protestants). True, the Vichy Regime collaborated with the Nazis and facilitated the deportation of Jews who weren’t French citizens to the death camps.
    But the brave Frenchmen who, under Generals de Gaulle and Giraud, made Algiers the base of the French Committee of National Liberation during the War contained a high-ranking (Protestant) Vichy official who, in the face of that deportation, left his job, as well as two Jews who, during the 1950s, became, respectively, the second and third Jews (Blum had been the first) to serve as prime ministers of France. And one of these two prime ministers, a plutocrat and World war One hero, was taunted by leftists in the National Assembly, and in the leftwing press, with such epithets as “dirty tolerated alien”. I note that only to demonstrate that the right had no monopoly on antisemitism (for often people speak as if antisemitism only comes from the right.).
    It shouldn’t need to be spelled out that now, save for pockets of traditional antisemitism among rightwing nationalist elements such as Jean Le Pen and certain followers of his daughter Marine, and a handful of French nutters who have published works denying the Holocaust, most of the antisemitism in France – the antisemitism that is so vicious and visceral that it is making French Jews flee in ever-increasing numbers, stems from Muslims and their unlikely leftwing bedfellows who express their own Jew-hatred in hatred for Israel.
    I think it’s worth making the point that, historically, France (and I’m talking now about the country generally) has been a country of low emigration; the present emigration of Jews bucks this trend.
    Jews did not flee the antisemitism of the Christian and post-Christian (or secular) right and left. It is only in recent years, with the terrible increase in Islamic-driven antisemitism, that French Jews have been emigrating in huge numbers. Surely Dr Weiser is not unaware of the works of such experts as Dr Manfred Gerstenfeld, works which show clearly who and what is behind the French emigration rate today.
    I have a French Jewish friend, now in Israel, who tells me how deeply worried French Jewry is by the menace of, specifically, Islamic antisemitism. Believe me, he does not mince words.
    Who and what is driving French Jews to emigrate constitutes a threat to all of a France that is manifestly “not rotten to the core” but must – and it’s not alone in this – jettison its blinkered, politically correct, dangerous denial about the threat to us all in the West, whether Jew or gentile.


    • Of course the source of the violence are the jihadists. But to leave it at that misses the whole point that engulfs France and Europe at large.

      The Jews did not leave France in such numbers when the Moslems arrived in France. They left in such numbers and only in such numbers in 2013 and 2014, when they lost hope in France and French society to tackle these extreme and not so extreme Moslems.

      2013/2014 saw the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.

      The Jews of France denied for years that French society would let them down, till they finally gave up and saw the true face of France.

      France has a long and strong history of anti-Semitism as it does of Jewish emancipation. But today France is rotten to the core, and if she does not recover her moral compass the Jews have no future there.

      Saying that France is absolved of all responsibility is a cop out. And plays directly into continuing French anti-Semitism.

      Defending the 90% of French society that allows the Moslems to act as they do, ensures that more Jews will die.

      This has nothing to do with Le Pen.

      This has to do with the anti-Semitism – passive or active, of general French society – an anti-Semitism that is revealed with regularity and frequently.

      I am surprised that researchers who rely on data simply ignore the data from the 9,000 olim from France in the past 12 months who say very clearly why they left France. They left because they lost all faith in France to stick to its slogans. They left because France let them down and decided to accept that protecting Jews was not a real French priority.

      All societies have challenges, the test is how those challenges are dealt with.

      To date general French society has failed that test.

      Precisely because France has not dealt with jihadism – except by trying to placate it with votes at the UN and pressure on Israel as in the recent Gaza war – the Jews of France are leaving.

      In France to date – Jewish life is worth less than the life of other French citizens.

      Has everyone forgotten so quickly about the other attacks in France in recent years after which nothing changed?!

      If anyone thinks that the huge gathering of world leaders would be taking place today if only the kosher deli attack occurred without the attack on Charlie Hebdo – then therein lies the real delusion.

