Monthly Archives: June 2017

Who Is Jailing and Torturing Palestinian Journalists? by Bassam Tawil

  • The Palestinian Authority (PA) sees no need for international intervention to halt its own crackdown on freedom of speech. Nor does it consider the closure of a newspaper office and the detention of journalists as a “war crime.”


  • The report reveals that Palestinian detainees have been undergoing severe torture while in PA detention. During the past few years, ten people have died in Palestinian prisons. As far as we can see, no one from the European community has taken the slightest notice.

  • The detention of Khalil is seen in the context of the PA’s continued effort to silence and intimidate Palestinian journalists who dare to criticize the Palestinian leadership and its institutions.

  • The PA clearly wants a media that reports only against Israel. The only incitement permitted is the one directed there.

  • Western human rights groups that regularly condemn Israel for its actions against Palestinians have, as usual, failed to respond to this latest assault by the PA on public freedoms. The PA’s crackdown on the media is not going to attract the attention of the mainstream media in the West: the story lacks an anti-Israel angle.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) recently and not surprisingly announced that it was planning to file a complaint with international organizations over Israeli “assaults” and “crimes” against Palestinian journalists.

The Palestinian Ministry of Information condemned the “assaults” as a “war crime” and said it would urge the International Federation of Journalists to send a commission of inquiry to the Palestinian territories to launch an investigation against Israel.

Ironically, the PA’s announcement came only a few days after it ordered the closure of a newspaper office in Ramallah and the detention of a female journalist, Naela Khalil. The announcement also coincides with the PA’s ongoing crackdown on freedom of expression in the West Bank, where Palestinians are being arrested for posting critical remarks on social media.

The Palestinian Authority, of course, sees no need for international intervention to halt its own crackdown on freedom of speech. Nor, apparently, does it consider the closure of a newspaper office and the detention of journalists a “war crime” when it does it.

Earlier this month, the Palestinian Authority ordered the closure of the Ramallah-based Al-Araby Al-Jadeed online newspaper on the pretext that it was operating without a license from the Palestinian Ministry of Information. The decision to shut the newspaper came after Palestinian security officers had raided its offices several times and questioned employees about the nature of their work.

The management of Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, however, said that it had applied for a license in December 2014, but had never received an answer from the Palestinian Ministry of Information.

A senior official with the Ministry later admitted that the decision to shut down the newspaper was taken after the publication of an article that was considered “offensive to the State of Palestine and its security institutions.” In other words, the decision had nothing to do with the newspaper not having obtained a license from the Ministry of Information in Ramallah.

The Palestinian Ministry of Information sent a letter to the Palestinian prosecutor-general urging him to authorize the closure of the newspaper. The letter explained why the newspaper had to be shut. The letter read: “A London-based newspaper that has an office in Ramallah recently published a report that offends the State of Palestine and its security agencies. The report portrayed our security forces as if they have nothing to do but arrest people and conduct security coordination with the occupation state (Israel). This is incitement against the Palestinian Authority and its security institutions. We therefore hope you will issue an order to close this unlicensed office.”

According to Palestinian journalists, the report that enraged the PA and prompted it to take action against Al-Araby Al-Jadeed was actually written by an Egyptian journalist, Shaima Al-Hadidi.

The report criticizes the Palestinian Authority for clamping down on journalists and political opponents in the West Bank and refers to security coordination between the Palestinian security forces and Israel.

“The Palestinian Authority does not hesitate to open the doors of its cells for [to hold] its opponents,” the report charged. “The Palestinian Authority prisons in Ramallah are full of dozens of political detainees accused of resisting occupation.”

The report reveals that Palestinian detainees have been undergoing severe torture while under Palestinian Authority detention. In just one month last August, there were at least 12 cases in which detainees complained that they had been tortured by Palestinian Authority interrogators. Some detainees were denied medical treatment, the report said, and pointed out that during the past few years, ten Palestinians have died in Palestinian prisons. As far as we can see, no one from the European community took the slightest notice. Such information is presumably considered, in journalistic terms, “dog bites man:” The Palestinian leadership is abusing its own people again? Who cares, glad it’s not us.

Some of the Palestinians who died in detention were identified as Majd Barghouti of Ramallah, Fadi Hamadneh of Nablus, Arafat Jaradat of Hebron, Ayman Samara of Jenin, Nawaf Kawazbeh of Bethlehem, Rabi Mahmoud al-Jamal of Hebron and Raed al-Hitleh of Tulkarem.

