Saturday, December 21, 2019

Why American Jews Slander President Trump - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

Why the American Jewish establishment desperately needs Trump to be an anti-Semite.

The past week clarified a lot of things about the state of the American Jewish community—and its antagonists.

The two assailants who walked into the kosher supermarket in Jersey City on Tuesday and opened fire intentionally targeted Jews. The killers belonged to the black supremacist, virulently anti-Semitic “Black Hebrew Israelite” movement which claims its members are the true children of Israel and the Jews are satanic imposters.

The shooting in Jersey City marked a predictable escalation of the anti-Semitic attacks being carried out against Orthodox Jews in the New York area. The focal points of the attacks to date have been the ultra-Orthodox communities in Brooklyn. Over the past two years, the frequency of assaults has increased sharply. Most have been perpetrated by black anti-Semites. None have been carried out by white supremacist anti-Semites.

This is an important distinction because progressive politicians like New York Mayor Bill De Blasio and Sen. Bernie Sanders routinely present the anti-Semitic violence in Brooklyn as the product of white supremacists.

And while it is true that to date, white supremacist anti-Semitism has been the most lethal form of anti-Semitism in America, from a political and social perspective it poses a smaller danger to Jewish life in America than the three other forms of active anti-Semitism in America today: Progressive/socialist anti-Semitism, Islamist anti-Semitism and black anti-Semitism.

These forms of Jew-hatred pose a greater threat to Jewish life in America than white nationalist anti-Semitism for two reasons. First, whereas white supremacists are political orphans, with no political party willing to embrace them, progressive, Islamist and black anti-Semites are deeply embedded in the political left. Over the past 15 years, they have become powerful actors in the Democratic Party capable of bending the party to their will.

The second reason they pose a greater danger to Jewish life in America than white nationalists is because while socialist, Islamist and black anti-Semites will not cooperate with white supremacist anti-Semites, they are more than happy to work with one another to achieve their common goals. They cover for one another—as Sanders and De Blasio cover for the black anti-Semites in Brooklyn. They support one another, as both men embrace Islamist anti-Semite Linda Sarsour. On Thursday, Rep. Rashida Tlaib claimed that white supremacists were responsible for the attack in Jersey City.

The place where the three types of anti-Semites converge most powerfully and so present the greatest threat to Jewish life in America is on college campuses. On campuses throughout the United States, Jewish Americans are compelled to keep their heads down or face abuse and harassment due to their common efforts to ostracize Jewish students and professors who fail to actively condemn Israel.

The most direct way to handle the problem is by applying the protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to Jews. Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of color, race and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.

Over the past several years, Congress made several attempts to amend Title VI to include anti-Jewish discrimination. These efforts enjoyed broad bipartisan support. But they were all blocked by members of the progressive camp inside the Democratic congressional caucus. Like the anti-Semitic boycott activists ostracizing Jews on campuses, the progressive lawmakers claimed that expansion of the protections of Title VI to include anti-Jewish discrimination would undermine the free speech rights of anti-Israel activists on campuses. That is, they said the rights of anti-Semites to preach anti-Semitism superseded the rights of Jewish students not to be harassed.

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump put an end to this madness by signing an executive order requiring federal agencies dealing with allegations of anti-Semitism on campuses to consider the complaints in light of the “working definition of anti-Semitism … by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.”

The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism was adopted by several governments and the U.S. State Department. It provides examples of manifestations of anti-Semitic behavior including “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor; applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation; using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism … to characterize Israel or Israelis; drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis;” and “holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of Israel.”

These are, of course, the standard practices of anti-Semites on college campuses and beyond. So by ordering the federal government to use the IHRA definition as its framework for determining the validity of Title VI complaints of anti-Semitic discrimination on campus, Trump provided Jews with the means they have lacked to defend themselves from that discrimination. He also carved a path to expose and fight the fastest growing and most politically and socially potent anti-Semitic forces in America.

Rather than report what he did, The New York Times seemingly deliberately mischaracterized Trump’s actions.