      • Again, the Jews began leaving France when Islamic terrorists started killing them. The government is trying to tackle the problem, but is constrained by limits on its resources and manpower. The plight of French Jewry is not due to the government, it’s due to the antisemitism of a large and unassimilated Muslim population, I believe, Dr Weiser, that you sit on the council of the OHPI, and am rather bemused about the fact that that organisation seems to be aiding and abetting the forces of denial in this country. I understand that the OHPI has been responsible for the taking down of a number of Facebook pages in which Australians have been discussing the issue of mass Muslim immigration into Australia and the possible implications for national security, including the security of Jews. The OHPI has taken it upon itself to consider such discussions “hate speech”. Yet deeply antisemitic sites such as the CUFP (discussed in a current thread on this very website) remain online, despite them having been reported to the OHPI.

        • Hilary, that is very disingenous of you. Specially after your article, written under a pseudonym and published on this site, in which you made similar accusations about OHPI not dealing with antisemitism. In response to those accusations I was happy to provide you with a long list of the work we did on antisemitism and against Holocaust denial in 2014. You should be well aware of OHPI’s work in this area.

          There is a logical falicy in your argument. You effectively suggest that if a house burns down, and the fire brigade don’t manage to save it, then fire brigade must be arsonists. You effectively ignore the many other houses that are saved, as well as the effort to save that house in particular. If you really want I can e-mail you documentation of the CUFP page made by OHPI in January 2014. Such documentation does exist and you are welcome to it.

          Unfortunately OHPI does not have a magic wand, and ultimately we do not take down pages. We document them and we made a case. If they are removed it is because Facebook determines that they have broken Facebook’s terms of service. As you may be aware, that is a pretty high standard. If pages which you say were used for “discussing the issue of mass Muslim immigration into Australia and the possible implications for national security, including the security of Jews” were closed by Facebook, you can rest assured it was not an arbitrary closure but because said pages would have clearly and persistently breached Facebook’s terms of service.

          If you want to go on record defending pages which Facebook itself has removed for hate speech, I guess you can do that. It would of course be a pretty couragous position to take, specially if you aren’t aware of the specific content on those pages. Facebook incidently doesn’t take down content for being critical of Islam, nor for things like posting cartoons of Mohammed. They only take then down for directly inciting violence or hate against people who are Muslims… and even then it is pretty hit and miss. If they closed the pages, that’s what would have had to have been on them.

          • Oh deary me “Hilary, that is very disingenous of you. Specially after your article, written under a pseudonym “

            You living in a vacuum Andre.? Many writers, especially Bloggers use a nom de plume. Hardly disingenuous!

            I guess you haven’t seen the comments here by Graham Coffey, an amazing Zionist and a man I am proud to call a friend after having made his acquaintance here on my web site.
            I suggest you do.

            There is more I could say much, much but I won’t elaborate.

          • Andre, it’s notable that you appear nowhere to define hate speech, which gives you carte blanche to try to remove any valid criticism of Islam or anything else, and indeed to suppress free speech on which democracy depends. You have joined the fight against misogyny, but what about Islamic misogyny?
            What locus standi do you have to speak on behalf of Muslims anyway; cannot their own spokespeople do that for themselves?
            As to what Facebook removes, it seems Larry Pickering has a different perspective:

          • Hilary Rubinstein

            Shirlee, especially bloggers who have been stalked and threatened by anti-Israel nut jobs, requiring police intervention, though of course Andre doesn’t know about that episode.

          • Andre, I’m puzzled, as I thought you set up OHPI to combat the growing menace of anti-Semitism on the internet. We know there have been increasing incidents of threats and actual violence against Jews, accelerated by the pro-Palestinian movements and the rabidly anti-Semitic BDS.