In another case, Palestinian Authority security officers arrested the journalist Amer Abu Arafeh after raiding his home and confiscating documents, cameras and computers. Abu Arafeh latersaid that he was interrogated about Facebook entries he had posted, in which he had reportedly criticized the Palestinian Authority.

The report about Palestinian Authority human rights violations in Al-Araby Al-Jadeed angered the Palestinian Authority to a point where it felt that closing the newspaper’s Ramallah office was not enough. Last week, the newspaper’s correspondent, Naela Khalil, was detained for interrogation. After protests by her colleagues, the PA agreed to release her on bail.

Journalists Amer Abu Arafeh (left) and Naela Khalil (right) were recently arrested by Palestinian security services for criticizing the leadership of the Palestinian Authority.

The detention of Khalil is seen in the context of the Palestinian Authority’s continued effort to silence and intimidate Palestinian journalists who dare to criticize the Palestinian leadership and its institutions.

The Palestinian Journalists Syndicate and a few human rights groups in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have since condemned the decision to detain Khalil and shut the offices of her newspaper.

However, most Western human rights groups that regularly condemn Israel for its actions against Palestinians have, as usual, so far failed to respond to this latest assault by the Palestinian Authority on public freedoms. It is a punishment for freedom of expression that apparently bothers no one apart from us.

The cases of Al-Araby Al-Jadeed and Naela Khalil, the female journalist detained in Ramallah, show that the Palestinian Authority leadership effectively does not tolerate any form of criticism. Palestinian officials have accused the newspaper and its journalist of “incitement” against the Palestinian Authority. But this is the same Palestinian Authority that has long been engaged in a massive campaign of incitement against Israel, especially during the past few weeks.

The Palestinian Authority clearly wants a media that reports only against Israel. The only incitement permitted is the one directed there. Palestinian journalists who incite against Israel are safe; they do not face any form of harassment by the Palestinian Authority security forces. But once a journalist or a media outlet dares to publish anything that is considered “offensive” against the Palestinian Authority, they quickly find themselves behind bars in Ramallah.

It is forbidden to criticize President Mahmoud Abbas or any of his top officials. It is also forbidden to report about human rights violations and torture in Palestinian Authority prisons.

During the past few years, several Palestinians have been arrested or summoned for interrogation for posting critical remarks about Abbas and other Palestinian officials on Facebook.

But this is not a story that most Western journalists or supposed human rights groups are interested in covering. A story that reflects negatively on the Palestinian Authority or Hamas is not “news that is fit to print.” The Palestinian Authority’s crackdown on the media is not going to attract the attention of the mainstream media in the West because, as noted by the left-wing Associated Press reporter, Matti Friedman, the award-winning journalist Khaled Abu Toameh and a few others, such stories lack an anti-Israel angle. Had Al-Araby Al-Jadeed been shut by Israeli authorities, the story would probably have made it to the front pages of most newspapers in the U.S. and Europe.

As such, the Palestinian Authority and President Abbas have no reason to be worried about the response of the international community to their continued assaults on freedom of expression. They can continue to arrest as many journalists as they like and close newspaper offices without having to worry about a backlash from the media, so-called human rights groups or the international community.

The Palestinian Authority is now demanding international protection for its journalists against Israeli “assaults.” But the real question that the international human rights organizations need to ask the Palestinian Authority when its leaders come calling to complain about Israeli “violations” is:

Who is going to protect Palestinian journalists from the Palestinian Authority and its security forces?

Bassam Tawil is a scholar based in the Middle East

Who Is Betraying the Palestinians?

If the Americans and Europeans continue meddling, the stable but still fragile Palestinian social fabric in the West Bank will tear, and at the first sign of weakness, Hamas and ISIS will rush in — as they have long been planning — to take over.

  •  

  • Every Arab regime has, at one time or another, used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an excuse to oppress its people. Our fellow Muslims have been happy to use us as a pretext: We are waging war because of the Palestinians. We refuse to fight because of the Palestinians. We cannot do what you want because of the Palestinians. At no time did they ever seriously seek to resolve the conflict — nor did they ever want to.