In its Twitter feed, the Times reported Trump’s action thus: “President Trump will sign an executive order defining Judaism as a nationality, not just a religion, thus bolstering the Education Department’s efforts to stamp out ‘Boycott Israel’ movements on college campuses.”

This tweet was so off-base that it is impossible to view it as a mere misunderstanding by the paper of record for the liberal establishment. The assertion that Trump’s move “defined Judaism” smacks of cultural appropriation, and as such, it makes Trump’s decision sound like an act of aggression against Jews.

By falsely claiming Trump defined Judaism as a nationality, the Times made it sound like Trump was saying that Jews aren’t American nationals.

And by writing the purpose of the effort was to “stamp out ‘Boycott Israel’ movements on college campuses,” rather than protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment, the Times made the order seem like a political ploy rather than a civil rights action long supported by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Liberal Jews pounced on the message and ran with it. Halie Soifer, the executive director of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, accused Trump of being “partially responsible” for the rise of anti-Semitism in America.

“If President Trump truly wanted to combat anti-Semitism,” she said, “he would accept responsibility for his role in perpetuating anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and emboldening white nationalism.”

“We said it before and we’ll say it again—Donald Trump is the biggest threat to American Jews,” she added.

J Street’s executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami echoed the criticism of BDS advocates in Congress and on campuses by claiming that the executive order harms the free speech rights of anti-Israel activists. In his words, “The executive order, like the stalled congressional legislation it is based on, appears designed less to combat anti-Semitism than to have a chilling effect on free speech and to crack down on campus critics of Israel.”

Undoubtedly, Soifer and Ben-Ami were directing their statements towards the “apolitical” Jewish establishment in the hopes of mobilizing it against the pro-Jewish executive order.

In the event, they failed. The Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee both applauded Trump’s executive order. But Soifer and Ben-Ami had grounds to think the ADL and AJC would join them in characterizing Trump’s friendliness and support for Jewish people as anti-Semitism. Earlier this week, they did.

Last Saturday night, Trump delivered the keynote address at the Israeli-American Council’s annual conference in Miami. Trump’s hour-long event was a love fest. Trump exuded warmth and respect towards his audience and towards Israel and they returned the sentiment.

He promised to fight anti-Semitism in America with the same energy with which he defends Israel and brought people onto the stage to outline the work the administration has done to combat anti-Jewish bigotry in America and throughout the world.

Yet, immediately after Trump completed his remarks, the floodgates of hatred opened upon him from the Jewish establishment. Everyone from Soifer to Jennifer Rubin from The Washington Post and Paul Krugman from the Times accused Trump of delivering an anti-Semitic rant. The ADL and AJC joined the band and tweeted angry denunciations.

What was it that Trump said that made them so angry?

Trump said, “A lot of you are in the real estate business, because I know you very well. You’re brutal killers. [Laughter] Not nice people at all. But you have to vote for me; you have no choice. You’re not going to vote for Pocahontas [Sen. Elizabeth Warren], I can tell you that. [Laughter and applause.] You’re not going to vote for the wealth tax. ‘Yeah, let’s take 100 percent of your wealth away.’ No, no. Even if you don’t like me; some of you don’t. Some of you I don’t like at all, actually. [Laughter.] And you’re going to be my biggest supporters because you’ll be out of business in about 15 minutes, if they [the Democrats] get it.”

The royal host of the American Jewish establishment hissed that in speaking thus, Trump reinforced the anti-Semitic stereotype that Jews love money.

Such twaddle.

As he said, Trump was addressing his fellow real estate developers in the crowd. He was talking to them as his competitors, not as his enemies. When he said, “You’re brutal killers,” he was paying them a compliment. They understood, which is why they laughed.

Trump’s claim that they would vote for him even if they didn’t like him because they feared the Democrats’ confiscatory tax policies is his standard line on Democratic tax policy. He says it to everyone, not just to Jews. The audience knew this too—which is why they laughed and applauded.