            Why then have you branched out into the area of “Islamophobia”, a term invented by radical Islamists, when attacks against Muslims are largely anecdotal? Sure, many people are starting to raise questions about radical Islam, but in a democracy it is legitimate to critique any religion or political movement, especially in view of the many terror attacks committed in the name of Islam, so long as there is no incitement to violence. Surely as a Jew, you must agree there is no place for a blasphemy law in a free society?

          • Yes Hilary, I know about your ‘stalking’

            That’s not the point. What a chutzpah to make a comment like that. Though it says plenty to me.

            There are thousands, if not millions of Bloggers especially, who prefer to keep their private side just that, when it comes to their Blog.

          • Pam, as far as I am aware OHPI was started to combat the growing menace of anti-Semitism on the internet, seems to have veered off to take down FB pages which are an easy target, something groups of others of us do. Jewish anti-Islam ones were just that so I am told.

          • The Community Internet Engagement Project (CIE, OHPI’s predecessor) was set up for two purposes, one was antisemitism, the other was online Israel advocacy. That project belonged to the Zionisted Federation of Australia, it was not a charity and therefore was able to engage in political advocacy for Israel – something a charity can’t do.

            The CIE project was closed 3.5 years ago. This was partly because without charitable status many donors would not support it financially. It was also in response to the need to address a wider range of online hate.

            OHPI, from the every start, was not just about antisemitism. At the same time, as a matter of policy, we do more on antisemitism than on any other topic. The reason we give particular attention to antisemitism is:
            (a) the scale of the problem of antisemitism
            (b) the community tackling antisemitism who we can work with and share ideas with, and which is more active than those working against other forms of online hate
            (c) the ability to use the more mature debate on responding to antisemitism to help define policies more broadly.

            In tackling antisemitism we do deal with some Israel related content. The test is whether that content is antisemitic according to the Working Definition of Antisemitism – almost half of which is about examples in relation to Israel.

            Hilary, you say “it’s notable that you appear nowhere to define hate speech”. I believe we define it very clearly. Page 8 of our major report into anti-Muslim hate is titled “The Nature of Anti-Muslim Hate Speech”.

            As page 8 says, “As traditionally defined, hate speech is speech that vilifies a protected group, or that vilifies a member of a protected group on the basis of their group identity.” It goes on to provider a “a deeper understanding of hate speech” with reference to the US legal scholar Jeremy Waldron and what he describes as two forms of hate message, one to a minority group seeking to exclude them from society, and the other to society at large saying a group isn’t wanted, and that together people can make them feel unwelcome, and show what the group of people are “really like” (i.e. stereotyping them).

            While the traditional definition, and Waldron’s description of the overall messages of hate speech defines the concept in general, we also added a bit about hate speech in relation to religious groups / people because of their religion in particular. We said that, “Hate speech is an attack on a person, or group of people, and must be distinguished from ‘defamation of religion’ or ‘theological debate’ which are attacks on ideas… An attack on an idea can turn into an attack on a person when a disagreement over religious practise, acceptable as a matter of speech, morphs into action aimed at preventing the lawful religious practise of another.”

            The report is freely available if you would like to read it, and it is OHPI’s only major report on this topic. I believe the position we take is quite clear. As to our “right” to do this work, our charitable objective is to prevent or mitigate the harm that results from online hate – whether it is antisemitism, anti-Muslim hate, misogyny, cyberbullying, serious trolling etc, our mandate comes from our constitution as an organisation and our endorsement as a Harm Prevention Charity by the Australian Government.

          • Andre, I would strongly suggest you do the rounds of Jewish Blogs and FB pages to see what many think of you regarding you taking their sites down. You told me that it’s was easy to take down anti-Islam ones when I gave you some antisemitic ones. You told me you couldn’t do it. In fact one time you were going to meet someone from the ICV, you know the organisation which openly supports Hamas, and you’d see if he could help. At the time I wondered what you were talking about.

            Have you even bothered going to in order to read what Graham Coffey has posted in regards to what is being said in Muslim and pro-pally groups about OHPI.?