  • The sheikhs who claimed it was forbidden for Muslims to live under the shadow of infidel European Christianity now have to watch as Muslims grovel at Europe’s feet and beg the infidel Christians for a safe haven and shelter from… other Muslims.

According to Islamic sources, one of the signs of yawm al-qiyamah (Judgment Day) and redemption is the appearance of the False Messiah, masih dajjal, sent by Satan in the guise of the True Messiah. He is charismatic and powerful, his skin is the color of bronze, his hair is curly and his eyes flash fire. He pretends to do good deeds, drawing people to him and making them blindly follow him.

According to the tradition, the False Messiah sows disaster around the world, marking the stage before redemption. The Qur’an says, “You may love something that is bad for you and hate something that is good for you,” a convenient way of cajoling people into doing things they might find distasteful, such as blowing themselves up.

When U.S. President Barack Obama began his presidency and bowed down before the Islamists at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, we thought he would bring redemption to the Arab world. But his meddling in the Middle East has led to the final dissolution of most of the Arab states. The United States has muscled through a “nuclear deal” that the Iranians will not sign. How could one even expect Iran to sign anything with a country they call “the Great Satan?” Would you?

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, on June 4, 2009. (Image source: White House)

As an additional advantage, since Iran has not actually signed anything, they cannot be accused of cheating — not that it would matter to them if they were, given their track record of breaking the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The expected infusion of astronomical amounts cash will enable Iran to complete its nuclear weapons program and intercontinental ballistic missiles along with it; arm Hezbollah even more; spread greater terror and further the Shi’ite takeover of the Sunni regions.

The delusions of the Carter administration resulted in the overthrow of Iran’s Shah. This experience should have taught the Americans not to allow the overthrow of Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak. The man was undone by Obama’s comic-book fantasies and unworkable, starry-eyed demands. The rise and survival of Egypt’s current President, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi — despite the attempt of the U.S. administration to reinstate Mohamed Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood’s regime — is only due to the will of Allah.

By withdrawing prematurely from a stable, if imperfect, Iraq, Obama caused much chaos in the Middle East. His wishful thinking and rambling concepts — from America’s great followership to resolving conflicts by surrendering — have stripped America of all deterrence and sucked the Middle East into an ocean of blood. His adolescent worldview, idealizing Islam, is nothing more than nostalgia for the days of his youth. His daydream of a peace-seeking “political Islam,” divorced from violence, has brought the Middle East devastation, wretchedness and death.

As Palestinians, our reactions are sorrow and frustration. We have to tell the truth and say that nothing is left of our dreams that the Arab armies would conquer Israel. Those of us who once thought that Islamist terrorist organizations would save us have now realized that this is not going to happen.

The Arab leaders who used to blame the miseries of our people on Jews and Zionists are now left with nothing but their empty words. Their hearts are full of envy, hatred and frustration as they look at the blossoming of Israel, the land Allah promised the Jews in the Qur’an, a flower in a burning field of weeds.

The Muslim clerics who claimed it was forbidden for Muslims to live under the shadow of infidel European Christianity sent our young people to blow themselves up to kill Jews and Christians, to frighten and conquer Europe. They now have to watch as Muslims grovel at Europe’s feet and beg the infidel Christians for a safe haven and shelter from… other Muslims.

The leaders of the wealthy Arab states are apathetic and have no solution, or even advice, for the millions of Syrian Muslim refugees who have lost their homes and families; yet the European “Crusaders” have opened their gates to thousands of desperate Muslims who reach their shores. There will always be Muslim sheikhs who will claim that the wave of Muslims seeking salvation in Europe will eventually join those mujahidin [jihad warriors] who for years have been organizing in the European ghettos.

The prophecies of the Qur’an are coming to pass: the Noble Qur’an prophesies that the Jews will return to Beit Almakdis (Jerusalem) and the land around it from the four corners of the world to live there, and it gives the Jews the Blessed Land and Jerusalem.

The Iranians promised us they would liberate Al-Aqsa Mosque, but all they really want is to lull us into a false sense of security, then take over the Arabian Peninsula. They have infiltrated and subverted Yemen and Bahrain, and taken control of the Straits of Bab al Mandeb, Hormuz and countries between Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut.