The Jewish establishment types joined the bandwagon and agreed Trump’s playful, friendly statement was anti-Semitic because they want to believe Trump is an anti-Semite. If Trump is an anti-Semite then it’s reasonable for them to remain loyal to the Democratic Party, which is leaping towards the anti-Semitic cliff that Britain’s Labour Party jumped off when it elected Jeremy Corbyn its leader.

In other words, they slander Trump as an anti-Semite because they prefer their partisan interests to the interests of the Jewish community in America and the Jewish people throughout the world.

Luckily, as Trump’s consistent record of support for Israel and the Jews in America and worldwide and as his warmth for Jewish people makes clear, the president doesn’t have an anti-Semitic bone in his body. And he won’t become an anti-Semite no matter how poorly the American Jewish establishment treats him.

Trump’s Jewish critics said he was trafficking in anti-Semitic “tropes” when he told the IAC that in the United States “you have people that are Jewish people, that are great people—they don’t love Israel enough.” But he was doing no such thing. He was telling the truth. Those Jewish people love neither Israel nor the children of Israel, the Jewish nation, enough.

Thankfully, President Trump loves the Jews and Israel so much that he makes up for them. 

Caroline Glick


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

ICC's investigation spurred by Netanyahu's annexation promise - Sara Rubenstein

by Sara Rubenstein

ICC prosecutor cites Netanyahu's pre-election promise to annex 'large parts of the West Bank' as one of the factors for investigation.

Netanyahu                                                                                                                                                             Flash 90

Senior Israeli political commentator Barak Ravid wrote on Twitter on Saturday night that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's pre-election annexation promise was one of the factors for the International Criminal Court's (ICC) investigation against Israel.

"Netanyahu's annexation announcements before the September elections were mentioned in the ICC prosecutor's decision as one of the causes for an investigation against Israel" Ravid wrote.

"Here is what the prosecutor wrote in article 177: 'Despite the clear and enduring calls that Israel cease activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory deemed contrary to international law, there is no indication that they will end. To the contrary, there are indications that they may not only continue but that Israel may seek to annex these territories. Numerous reports reflect concerns of a potential de jure annexation. In August and September 2019, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to annex large parts of the West Bank if re-elected.'"

The International Criminal Court's (ICC) chief prosecutor announced on Friday she wants to open a full investigation into alleged Israeli "war crimes" in Palestinian Authority (PA)-controlled territories.

"I am satisfied that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation into the situation in Palestine," ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda said in a statement quoted by AFP.

"In brief, I am satisfied that war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip," she added, without specifying the perpetrators of the alleged crimes.

Bensouda added that before opening a full probe, she would ask the ICC to rule on the territory over which it has jurisdiction because of the "unique and highly contested legal and factual issues attaching to this situation."

"Specifically, I have sought confirmation that the 'territory' over which the Court may exercise its jurisdiction, and which I may subject to investigation, comprises the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza," she said.

Sara Rubenstein


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

News from Berlin, Europe's antisemitism capital - Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld

by Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld

The city where Hitler reigned unopposed is reverting to type and doing what comes naturally.

It is not yet widely known that in recent years Berlin has become the capital of European antisemitism. The anti-Jewish and anti-Israel attitudes in Berlin have many facets. There were 1083 antisemitic incidents in 2018 compared to 951 in 2017. These include tens of cases of physical aggression against Jews. Thirty five percent of Berliners view the behavior of Israel as comparable to that of the Nazis.  

Various Jewish students were constrained to leave public schools. Aaron Eckstadt, the director of the Jewish Moses Mendelsohn gymnasium in Berlin, has said that every two weeks a new student comes to Moses Mendelsohn because they are fleeing from their present school. They are fed up with the mobbing, the threats and the daily antisemitism there. He added that according to his information the perpetrators are mainly Muslim pupils. Germany’s Justice Minister Christine Lambrecht (SPD) visited the gymnasium in October 2019. She said that the police and justice employees must be sensitized to recognize antisemitic motifs. One wonders why that had not occurred in previous years. 