  3. Bill Rubinstein

    In the past there were certain sections of the rightwing in France that were antisemitic, as in the Dreyfus Affair and in the 1940s when the Vichy Regime was an ally of the Nazis and participated in the Holocaust.
    However, none of that is true today. A small proportion of the extreme right may still be antisemitic, but overwhelmingly and beyond doubt virtually all attacks on Jews and threats to Jews some from Muslims and their anti-Zionist allies on the extreme left. That is the reason that Jews are leaving France. They are not leaving France because of the conduct and attitude of the French government, which is being attacked by the same Muslim extremist sources.

    Dr Weiser is deeply confused about this, and is deeply inaccurate.

  4. Leon Poddebsky

    Yes; General de Gaulle led brave Frenchmen during WW2, but in 1967, when the Arab world threatened Israel’s life, the “brave general” proclaimed that “the Jews are a proud and domineering race.”

    His legacy, garnered from the likes of Proudhon, Maurras et al., lives on.

    The French and other European political and cultural “elites” have created a climate which is conducive to the incubation of anti-Jewish atrocities.

    That non-Jewish French people are being attacked by the same folk who attack Jews is no more evidence of French innocence than was the fact that during 1939-45 non-Jewish Polish people who were victimised by the nazis were innocent of persecuting “their” Jews.

  5. I understand your comment regarding President de Gaulle and his government, Leon; in fact, the Protestant Vichy official to whom I referred was his Foreign Minister, Couve de Murville. But to what extent, if any, de Gaulle was actually antisemitic is debatable. In fact, some commentators think that remark of his made in Canada may have been not all it seemed, though it was certainly taken to be evidence of prejudice towards Jews. However, the reality is that the driving force behind antisemitism in France today, and in the rest of Western Europe, is radical Islamism.

  6. I partly agree with Ron Weiser that France is no great lover of her Jewish citizens. This attitude of disdain was exemplified by Daniel Bernard, the former French Ambassador to the UK, who said: “All the current troubles in the world are because of that shitty little country Israel.

    Having said that, it can’t be denied that Jews have lived happily and peacefully in France for several decades, free to practice their religion without hindrance.

    One has to conclude that has only been with the expansion of the Islamic community that Jews have been actively persecuted and are in fear of their lives.

  7. As for the Je Suis slogans, they seem little more than tokenism, and will be forgotten by the next month when no doubt yet another atrocity – which of course will have nothing to do with Islam – bursts onto the scene. I suggest an all purpose slogan, like Je Suis Contre Jihad, which could be translated into various languages (like centrelink pamphlets are) and liberally distributed.

  8. I first became aware of the dire situation for French Jews about 7 years ago, after Ilan Halimi, a 26 year old, was tortured and later killed by a gang of Muslims –

    There is no doubt the vicious attacks on Jews throughout Europe are a result of Islamic hatred and incitement to violence against Jews.

    So I would agree that Islam, and the anti-Semitism within its scriptures, is the main problem. However, I think the French government showed a reluctance to tackle the issue, partly because they didn’t prioritise their Jewish citizens.

    • Leon Poddebsky

      But Pam, don’t you think that Europe’s constant baseless slandering of Israel has played a major role in enabling and encouraging jihadist terrorism?
      The evidence: there has been a direct statistical relationship between, on one hand, the increasing shrillness of Europe’s verbal and diplomatic terrorism against Israel; and, on the other, the increasing frequency of jihadist attacks on Jews in Europe.

      • Don’t forget too that the bulk of funding for the anti-Israel NGOs comes from Europe via the New Israel Fund.

      • Leon, yes I totally agree that Europe’s constant deligitimising of Israel and legitimising the false claims of the ‘Palestinian’ lobby through the UN and EU, has given the green light to jihadists, and I agree with Shirlee about the funding of anti-Israel NGOs coming from Europe.

        I believe Europe has jumped on the jihadi bandwagon partly through cowardice and partly through its innate anti-Semitism.