While the Arabs are weak and divided — thanks to America’s policy of divide and conquer — the Iranians keep on getting stronger. In light of the catastrophe Obama has caused the Arab world — with millions of refugees flooding the Middle East and invading Europe from Africa and the Arab countries — the dream of returning to Palestine has vanished.

It has long been obvious that there is no connection whatsoever between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the chaos in the Middle East. Every Arab regime has, at one time or another, used the conflict as an excuse to oppress its people by telling them they were fighting a common enemy. We have been betrayed by them as much as by the Europeans.

Our fellow Muslims have been happy to use us as a pretext, to have something to point at and complain about: We are waging war; it is because of the Palestinians. We refuse to fight; it is because of the Palestinians. We cannot do what you want; it is because of the Palestinians. At no time did they ever seriously seek to resolve the conflict, nor did they ever want to.

The great benefit we have is that the Israelis no longer rule us. We now have an autonomy. If the Americans and Europeans continue meddling and pressuring one side or the other in our conflict with the Israelis, eventually the stable but still fragile Palestinian social fabric in the West Bank will tear, and at the first sign of weakness Hamas and ISIS will rush in — as they have long been planning — to take over.

All we can do is comfort ourselves with the thought that given all the signs, the redemption of the world is coming and the Mahdi everyone is waiting for will soon be here.

Bassam Tawil is a scholar based in the Middle East.

 

Who Do Bigots Blame for Police Shootings in America? Israel, of Course! by Alan M. Dershowitz

In response to the tragic deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling at the hands of police officers in Minnesota and Louisiana, the New York University chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) posted the following on its Facebook page:

 


“In the past 48 hours another two black men have been lynched by the police…. We must remember that many US police departments train with #IsraeliDefenceForces. The same forces behind the genocide of black people in America are behind the genocide of Palestinians. What this means is that Palestinians must stand with our black comrades. We must struggle for their liberation. It is as important as our own. #AltonSterling is as important as #AliDawabsheh. Palestinian liberation and black liberation go together. We must recognize this and commit to building for it.”

Even in moments of national mourning such as these, SJP bigots cannot help but exploit the deaths of innocent Americans to further their own anti-Semitic political agenda, namely to delegitimize and demonize the nation state of the Jewish people.

By implicating Israel in these killings, SJP is engaging in the old trope of blaming Jews for systemic and far-reaching societal problems. This practice was anti-Semitic when some Christian communities used it to blame Jews for plagues, poisonings, and murders; it was anti-Semitic when the Nazis used it to blame Jews for the failing German economy; and it is still anti-Semitic today. There is no more evidence that any of the police who killed Mr. Castile and Mr. Sterling were in fact trained in Israel than there was that Jews were responsible for any of the other crimes that formed the basis for traditional blood libels.

The oppression of black Americans long predates the founding of the state of Israel; contrary to the claims of SJP and like-minded groups, Zionism did not beget racism, nor is Zionism a reflection of racism. It is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. But the twisted logic on the part of SJP should come as no surprise, given that the same organization blamed Zionism for rising tuition costs in the City University of New York college system. The essence of anti-Semitism is the bigoted claim that if there is a problem, then Jews — and now Zionists — must be its cause.

Addressing the structural causes of racism in the United States will take more than scapegoating Israel — it will require the type of far-reaching legislative action of which our current Congress seems incapable. By morphing the discussion about criminal justice reform and systemic racism in the United States into a polemic against Israel, SJP makes progress even more difficult.

That said, the reaction by SJP is reflective of a broader trend in hard left politics. Increasingly, groups such as Black Lives Matter (BLM), MoveOn, Code Pink, and Occupy Wall Street have embraced intersectionality — a radical academic theory, which holds that all forms of social oppression are inexorably linked.

This radical concept has led to the linking of disparate left-wing causes, no matter how tenuous their connections. Some intersectional feminist activists, for example, insist that feminists must oppose drone strikes (and by extension, Hillary Clinton), because they negatively impact women in the developing world. Even more absurdly, Jill Stein — the Green Party candidate for president — has come out in favor of the bigoted Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, partly on the grounds that support for Israel furthers the interests of the military-industrial complex, and by extension the fossil fuel industry.