The Al-Quds march, which calls for the destruction of Israel, takes place yearly in Berlin. Hezbollah, the Lebanese organization classified by the US as a terrorist entity, is not only active in Berlin but also in other parts of Germany. The intelligence agency for the city of Hamburg has reported that 30 mosques and cultural centers in Germany have ties to Hezbollah or its ideology. Germany maintains an artificial separation between the military arm of this terrorist organization, which it outlaws, while the political arm which propagates its ideas in the country, is allowed to recruit members, collect money and funnel it to Beirut.

Each month brings additional scandals. In December 2019 a conference of Hamas supporters took place in Germany’s capital, that very same city where Hitler and his associates planned the genocide against the Jews. The conference was called “The Palestinians in Europe and in the UNWRA.”  Its organizers have in the past been linked by German intelligence services to Hamas. The city of Berlin, governed by an alliance of left-wing parties, allowed the event to take place. US Ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell tweeted: “Hamas is a terrorist organization and should not be welcome in Berlin.” 
On October 3rd, about 1000 people marched in Berlin under the motto “We for Germany.” The Jewish Forum for Democracy and Antisemitism (JFDA) published a video which showed this to be a march of neo-Nazis. One man shouted: "Never again Israel." There were also calls for a thousand year battle in reference to the thousand years that Hitler's Third Reich was supposed to exist.

In September, a 23 year old Syrian man armed with a knife stormed the guard at Berlin's largest synagogue on Oranienburger street. According to witnesses he shouted "Alla Akbar and F**k Israel." The attacker has since been released and his whereabouts are unknown. 

In October, a 70 year old man was beaten in Berlin. The attack started with a verbal assault featuring antisemitic insults. It was unclear whether the victim was Jewish.

The rabbi of the Berlin Jewish community, Yehuda Teichtal, was attacked in July.  In October, the prosecution halted its investigations. Teichtal criticized the decision of the authorities. He said: "Four people were witnesses to the attack. They know who the perpetrator is. Yet they refuse to make a statement." Teichtal said that a successful investigation could have given people confidence in the justice authorities.  He concluded: "The damage is enormous." It should be said here that this development is typical for the left-liberal mood which dominates Germany. The country’s army is in poor shape, the justice department is weak and the police are heavily understaffed. 

On November 9, on the occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall, a show took place at the Brandenburg gate. It was broadcast live by German public television, ZDF. During that show, which was aired on the date coinciding with the anniversary of Kristallnacht 1938, a slogan in Hebrew letters was projected stating “against the occupation.” The organizers apologized. Their representative told the Israeli Ambassador to Germany that he was unaware what it signified. This was yet another facet of antisemitism in Berlin. 

An exhibition about the Jewish Mendelsohn family in a chapel at a cemetery in the Kreuzberg neighborhood of Berlin was vandalized in November. There were swastikas as well as symbols from the left-wing extremist scene. The exhibition was held near the graves of the Mendelsohn family.

The problems come from many directions, including once unimaginable events: 
The Artists Collective Center for Political Beauty (ZPS) installed an exhibit in December that included a steel pillar, which contained remnants of Jews murdered during the Holocaust. The installation of the pillar was approved by the authorities. After huge protests, the group closed the exhibition. It issued an apology to Holocaust survivors and other Nazi victims.

Socialist mayor, Michael Muller, has condemned BDS.  On the other hand, he hosted the Mayor of Teheran, Pirouz Hanachai, in December. This is but one example of the widespread local and national ambivalence, which has made it possible for Berlin to become Europe’s antisemitism capital.  

Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld has been a long-term adviser on strategy issues to the boards of several major multinational corporations in Europe and North America.He is board member and former chairman of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and recipient of the LIfetime Achievement Award (2012) of the Journal for the Study of Anti-Semitism.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

How FDR turned away Jewish students escaping from Europe - Dr. Rafael Medoff

by Dr. Rafael Medoff

How's this for Kafka: If a student trying to flee Europe was unable to prove he could leave the US and retunr to his homeland after his studies, he was denied a visa.

