RUTHFULLY YOURS

Over the past year and a half France has been hit by a wave of terror attacks. The worst have been the January 2015 attacks at the Charlie Hebdo office and the Hyper Cacher market in Paris, which killed 20, and the concerted November 14-15, 2015, attacks in Paris that killed 130.

And on May 19, 2016, EgyptAir Flight 804 left Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris and ended up crashing into the Mediterranean, killing 66, in what is seen as a terror attack.

Meanwhile France has been suffering record unemployment and severe domestic unrest.

Amid these grave problems, however, on Friday, June 3, France saw fit to convene a conference of 29 foreign ministers (including Secretary of State John Kerry) in Paris to deal with that old, invincible focus of attention: Israeli-Palestinian peace, or the lack of it.

This gathering came only a week after a governmental shakeup in Israel that saw Avigdor Lieberman replace Moshe Yaalon as defense minister. With Lieberman’s five-man faction joining the governing coalition, it now numbers a more workable 66 Knesset members instead of the previous paper-thin 61.

The Washington Post, in an editorial that came out before the Paris conference, used this sequence of events to do some vintage Israel-bashing.

The Post called Lieberman “a hard-line nationalist with an abysmal international reputation,” blamed Netanyahu for failing to add the left-of-center Labor Party to his coalition instead of Lieberman’s right-of-center faction, and called on Netanyahu to prove his peace credentials by implementing a “partial settlement freeze.”

From the June 13, 2016, issue of NR
For at least a quarter of a century, there was no greater bore in British politics than the Eurobore, who warned against Britain’s loss of sovereignty to Brussels. From the moment the House of Commons narrowly passed the Maastricht Treaty in the early 1990s, turning the European Economic Community into the European Union, the species could be sighted around Westminster. But its natural habitat became sparsely populated meetings of the already converted. Occasionally an overreach by Brussels would find the Eurobore staring into the bright lights of the nation’s broadcast media, there to answer a few hostile questions while demonstrating an unappetizing combination of monomania and over-fondness for detail. But for at least a generation, people said to be “banging on about Europe” suffered from the political equivalent of halitosis.

And then things began to change. Of course, nobody wanted to credit the fact, but over the course of recent years the wilderness dwellers began to assume the mantle of prophets. The backbenchers in Westminster and the MEP (Members of the European Parliament) flotsam in Brussels who had kept a flame of British independence alive became politically palatable again. Their knowledge of the minutiae of EU laws and regulations proved useful. Soon bigger political beasts found the courage once again to join this renegade band. Today, with a vote on Britain’s remaining in or leaving the EU taking place on June 23, Britain’s Euroskeptics are not just back in the mainstream but at the helm of the most important decision facing the country in decades. Indeed, they may soon be running the country. With the polls currently showing “Remain” and “Leave” tied, an entire political establishment is now angrily trying to work out why Leave is doing so well. Why has wheeling out every other expert and authority in the land not browbeat the British people into overwhelmingly voting Remain? Why, indeed, does it seem to be pushing them the other way? Sad to say, the explanation is the facts — and two very large facts in particular, both of which have long been visible from Britain, even if not from Brussels.

The first is the legacy of the endless euro-zone crises. For years, British Euroskeptics argued that currency union, or the euro, could not possibly work unless the countries that participated in it gave up all remaining sovereignty. How, they asked, could Greece and Germany share a currency if they did not share fiscal habits and constraints? How the Europhiles scoffed at this! From different political sides, the former deputy prime minister Michael Heseltine and the über-Blairite Peter Mandelson pooh-poohed all such complaints. Indeed, these grandees insisted that Britain would regret not joining the euro zone. Such men may still pretend to sail on as though nothing ever ruffled this core argument, but for seven years the nightly news has torn it to shreds.

The euro-zone crises that have battered the Continent since 2009 vindicated every British Euroskeptic fear. As one southern European country after another found itself unable to refinance its debts, the euro zone became a raft of the Medusa. In an effort to impose fiscal restraint on the southern European countries, northern European countries, especially Germany, not only imposed further financial rules on their neighbors but ousted their elected leaders, imposing bureaucrats to run things on Brussels’s behalf. Even now, youth unemployment in these countries sits between 25 and 50 percent, blighting an entire generation.

The National Front party has accused Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo of putting the concerns of migrants ahead of those of French citizens. In a statement, the party said that the number of homeless people in Paris had increased by 84% between 2002 and 2012, but that Hidalgo has shown little interest in alleviating the problem.

Although the EU-Turkey migrant deal has temporarily stemmed the flow of illegal migration to Greece through Turkey, hundreds of thousands of migrants are still making their way into Europe.

According to the International Organization for Migration, more than 204,000 migrants arrived in Europe (mostly Greece and Italy) during the first five months of 2016, more than twice as many as arrived during the same period in 2015.

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo has announced plans to build a “humanitarian camp” next to one of the busiest train stations in the city, so that thousands of illegal migrants bound for Britain can “live with dignity.”

Hidalgo, who has often sparred with French President François Hollande for his refusal to accept more migrants, says her plan to help illegal migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East is a “duty of humanism.”

Critics counter that Hidalgo’s plan is a cynical ploy aimed at positioning herself to the left of the current president, as part of a political strategy to wrest leadership of the Socialist Party from Hollande, whose approval ratings are at record lows.

At a press conference on May 31, Hidalgo said the camp would be built in northern Paris “near the arrival points for migrants.” She was referring to Gare du Nord — one of the busiest railway stations in Europe — from where high-speed Eurostar trains travel to and arrive from London.

In 2014, one Yeni Akit columnist wrote that a “Gaza fund contribution tax” should apply to Turkish Jews, as well as foreign Jews doing business in Turkey, Turkish nationals with commercial ties to Israel, and any business that maintains a partnership with a Turkish Jew. The penalty for failing to pay the tax should be the revocation of the Jew’s business license and the seizure of his property.

It was not even considered shocking when the Turkish man who shot at the journalist Can Dundar outside a courthouse said in his testimony, “I was deeply annoyed by his news reporting … I knew he had been to Britain for a while… I thought he was a British spy…”

The Western euphemism for Turkey’s supposedly mild, “post-modern” Islamists, who came to power in 2002, was problematic from the beginning. The past five years has seen the Turkish “post-modern” Islamist’s sad funeral — sad because they, in reality, never lived in this universe. They were the brainchild of the optimists sipping their coffee at a Washington café, or a London pub or a Berlin beer house. Now there is just the official funeral service with an empty coffin: there was, in fact, no such a thing as “post-modern” Islamism.

Political Islam, when it wins popular support, tends to adopt direction of the majority rather than the pluralistic route [see Turkey and Egypt]; and when mixed with cultural and religious nationalism in the Orient, it often adopts not just the direction of the majority but also a few militant turns [see Hamas].

It was not even considered shocking when the Turkish man who shot at the journalist Can Dundar outside a courthouse said in his testimony, “I was deeply annoyed by his [Dundar’s] news reporting … I knew he had been to Britain for a while… I thought he was a British spy… I planned this [shooting] in order to teach him a lesson.”

Why did the man think that a Turkish journalist, declared an undesirable by the country’s president, was a British spy? Was it actually because Dundar had been to Britain, like thousands of other Turks do every year? Hardly. It was because the president of the country had loudly labelled him a spy, a traitor, a terrorist — even without a court verdict. Dundar was eventually acquitted of the charges.