Those activists that do not sufficiently embrace the new intersectional orthodoxy, meanwhile, have been targeted by protests: the 2016 Gay Pride parade in Toronto, for example, was broken up by Black Lives Matter for including a police float, and for not sufficiently prioritizing the concerns of black trans women. Similarly, a gay rights event in Chicago was broken up by activists, who insisted on the exclusion of an Israeli organization, which they claimed was co-opting the gay rights agenda and “pinkwashing” Israeli crimes against Palestinians.

Intersectionality seems to be driving hard left activists towards a “No True Scotsman” worldview: increasingly, they insist on a package of unrelated left-wing causes that must be embraced by anyone claiming the label of progressive — including the demonization of Israel as a racist, apartheid state.

Perhaps more worryingly, intersectionality tends towards the conclusion that the existing social, political, and economic system is flawed in so many profound ways, that any attempt at remaking it through democratic means is unacceptable. Activists have become increasingly obsessed with “Shut it Down” protest tactics, and a proud politics of “disrespectability,” that prioritizes resistance to a “corrupt,” “rigged” socio-economic system over respectful discourse and political compromise.

This helps to explain the sympathetic attitude of Black Lives Matter activists towards groups like Hamas, which embrace terror as a mode of “resistance” (in their view) against Israel. Indeed, Black Lives Matter activists have visited Gaza to express solidarity with Palestinians oppressed by so-called racist Israeli self-defense measures. While Black Lives Matter claims to disavow violence in securing its political objectives, many of its most prominent members are far more eager to criticize the “Israeli genocide of Palestinians” than to criticize Hamas for using rockets to target Israeli civilians. Black Lives Matter and other hard left groups have been notably silent about other oppressed ethnic groups such as Tibetans, Chechens, and Kurds. The only alleged “oppressors” they single out for condemnation are the Jews. This double standard raises legitimate questions about their real motivations.

Black Lives Matter activists have a sympathetic attitude towards groups like Hamas, which embrace terror as a mode of resistance against Israel. Indeed, BLM activists have visited Gaza to express solidarity with Palestinians oppressed by so-called racist Israeli self-defense measures.

Moreover, the conflation of police actions in American cities with Israeli military actions in Gaza raises a disturbing question: if the so-called oppression of Palestinians in Gaza and the oppression of people of color in the United States are two sides of the same coin — as the SJP implied in its tweet — are the violent tactics employed by Hamas, and perversely supported by many on the hard left, an appropriate model to emulate in the United States? One hopes that the answer is no, and that the intersectionalist radicals will make that clear to their followers.

Professor Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus and author of Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law.

Who Can Believe Mahmoud Abbas? by Bassam Tawil

  • As Hamas’s power increases, the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its security services are gradually losing their control of the West Bank.

  • Both the Israelis and the Palestinians know that if the PA falls, the best case scenario is that Hamas will take over the West Bank. The worst case scenario is a welcome mat for ISIS.

After Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas threatened yet again that he would end security coordination with Israel, not only has he not ended it, but — luckily for him, as it turned out — it is now stronger than ever. The Israelis, it seems, exposed two separate Hamas networks in the West Bank, both of them planning a mass-casualty attack on Israel and the destruction of the rule of Mahmoud Abbas.

Mahmoud Abbas’s other threat, that he will dissolve the Palestinian Authority (PA), and force Israel to fill the resulting vacuum and incorporate its residents and territories into Israel, also turned out to be cow plop.

Both the Israelis and the Palestinians know that if the Palestinian Authority falls, the best case scenario is that Hamas will take over the West Bank, and the worst case scenario is a welcome mat for ISIS. The West Bank will either turn into an Islamic emirate, like the Gaza Strip, or another ISIS province. In both cases, whatever “achievements” the Palestinian Authority has made will be gone forever. The entire Palestinian national consensus government, including Mahmoud Abbas and his cronies, will be executed before the day is out and all the property they have amassed over the years will be distributed as spoils to the victor.

Mahmoud Abbas is fully aware that the last thing the West wants is yet another Islamic emirate. Many inhabitants of the West Bank are also fearful of falling victim to the Islamic religious fanatics who will set them fourteen hundred years back.

Distressingly, as Hamas’s power increases, the Palestinian Authority and its security services are gradually losing their control of the West Bank. In addition, the rumors that Mahmoud Abbas is ailing and on his way out only serve to accelerate the collapse of the PA.

The Israeli government has also been discussing the possibility of the Palestinian Authority’s collapse. We can hardly blame the Israelis for preparing themselves when it is we the Palestinians who are telling them this.