A recent New York Times article told the poignant story of an unlikely romance between two prisoners in Auschwitz.  

Buried deep within the full-page feature about the relationship between David Wisnia and Helen Spitzer, however, was a heartbreaking fact whose significance most readers may not have recognized. 

It turns out that all the years of starvation, beatings, and torture Wisnia endured at the hands of the Nazis could have been avoided, if not for the Roosevelt administration’s harsh policy towards Jewish refugee students seeking admission to the United States.

Wisnia was an exceptionally talented singer. “Before the war, he’d written a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt requesting a visa so he could study music in America,” the Times noted. “His mother’s two sisters had emigrated to the Bronx in the 1930s, and he’d memorized their address.”

American immigration policy during those years was governed by a strict quota system, based on national origins. But the law contained three major exceptions: clergy, professors, and students could be admitted outside the quota restrictions.

To qualify for a student visa, an applicant needed to show a letter of acceptance from an accredited American school. It may be that Wisnia had not yet been accepted, and therefore technically didn’t qualify for a student visa. But that was part of the problem: U.S. consular officials in Europe, acting in accordance with President Roosevelt’s policy, looked for every possible reason to keep refugees out. Had they been inclined toward kindness, instead of coldheartedness, they could have chosen to grant Wisnia a regular visa on the grounds that he had close family members—two aunts—already living in the United States.

Wisnia was a Polish citizen. From 1933 to 1945, the quota for Polish immigrants to the United States was never filled, and in most of those years it was more than 70% unfilled. Tens of thousands of unused visas for would-be Polish Jewish immigrants were thrown into the waste basket, alongside David Wisnia’s letter pleading to be let in.

What makes this story even more tragic is that many Jewish refugee students who did have letters of acceptance from American schools were kept out of the country, anyway.

Prof. Bat-Ami Zucker (Bar-Ilan University) has found multiple instances in which European Jewish students were denied visas even though they had been admitted to Dropsie College, in Philadelphia, or the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, in New York City. 

An official at the U.S. consul in Berlin said the visas were rejected because in each case, the student was “a potential refugee from Germany” and therefore was “unable to submit proof that he will be in a position to leave the United States upon the completion of his schooling.”

Similarly, Prof. Stephen Norwood (University of Oklahoma) has described a case in which a European Jewish refugee student who was admitted to Bryn Mawr College was denied a visa “because she could not meet the requirement of identifying a permanent residence to which she could return after completing her studies.” Bryn Mawr’s president learned that the American Friends Service Committee, which assisted refugees, knew of another fifty instances in which European students who had been admitted to U.S. colleges—and offered scholarships—were denied visas for that reason.

It was a Catch-22. These Jewish students were seeking to study in American schools precisely because the Nazis prevented them from studying in German universities. Now the Roosevelt administration was telling them they could not enter the United States—and therefore would have to remain in the country where they were being persecuted—because they could not guarantee they would return to the country where they were being persecuted!

Prof. Zucker points out, however, that the immigration regulations “did not require that an applicant for a student visa prove that he would be able to return to Germany….The regulations required only an affidavit stating his intention to return to Germany.” 

This was, in other words, yet another example of the numerous extra requirements and obstacles imposed by Roosevelt administration officials in order to suppress Jewish refugee immigration below the levels permitted by law.

A handful of refugee students did manage to reach America’s shores during the Nazi era. Several dozen studied at Yeshiva University. Twenty were admitted to Harvard (although for some reason Harvard felt it necessary to announce that “a large number” of them were not Jews). Rutgers University, the New Jersey College for Women, and McPherson College, in Kansas, each took one.

But so many more could have been saved if President Roosevelt and his administration had simply allowed the existing student visa exemption to be fully utilized, instead of going out of their way to keep the Jews out.

First posted on The History Network. 

Dr. Rafael Medoff is founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and author of more than 20 books about the Holocaust, Zionism, and US Jewish history. His latest book, The Jews Should Keep Quiet: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, and the Holocaust was recently published by JPS, U. of Nebraska Press


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Ins and Outs of Delaying a Senate Impeachment Trial - Joseph Klein

by Joseph Klein

What the Dems are up to -- and what the Constitution says about it.