        But without the jihadis establishing themselves throughout Europe, the Jews would have continued to live there in relative peace, with just the occasional attack on them.

    • Hilary Rubinstein

      Pam, regarding what you call France’s failure to “prioritise their French citizens”, don’t forget that the French Revolutionary ethos that led to their emancipation was “To the Jews as individuals everything; To the Jews as a group nothing” or words to that effect. That attitude seems to have persisted in France down to modern times. Thus in or about1949 the French justice minister, a practising Jew (and future PM) whose family had lived in France for generations angered the more recent French Jews by refusing a proposal to erect a War memorial specifically to French Jews who had been killed fighting for France. It was only when CRIF became dominated by the newcomers that such attitudes changed. But the earlier ethos was not confined to ideas about Jews but to all faiths: I.e. no special treatment.

      • Hilary Rubinstein

        sorry, Pam, my first line should read “Jewish citizens” – am typing on the iPad and very clumsy on its keyboard.

      • Hilary, that makes sense. Since the Revolution, France has insisted on a secular republic; hence their laws banning the niqab and burka in furtherance of this. Sadly though, they lack the courage to enforce this secular philosophy throughout France, allowing large areas to the Islamised, with sharia courts and all the other aspects of Islamisation. This is a complete contradiction to what the Republic is supposed to stand for.

  9. The tag team of Bill and Hilary seem to be having a problem accepting my original premise – that whilst the jihadists are the prime cause of the violence the main reason for the dramatic rise in Jews leaving France lies at the heart of the problems with France – and its anti-Semitism.

    I note that change in Shirlee Finn’s posting in the past 2 days in regards to finally accepting that the root of the problem is lack of reaction to the jihadists and that this is really nothing more or less than text book anti-Semitism.

    The reason French Jews are leaving is not because of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism per se, but because of the lack of proper response from the French. If Islamic fundamentalism was dealt with properly, then the Jews of France would not feel so insecure.

    The reason that France sees Charlie Hebdo as terrorism and the murder of Jews in a Jewish Day school as something short of that is anti-Semitism. Text book anti-Semitism.
    What France has announced belatedly and as a temporary measure is better than before, but changes little in the long run.

    Read below just some comments from the Times of Israel article on what troubles French Jewry.
    Understanding the problem is the beginning of dealing with it.

    “Serge Bitton, a resident of the heavily Jewish suburb of St. Mande.

    “The issue for the future of our lives here as Jews is how France reacts, not its government. And right now, France is reacting to Charlie, not to Chaim,” Bitton said of public outrage at the Jan. 7 attack on the offices of the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo.”
    “The government talks but it’s only words. We do not have a future here,” said Joyce Halimi, 26, who attended the vigil with her husband, Julien.

    “Tellingly, the feeling of insecurity is being openly discussed by leaders of French Jewry who, in the past, have strived to reassure their coreligionists and inspire them to stay and fight.
    In an interview with Le Figaro, Cukierman called the increase in emigration from France to Israel a “failure for France” and said it owed to “growing insecurity felt throughout the country.”
    French Jews, he added, “feel like the nation’s pariah.”

    • Hilary Rubinstein

      Ron, as I see it, Shirlee has not done a u-turn regarding the basic reason for Jews leaving France, which is the threat posed by Islamic Jew-hatred and terrorism, and the violence against Jewish institutions and individuals in recent years. What I believe Shirlee is condemning is the shameful, disgraceful attitude of Hollande and Co towards Israel and towards Netanyahu. Security is now being beefed up, as much as is in France’s power, at Jewish schools and at synagogues.

    • Clearly you are wrong Ron and your attacking me and others shows you know that..First Bill and Hilary and then me.

      I haven’t changed my stand one bit but you’ve done a 180 to show you aren’t wrong, G-d forbid.