In reality, Mahmoud Abbas has been trying to signal that the rumors of his leaving the political stage (illness and a reported hospitalization in Jordan) and the collapse of the Palestinian Authority were premature. Mahmoud Abbas wants the regional and international media to know he will remain president, and that the PA will remain standing “even if soldiers invade it,” as he said.

According to Mahmoud Abbas, the very fact of the Palestinian Authority’s existence is an achievement for the Palestinian people. It is clear now that the Palestinian threats were baseless. Now even the Israelis don’t have to worry about the empty threats of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who is trying to force the Israelis to give up their security demands. Given the situation, we Palestinians will have to stop telling Israel and the West one thing while we tell each other something else.

The wordplay, sophistry and anti-Israel incitement of Mahmoud Abbas continue, even as we watch Hamas establish hostile cell after hostile cell in the West Bank.

Mahmoud Abbas claimed yet again that security coordination with Israel might end because “we cannot continue to be bound by these agreements … the status quo cannot continue,” but if he makes good on his threats, he will probably be dead or exiled by Hamas within 24 hours. Worse, he is creating a situation in which no one takes either the Palestinians’s threats or their claims of wanting peace seriously.

How can Abbas expect the Israelis or anyone else to take his protestations of peace seriously, when everyone can see what took place Gaza Strip once it was cleared of Israelis? It is a Petri dish for terrorist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, ISIS and now Iran’s Al-Sabireen (“The Patient Ones”).

How can anyone take Abbas’s protestations of peace seriously when he calls the knife-stabbers, shooters and car-rammers “peaceful demonstrators”? He embarrasses us. How can anyone believe a Palestinian leader who gives a speech about peace and praises the Palestinian “martyrs” (killed while trying to murder Jewish grandmothers and storekeepers), sends wishes for a speedy recovery to wounded attackers, and praises and glorifies Palestinian murderers?

Sadly, Mahmoud Abbas is still living in a dream world. He remembers the Arab countries that were unconditionally willing to sign peace treaties with Israel, and the so-called Saudi Initiative. In his bubble, he does not want to know that Israel is now the last thing on their minds. The Arab and Muslim countries, as they have always done, only invoke “the Palestinians” to relieve internal pressure exerted by their civilians. Abbas may not realize that that Syria is, essentially, a thing of the past. He may not see that if Israel had agreed to the Saudi Initiative, ISIS would have taken the Golan Heights and be making its way to both Israel and his West Bank. Saudi Arabia, fighting for its life against the double threat of Iran and plummeting oil prices, does not have time for the Palestinian Authority’s games.

It is time for Abbas to realize that the heads of the EU and the hypocritical European states, such as Sweden and its dupable foreign minister, are fooling him into believing that Israel is about to depart.

Eighty-year-old Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is regularly fêted and flattered by Western leaders such as France’s President François Hollande (left) and top European Union officials like Federica Mogherini and Jean-Claude Juncker (right).

Bassam Tawil is a scholar based in the Middle East.

Which Way Will France Go? by Giulio Meotti

  • After two years and 238 deaths at the hands of Islamic terrorism, what did France do to defeat radical Islam? Almost nothing.

  • If Emmanuel Macron wins, France as we have known it can be considered pretty much over. By blaming “colonialism” for French troubles in the Arab world, and calling it “a crime against humanity”, he has effectively legitimized Muslim extremist violence against the French Republic.
  • In just two years, Muslim organizations in France have dragged to trial great writers such as Georges Bensoussan, Pascal Bruckner, and Renaud Camus. It is the Islamists’ dream coming true: seeing “Islamophobes” on trial to restrict their freedom of expression. Charlie Hebdo’s physical massacre was therefore followed by an intellectual one.

It was a sort of farewell to the army. During a brief visit to the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle last December, French President François Hollande honored the French soldiers involved in “Operation Chammal” against the Islamic State. After two years and 238 deaths at the hands of Islamic terrorism, what did France do to defeat radical Islam? Almost nothing.