After her Democrat-controlled House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment against President Trump Wednesday night, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she might just wait awhile before sending the articles over to the Senate for trial. “We will make our decision as to when we are going to send it when we see what they are doing on the Senate side,” Speaker Pelosi said. “So far, we have not seen anything that looks fair to us.” The House Democrats want the Senate to call the witnesses who House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler failed to call during their sham hearings. In their rush to impeach, they were too impatient to wait for a court decision compelling the witnesses to testify.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell responded Thursday morning to the House’s impeachment process and the latest delay tactics.  He said that “House Democrats may be too afraid to even transmit their shoddy work product to the Senate.” In a further dig, the Senate Majority Leader added, "Looks like the prosecutors are getting cold feet." He noted that the same Democrats who stressed the urgency of impeaching President Trump immediately now seem "content to sit on their hands."

Senator McConnell excoriated "Speaker Pelosi's House” for conducting “the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history." He charged the Democrats with exhibiting “partisan rage at this particular President,” creating “a toxic new precedent that will echo well into the future."

Speaker Pelosi once again displayed her partisan rage when she went out of her way to personally insult Senator McConnell, calling him a "rogue leader." She continued to insist at a Thursday morning press conference that, before the House moves forward with appointing its prosecution managers, it must first “see the process that is set forth in the Senate.” In other words, the House Democrats want a veto power over the Senate trial process. Like petulant children, they threaten to take their marbles and go home unless they get their way. Speaker Pelosi was testy when pressed by reporters.

The House Democrats most likely got their idea to delay sending their articles of impeachment over to the Senate from Harvard Law School’s Professor of Constitutional Law Laurence H. Tribe. Professor Tribe has been a strong advocate for impeaching President Trump. Nevertheless, in an op-ed column he wrote for the Washington Post, Professor Tribe recommended delay in sending the impeachment articles to the Senate until there is clarification of the Senate trial rules. “This option needs to be taken seriously now that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has announced his intention to conduct not a real trial but a whitewash, letting the president and his legal team call the shots,” Professor Tribe wrote. He then disputed any constitutional objections to such a delay strategy. He opined that “the House, whose historical role is to prosecute articles of impeachment in the Senate after exercising its ‘sole’ power to impeach, is under no affirmative constitutional obligation to do so instantly.”

Professor Tribe’s partisanship has clouded his judgment on the Constitution’s delegation of impeachment and trial powers to the House of Representatives and the Senate respectively. So, let’s educate him on some elementary points.

Article I, Section 2 does indeed say that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” The House exercised its sole power of impeachment Wednesday night. It’s constitutional role in the process is done. Now it’s the Senate’s turn. But Professor Tribe says not so fast.

Relying on Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution that says each legislative chamber sets its own rules, Professor Tribe tweeted that “It’s up to the House when and how to prosecute its case in the Senate.”

Yes, the Democrat-controlled House was free to set its own one-sided rules governing its own impeachment process. That was its constitutional right, despite having exercised that right so irresponsibly in this case. But Professor Tribe neglected to mention the power of the Senate to decide when and how it will try impeachment cases. Article I, Section 3 provides that “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

The current Senate Rules of Procedure and Practice regarding impeachment trials set out an order of proceedings. The process in the Senate would begin currently under these rules with notice received from the House that it has selected its managers to conduct the impeachment against the president, who are directed to carry the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Speaker Pelosi and her cohorts are trying to exploit these Senate rules by delaying the rules’ trigger for Senate trial action. However, there is no constitutional requirement that the Senate must wait to act until the House formally names its prosecution managers and presents its articles of impeachment to the Senate. The Senate alone has the power to set and to change its own rules.

If the House Democrats persist in dragging their feet after rushing to complete their own rigged impeachment process, the Senate majority needs to consider its options. By majority vote, the Senate could set a firm date by which the House must provide notice of its appointment of managers and deliver its articles of impeachment. If the House refuses to comply with this deadline, the Senate could then immediately vote to dismiss the charges against President Trump on the grounds that the House accusers failed to prosecute their case in a timely fashion.

