Here is Eurabia in action, as Andrew Bostom pointed out to me in an email: European politicians doing the bidding of their Muslim masters. From Arutz Sheva, with thanks to the many who sent this to me:
A former French Prime Minister, and currently a leading member of the European Parliament, has called Great Britain's Balfour Declaration that paved the way for the creation of the State of Israel as a "historic mistake." Michel Rocard, who is said to be in the running for president of the European Parliament for the coming two and a half years as part of a political deal, spoke about Israel in a lecture last week in Alexandria, Egypt. Israel is a "unique and abnormal condition," he said, "because it was created with a promise, and [because] millions of Jews gathered from all around the world, creating an entity that continues to pose a threat to its neighbors until today."
One wonders if Rocard would have the gall to also rebuke the Coptic Christians for resisting persecution from the Egyptians ?
Rocard is doing what Ashwari does so well.
Always tell your audience what they want to hear.
When In Australia receiving a "peace Prize" she told them how the pals longed for "peace" and "Co-existence".
When In Egypt, she talks of the glory of Jihad,hamas and destroying the state of Israel.
You wonder what type of speech Rocard would make in Israel if God forbid he was invited there.
Monsieur Rocard est fatigue. He is tired, tired of having to defend Israel, almost singlehanded, tired that Israel, that "historic mistake," has become so hard for him, M. Rocard, to defend. Oh, what a task, and how difficult those Israelis have made it. And after all he has done for them. The thanklessness! The ingratitude!
The late Indro Montanelli once wrote, in his "Stanza" (or page) in the Corriere della Sera, that the best thing to come out of the twentieth century -- no, he corrected himself on the page, virtually the only good thing -- was the re-establishment of a Jewish commonwealth, entirely through the work of the Jews themselves, in the Land of Israel.
M. Rocard thinks that the Jews should never have been given the right to return to that dusty sliver of western Asia, once divided into several Ottoman vilayets, a place that had become so desolate that the entire population of Western Palestine, in the mid-1800s, could not have exceeded 100,000 (Jerusalem in 1950 had a population of 15,000). He thinks the Balfour Declaration was a "historic mistake" though all the Balfour Declaration did was to give Jews the right to buy land in "Palestine," at whatever price the owners chose to sell, and stood for the principle that a restoration of a Jewish National Home in a place of such desolation and run, when the Arabs were receiving so many millions of square miles and at least one -- no, two -- no, four -- no, well, a number of states, now totalling twenty-two members of the Arab League, in which no non-Muslim or non-Arab minority enjoys equality (not the Copts in Egypt, not the Kurds in Iraq or Syria, not the Berbers in Algeria or Morocco, not the blacks in the Sudan).
M. Rocard est fatigue. Israel was built on a "promise." No, it wasn't. Israel was built by the Jews who, beginning in the 19th century, came to the country, bought land from private landowners or from the Ottoman government, or from various institutions, and began to reclaim it. It required over many decades hard work to reclaim the land which had fallen into ruin, land which, under the Jews, had once flourished. According to Walter Clay Lowdermilk, the great agronomist out of Liberty, North Carolina, what the Jewish settlers, who -- let it be repeated -- paid for every single dunam of land that they acquired before the Arab attack on the nascent state of Israel in 1948 -- managed to do was possibly the greatest national feat of soil reclamation, by a small people, in the long history of humanity.
M. Rocard was wrong. A promise was made by the Balfour Declaration, but that promise was not kept. The solemn commitments undertaken by Great Britain as the Mandatory Power were violated, again and again. First, Jewish rights to settle in all of Eastern Palestine was simply eliminated, in a high-handed act of Realpolitik which created, out of Eastern Palestine (and over the furious objections of the entirely non-Jewish Mandates Commission of the League of Nations) the Emirate of Transjordan -- by way of a little consolaton prize to the Emir Abdullah, older brother of the Feisal who, at the same time, was being put on the throne of Iraq. Nor did Great Britain, as Mandatory Poweer, do anyting to "encourage close Jewish settlement on the land" as it was required, by the very terms of the Mandate. Instead, the British put obstacle after obstacle in the way of such immigration, and in the Mandatory period, amazingly, more Arabs than Jews managed to settle in Mandatory Palestine. The British did little to protect the Jews from constant acts of terrorism and pillege by the Arabs (perhaps most notably during the Jerusalem attacks in 1921, and then massacre of all the Jews of Hebron in 1929). Far from encouraging settlement of Jews, the Colonial Secretary Macdonald insisted, in 1939, at the moment of greatest peril for the Jews of Europe, that their numbers be limited to 15,000 a year, for five years, after which all such immigration to Mandatory Palestine would, he said, be subject to Arab veto.
M. Rocard is over 70. This means he is hold enough, has had time enough, to learn the history of Mandatory Palestine. Has be bothered? Or is he satisfied with the vilification of Israel, and the utter inattention to history, even recent history, that now characterizes almost every story appearing in France, or indeed in Western Europe, about the Middle East, and in particular about the classic Arab Jihad against Israel?