It is this legacy of indifference that is at stake in the looming French presidential elections. If Marine Le Pen or François Fillon win, it means that France has rejected this autocratic legacy and wants to try a different, braver way. If Emmanuel Macron wins, France as we have known it can be considered pretty much over. Macron is, for example, against taking away French nationality from jihadists. Terrorism, Islam and security are almost absent from Macron’s vocabulary and platform, and he is in favor of lowering France’s state of emergency. By blaming “colonialism” for French troubles in the Arab world, and calling it “a crime against humanity“, he has effectively legitimized Muslim extremist violence against the French Republic.

As General Vincent Desportes wrote in his new book, La dernière Bataille de France (“The Last Battle of France”):

“President Hollande said on November 15 that it would be ruthless, we were at war … but we do not make war! History shows that in the eternal struggle between the shield and the sword, the sword is still a step forward and winning”.

In the past two years, France only used the shield.

France’s fake war began in Paris with a massacre at the satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo. Twelve cartoonists and policemen were massacred by two brothers who shouted, “We avenged Muhammad, we killed Charlie Hebdo”. After a few days of marches, vigils, candles and collective statements such as “Je Suis Charlie”, half of the French intelligentsia was ready to go and hide underground, protected by the police. These are academics, intellectuals, novelists, journalists. The most famous is Michel Houellebecq, the author of the book Submission. Then there is Éric Zemmour, the author of the book, Suicide Française (“The French Suicide”); then the team of Charlie Hebdo, along with its director, Riss (Laurent Sourisseau); Mohammed Sifaoui, a French-Algerian journalist who wrote Combattre le terrorisme islamiste (“Combating Islamist Terrorism”); Frédéric Haziza, radio journalist and author at the journal, Canard Enchaîné; and Philippe Val, the former director of Charlie Hebdo. The latest to run was the Franco-Algerian journalist Zineb Rhazaoui; surrounded by six policemen, she left Charlie Hebdo after saying that her newspaper had capitulated to terror and refused to run more cartoons of Muhammad.

“Charb? Where is Charb?” were the words that echoed in the offices of Charlie Hebdo on January 7, 2015, the day he and his colleagues were murdered. “Charb” was Stéphane Charbonnier, the editor of the magazine that had published cartoons of Muhammad. Charb was working on a short book, On Blasphemy, Islamophobia and the true enemies of free expression, posthumously published. Charb’s book attacked self-righteous intellectuals, who for years had been claiming that Charlie Hebdo was responsible for its own troubles, a childlike view, popular throughout Europe. It is based on the notion that if everyone would just keep quiet, these problems would not exist. Presumably, therefore, if no one had pointed out the threats of Nazism or Communism, Nazism and Communism would have quietly have vanished of their own accord. Unfortunately, that approach was tried; it did not work. The book also criticized “sectarian activists”, whom he said have been trying “to impose on the judicial authorities the political concept of ‘Islamophobia'”.

As for “the Left”, he wrote: “It is time to end this disgusting paternalism of the intellectual left” — meaning its moral sanctimony. Charb delivered these pages to his publisher on January 5. Two days later he was murdered.

Now, some of these people he was calling out are trying to hide their cowardice by attacking him. In recent weeks, a number of cultural events in France have tried to “deprogram” the public from paying attention this extremely important book. A theatrical adaptation of it, attended by one of the journalists of Charlie Hebdo, Marika Bret, was scheduled to take place at the University of Lille. However, the president of the University, Xavier Vandendriessche, said he feared “excesses” and the “atmosphere”, so he eliminated Charb from the program. Twice. The play’s director, Gérald Dumont, sent a letter to the Minister of Culture, Audrey Azoulay, mentioning “censorship“.

At the same time, Charb’s book also disappeared from two events at a cultural festival in Avignon. “How to reduce the dead to silence“, tweeted Raphaël Glucksmann. “Killed in 2015, banned in 2017“, Bernard-Henri Lévy summed up.

During the past two years, the publishing industry itself has played a central role in censoring and supporting censorship, by censoring itself. The philosopher Michel Onfray refused to release his book, Thinking Islam, in French and it first came out in Italian. The German writer, Hamed Abdel Samad saw his book Der islamische Faschismus: Eine Analyse (“Islamic Fascism: An Analysis”), a bestseller in Germany, censored in French by the publishing house Piranha.

The French courts, meanwhile, revived le délit d’opinion — a penal offense for expressing political opinions, now an “intellectual crime”. It was explained by Véronique Grousset in Le Figaro:

“Insidiously, the law blurred the distinction between the discussion of ideas and the personal attack. Many organizations are struggling to bring their opponents to justice”.