In his op-ed column, Professor Tribe referred to a Supreme Court decision involving the public’s constitutional right to observe a criminal trial. He meant to use the case to bolster by analogy his argument for the House’s constitutional right to hold back sending its impeachment articles to the Senate until it is assured that the Senate will act fairly. However, the House does not get any say in how the Senate conducts its impeachment trials. If this constitutional law professor wants to use analogies, he should start with the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a “speedy” trial.

That said, perhaps the Democrats should be permitted to dig the hole in which they find themselves even deeper. Senator McConnell said, “'It's beyond me how the Speaker and Democratic Leader in the Senate think withholding the articles of impeachment and not sending them over gives them leverage. Frankly, I'm not anxious to have the trial. If she thinks her case is so weak she doesn't want to send it over, throw me into that briar patch.”

The House Democrats were already witnessing a decline in public support for their rush to impeachment. Delaying the final resolution of the impeachment charges they rushed through the House will leave the House Democrats even more exposed as rabid, hypocritical partisans. The voters will render their verdict on November 3, 2020.

Joseph Klein


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Rat-Catchers: The True Function of a Free Press - A. Welderson

by A. Welderson

The mainstream media have lost sight of what a free press is for. That's why they're bleeding viewers and readers.

That there are scoundrels in government will come as no surprise to anyone. All governments. Always have been and always will be, despite our best efforts to remove them. They are like cockroaches, the ultimate survivors. Scoundrels, like a virus, hijack the nominal purpose of government and use it to their own ends, entrenching their positions, lining their pockets, and growing their power.

All societies have sought to eradicate scoundrels in government through various measures, a hopeless but necessary effort. These measures work to some extent, but the end result is just to select for sneakier and craftier scoundrels in a Darwinian manner. The rats learn to play the game better and still end up running most of the structure, if not all of it.

The most effective, though certainly not foolproof, method attempted to date was hit upon by the framers of the U.S. Constitution. The founding fathers stumbled upon a great idea to keep dishonest people away from the levers of power. They subcontracted the job out.

A watchdog within the government structure will sooner or later be corrupted. So the framers set up a free and independent press to sniff out scandal. Nothing sells papers like scandal, and scandalous behavior of those in power is the juiciest scandal of all. The free press was created with a built in financial incentive to find and expose scoundrels. Journalists are, in effect, paid by the rat for every rat they catch and display for public scorn.

The result has been a long struggle between the press and scoundrels in the government, a predator/prey dynamic. The scoundrels are striving to maximize the amount of loot they can wring from the public coffers, while shrouding nefarious activities from the press. Simultaneously, the members of the press are ransacking the corridors of power for scandal, while competing with colleagues for the most sensational dirt. If a journalist fails to feed the public's voracious hunger for scandal, he is replaced with more ambitious, and more competent, rivals. This fearsome and beautiful ecology evolved from the simple act of unleashing people to print anything they want. And it worked fairly well for more than a century. Then the press decided to pick an ideology.

In the early twentieth century the free press in America, decided to shackle itself to progressivism. Now the media lean so far left that it resembles a sinking cruise ship with a heavy list to port. 

Honestly, if reporters want to be leftists, that really is their own business – as long as they do their jobs. Unfortunately, the job isn't getting done anymore, at least not all of it. Pure and simple, journalists have stopped looking for scandals in the Democrat party. Leftist journalists are under the mistaken impression that cheerleading for the Democrats and ignoring scandalous Democrat behavior is the best way to advance their agenda. They couldn't be more wrong.

By the same logic, leftist journalists hound Republicans like a pack of rabid wolves. If no disgraceful Republican behavior can be found, the diligent progressive journalist will manufacture it. This slipshod dance is thought to aid the Democrats by hobbling the opposing Republicans. Wrong again.