M. Rocard est fatigue. He is tired of Israel, that "historic mistake," with its "unique and abnormal condition." Yes, it is abnormal for a small people, a remnant of the most persecuted tribe in human history, whose tragedy was to have appeared first with monotheism, and then to suffer, in quite varying ways, from this fact -- for the quest for market share, by other religions, led not to gratitude but to a rivalry, and attempts to denigrate, that went far beyond the bad things that Microsoft at one time felt it had to say about Apple. And it is "unique" for such an old-new country to have rescued, and then absorbed, so many people, from so many countries, speaking so many languages, and in such desperate condition (German, Polish, Hungarian, Czech, French, Dutch, Slovak, Serbo-Croatian, Rumanian, Arabic, Kurdish)in so short a time, and to keep rescuing, and keep absorbing, at short intervals, large numbers of other Jewish refugees, from still other countries, speaking still other languages (Russian, Amharic, Farsi). The real tale used to be told -- a fantastic tale, actually. But in the last several decades, that real tale has simply been overlooked, and the steady vilification of Israel has accompanied the rewriting, or overlooking, of history, as the useful -- to the Jihad -- fiction of a "Palestinian people" was created, and the Jihad to eliminate outright, or by degrees, the Infidel state of Israel from the midst of dar al-Islam, a goal that is essential to the most essential, and immutable, and uncompromising of the central tenets of the belief-system of Islam.
M. Rocard may think of himself as one who always considered himself a "friend of Israel." Well, he never was. He may think because he is not -- in his own view -- an antisemite, that that absolves him of all other responsibilites. He may feel he knows quite enough about the MIddle East -- I mean, he does read Le Monde, and watch Canal Cinq, doesn't he? And isn't that enough? They surely keep him well-informed. He doesn't have to go back, and refresh his memory, about what happened in 1880, or 1920, or 1940, or during the wars of 1948 and 1956 and 1967, and all the terrorist acts that went on between those open wars, does he? No, he is not an antisemite, but a "friend of Israel" (if he does say so himself) so why should he have to bother with studying history?
And of course, the same goes for the tenets of Islam. Why should he have to learn about Islam? What does Islam have to do with Israel or the "legitimiate rights of the Palestinian people"? What does Islam have to do with it -- I mean, except for a handful of extremists who have attempted to hijack that great religion? Isn't Hanan Ashrawi a Christian? And Arafat's wife? And Naim Ateek? And surely Christians can't be accused of pushing a Muslim aenda, can they? Why would a Christian Arab want to promote a purely Muslim goal? Would that make any sense?
M. Rocard est fatigue. Israel is a historic mistake. Had it not been, isn't it obvious that had there been no Mandatory Palestine, all those Jews who did, from 1920 to 1940, manage to make it there would have found some other refuge from the Nazis -- I mean, there were so many possiblities, the choices were bewildering. And after the war, when the survivors appeared from the camps, and from the woods, and from hidign places, well -- no, they wouldn't have Mandatory Palestine to go to, but of course the Germans would have taken them back. And all the other countries would have given them back their houses, and their businesses. France would have been first on the list -- all those apartments in Paris -- you know the ones that the French authorities like to give out to their friends, the ones that used to be owned by Jews -- well, they would have been given over for the use of Jewish refugees in a New York minute. Generous, warm-heated France, which never forgets its responsibilities, which always knows how to act.
And all those Jews who went to Israel? Without that "historic mistake" those 900,000 Jews from Arab countries, in some cases living in the most primitive conditions, and then later those million Jews from Russia, who came with nothing, and those Ethiopian Jews, and those Jews who fled from Khomeini, and then those who fled from the Argentinian military -- for the Jews seem to be the pereniial canaries in every coal mine of despotism and murder -- well, just because they didn't have a "historic mistake" to flee too doesn't mean that they would not have been welcomed, with open arms, by France and all the countries just like France. Had France not proved itself, again and again, to be the welcoming land for Jewish refugees? Would there be any limit on French benevolance? It would be mean-minded, it would be unfair, it would be so cruel to doubt it. The Jews didn't need Israel. There were so many other places for them to go.
yes it is a case of le grand malaise des vieux Francais.
The doctrine of the french left- steeped in post colonoal guilt for its ravages in the sub mediterranean lands and couplked with its greed for arab oil which has created the doctrine of the left in France and its governmental support.
Together with post war gaullist hatred of anything from the inferior culture of the Americas france has eagerly embrased its new arqabian relationships.
The uniting forces of this doctrine is the permanent hatred of israel and Zionism, which acts like a jisya towards their arabic friends.
Once again the Jews accused for mearly two millenia of deicide and condemned to wandering the earth with no right of a homeland are the targets for appeasement and continued oil supplies. not satisfied with shipping them via Drancy to their deaths in poland and shouting jews to israel, they now shout "Jews out of Israel"
Little understanding that, of all the minority religions that have been wiped off the face of the middle east, Israel is "the last man standing", they continue their tirades steeped in cowardice and appeasement.
Napoleon must indeed be turning in his coffin at les Invalides!
La politique française qui a embrasse le rapprochement au pays arabes et le distancement de l’Amérique est en effet une politique de suicide de la culture française.
In the 1930s, the antisemites' cry was : "Jews go to Palestine"; nowadays it's: "Jews out of Palestine".
So - don't be here, don't be there, don't be ANYWHERE; don't BE at all!
yes HG
france has indeed made a smooth transition from Antisemeism to Anti Zionism. For a short while there was left wing support for the socailist kibbutsim and their plight of self defence.
In the end Israel had to sieze a frigate from a french port, which jad been fully paid for under legal contract, when they refused to hand it over.
How they must have felt the the hummiliation of being outwitted by "Ces Juifs maudits, du petit pays de merde".
Much as i admire the culture of France i feel little grief at the thought of its ultimate fate.
But of course the French are not the french government,
During WW2 how many did in fact defy the Vichy goverment and save Jews from deportation.
how many catholic priests defied the Vatican and PXII and protected jews by pre4senting them as catholic members of their Parishes?
In this sense their is some truth to the notion that many french people have been betrayed by their governments and intellectuals.