It means that the legal system is hauling writers and journalists to court for expressing specific ideas, in particular criticism of Islam.

In just two years in France, Muslim organizations have dragged to trial great writers such as Georges Bensoussan, Pascal Bruckner, and Renaud Camus. It is the Islamists’ dream coming true: seeing “Islamophobes” on trial to punish their freedom of expression.

Charlie Hebdo’s physical massacre was therefore followed by an intellectual one: today, Charb’s important book cannot find a room in France for a public reading; it should, instead, be protected as a legacy of courage and truth.

Even in French theaters, free speech is being crushed. Films about Islam have been cancelled: “The Apostle” by Carron Director, on Muslim converts to Christianity; “Timbuktu” on the Islamist takeover of Mali, and Nicolas Boukhrief’s “Made in France“, about a jihadist cell. A poster for “Made in France” — a Kalashnikov over the Eiffel Tower — was already in the Paris metro when ISIS went into action on the night of November 13, 2016. Immediately, the film’s release was suspended, with the promise that the film would be back in theaters. “Made in France” is now only available “on-demand”. Another film, “Les Salafistes“, was screened with a notice banning minors. The Interior Ministry called for a total ban.

After the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, the country seemed for a short time to return to normalcy. Meanwhile, thousands of Jews were packing up to leave France. At the request of local Jewish community leaders, the Jewish skullcap disappeared from the streets of Marseille, and in Toulouse, after an Islamic terrorist murdered a Jewish teacher and three children in 2012, 300 Jewish families pack up and left.

In the daily newspaper Le Figaro, Hadrien Desuin, an expert on international relations, compared the last two years to the “phony war” that France did not fight in 1939-40. Paris, while declaring a war against Germany, as it now declares a war against terrorism, simply refused to fight. For a whole year, France, crouching behind a Maginot Line that it foolishly believed was invincible did not fire a single gun against the Germans who were spreading throughout Europe at the time. Similarly, General Vincent Desportes explains in his book The Last Battle of France that Operation Sentinel, in which French soldiers are now deployed in the streets, is a “show”, and that “the Islamic State is not afraid of our aircraft. You have to attack by land, terrorizing. We have the means to do it, but it takes political courage”. According to Desportes, Operation Sentinel “changes nothing“.

France’s never-begun war on terror also collapsed around the three most important measures: removing French citizenship from jihadists, “de-radicalizing” them and closing their salafist mosques.

There are at least 20 among 2,500 famous radical mosques that need to close now. The Territorial Information Center (SCRT) recommended that there are 124 salafist mosques in France that should close. Only Marine Le Pen has demanded that.

Three days after the November 13 Paris massacres, President Hollande announced a constitutional reform that would strip French citizenship from Islamic terrorists. Faced with the impossibility of finding a shared text by both Houses, as well as with the resignation of his Justice Minister Christiane Taubira, Hollande was forced to cancel the move. It means that hundreds of French citizens who went to Syria for jihad can now return to their country of origin and murder more innocent people there.

The Bataclan Theater — the scene of a massacre in which 90 people were murdered and many others wounded on November 13, 2015 — recently reopened with a concert by the performer Sting. His last song was “Inshallah” (Arabic for “If Allah Wills”). That is the state of France’s last two years: starting with “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is the greatest”), chanted by the jihadists who slaughtered 80 people, and ending with a phony invocation to Allah by a British singer. “Inshallah,” said Sting from the stage, “that wonderful word”. “Rebirth at the Bataclan,” the newspaper Libération wrote as its headline.

The director of the Bataclan told Jesse Hughes, the head of American band Eagles of Death Metal: “There are things you cannot forgive.” True. Except that France has forgiven everything. The drawing on the cover of Charlie Hebdo after the massacre a weeping Muhammad saying, “All is forgiven” — was the start of France’s psychological surrender.

Left: The cover of Charlie Hebdo after the massacre of its staff a weeping Muhammad saying, “All is forgiven” — was the start of France’s psychological surrender. Right: When the Bataclan Theater (where 90 people were murdered in November 2015) recently reopened with a concert by the performer Sting, his last song was “Inshallah” (Arabic for “If Allah Wills”).

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

Translate »
Skip to toolbar