      Unlike the majority of Jews in this country, especially our so-called dhimmi weak pathetic leadership, I haven’t been asleep as far as Islam is concerned and have followed closely what has been happening for well over 10 years , and longer than that from a distance. That’s how Pam Hopf and I met some 7 or so years ago.

      I saw what was happening in the East End of London in 1979 and vowed never to go again, so not as to tarnish my childhood memories. The East End was the heart of Jewish England when I grew up. It had become an Islamic cesspool and is now the home of the most radicalised mosque in Europe.

      It has been predicted for a while that either French or Belgium would be the first European country to descend into anarchy. Belgium is now on the verge of introducing Sharia Law.

      I was in Israel in 2012 and there was a huge population of French Jews there then, so as you’d like us to believe it’s not a new thing. In fact, I was told by friends and family that if I went to Netanya I’d have a hard job getting by if I didn’t speak French. So it is not a recent exodus. From what I am led to believe, the majority don’t want to go to Israel now, they prefer the US.

      If it had been case of antisemitism on a government level, I doubt that the Jewish population would have grown to the size it did.

      This is from a friend who lives part of the year in Paris. She wrote this on another item.

      “Up to 80% of students in certain “multicultural” French schools refused to observe the 1 minute of silence in memory of the Paris victims and many among them suggested that “if one offends their prophet, one should not be surprised to end up dead”. (BMTV France).

      It is obvious that most of the renewed anti-semitism in France is driven by Islam (6 million muslims a number that rings an ominous bell), but quite a few French (especially on the Left) are willing collaborators.”

  10. Hilary Rubinstein

    Andre, what are you doing to combat hate speech by Muslims against others? I am very uneasy about the fact that you seem to be acting as prosecuting attorney, judge, jury and executioner. What, btw, is a “protected group”? And why is a Jewish-funded or mainly Jewish-funded organisation fighting on behalf of Muslims when the Muslim community surely can finance and fight its own battles?

  11. To repeat – the reason as they express themselves is that France is not protecting them from it – there is a difference – and the difference is France.

    I absolutely reject that France is doing what it can – and note – the current beef up is only temporary.

    Don’t be fooled.

    IN any case, why such dedictaion in defending a government and a people who treat her own citizens and Israel as she does?

    Why did Hollande walk out of the Paris Synagogue just before Bibi was about to speak – why was there no outcry from the French about this?

    As long as Jews keep making excuses for the French – terrorism will not be defeated.

  12. Ron, I hate and despise the attitude of Hollande and his government to Israel as much as you do. With regard to the Islamofascism at the root of the antisemitism they’ve been in a dangerous and despicable denial, but it’s a denial no worse than that of any other country in Western Europe as to what a threat it poses and how to deal with it. Leftist-driven political correctness is and has been a terrible thing. I often think it ironic that Jews had to prove to the revolutionaries and to Napoleon that they were fit for French citizenship by proving that they had come to terms with modernity and did not practice polygamy – that sort of thing – whereas the millions of Muslims who moved to France from the North African colonies and elsewhere faced no such “test” – generally being French citizens already. Of course, this is not to say that all French Muslims have not assimilated or are resistant to modernism – but clearly significant numbers are. It’s clear something must be done about the antisemitism that threatens French Jewry, but that antisemitism comes from the banlieues, and many of these are virtual no-go zones for the authorities, as certain neighbourhoods in Sweden are. The blame lies with the mindset of leftist “do good” elements (the type who have labelled those who question mass Muslim immigration “bigots” and “racists” and try to close down free debate by portraying them as such and promoting the notion of an analogy between antisemitism and “Islamophobia”. France is hardly alone in that. It is the destructive mindset that as you know imperils all free societies. I certainly agree that something must be done but I reject the notion that France is more blameworthy for the current nightmare than are the true culprits and perpetrators. This is one reason why I fear any clampdown on such people as Andrew Bolt, who must be free to say what they have say on this issue without the threat of C18 stepping in to muzzle them.