The wily scoundrels have noticed that journalists are stalking only Republicans nowadays. Life for Republican scoundrels has become bleak, cold, and dangerous, menaced by the hovering shapes of ravenous lefty reporters. To be sure, there are still Republican scoundrels, endangered as they might be. It's probably impossible to completely eliminate scoundrels from any human endeavor. However, you can force the overwhelming majority of them to migrate. Displaced scoundrels have been flooding into the safe space of the Democrat party for a long time now, like a wildlife preserve. All the invasive scoundrels have to do is spout the correct talking points, and it's as if the reporters can't even see them. The consequence of the press ignoring half of its natural hunting ground is a massive imbalance in scoundrels between the Republican and Democrat parties. 

While journalists think they are being loyal to those who believe in the socialist utopia, the scoundrels are unfettered by ideology. The scoundrels are just telling the media what they want to hear as the rats loot the treasury and further secure power and position.

Whatever scoundrels run quickly devolves into a dumpster fire, because the scoundrels' modus operandi is to ride the gravy train for as long as they can and then get out before things get too hot. I surmise that the marks are wising up. Things are starting to get awkward for the snake oil salesmen and their pet reporters. Nobody but the journalists is drinking the Kool-Aid anymore. Fewer and fewer people are listening to what the journalists spew, especially when they tell such obvious lies in defense of the scoundrels.

Why do the geniuses at CNN think they're shedding viewers so fast and Fox News is gaining? Fox is just one network with relatively limited resources and reach. But Fox and its sisters hunt for scandals in the Democrat party, where the progressive journalists fear to tread. And such juicy scandals they find, too. The Pulitzer committee honors fake news while conservative media outlets scoop the others with embarrassing regularity.

The public appetite for political scandals is insatiable, and the made-up ones the conventional journalists have been peddling lately are just not feeding it. Perhaps the media will wake up in time to realize their true calling. Members of the free press are really just scandal-mongers we contracted to keep the pests under control. Or maybe they'll go bankrupt first.

Doesn't matter. Others will take the job if it's beneath the dignity of the current flock of rat-catchers. Just look at the independent internet journalists, which have started to pop up like weeds in a neglected garden, tough, savvy, and persistent. They seem to understand their job a lot better than the so-called professionals do, or ever did. It's not as if the mainstream media has a monopoly anymore on publishing whatever the hell you want to say.

A. Welderson


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Cory Booker Protected the Terrorists Behind the Jersey City Anti-Semitic Shootings - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

He shut down surveillance of black nationalist terrorists -- and people died.

After black nationalist gunmen opened fire in a Jewish market in his state, Senator Cory Booker issued a statement that did not mention Jews, but did mention fighting “gun violence”. A secondary joint press release with Senator Bob Menendez, the other politician representing the state in the Senate, did mention "rising anti-Semitism" before shifting over to the need for, “lifesaving gun safety reform.”

"There is no room in our communities or in our hearts for this evil," the press release concluded.

The Senator from New Jersey doesn’t give himself enough credit. There is plenty of room for this evil in his heart. The Democrat politician has repeatedly quoted Stokely Carmichael in his speeches. The black nationalist also known as Kwame Ture would have approved of the Jersey City market shootings.

“The only good Zionist is a dead Zionist we must take a lesson from Hitler,” Ture had once declared. “I’ve never admired a white man, but the greatest of them, to my mind, was Hitler.”

David Anderson, the Jersey City gunman, had obsessively listened to the ravings of Louis Farrakhan.

Cory Booker had tweeted a photo celebrating Louis Farrakhan’s Million Man March which featured a photo of Farrakhan. Like Stokely, Farrakhan believes that Hitler is a “great man.” Earlier in the campaign, Booker had flip-flopped over whether he would agree to meet with Farrakhan, after saying, “I have heard Minister Farrakhan’s speeches for a lot of my life.” Ultimately, Booker decided to nix the idea.

But, much more significantly, Booker had worked to nix the FBI’s monitoring of black nationalist terror.

Earlier this summer, Booker had grinned at a Senate grilling of FBI Director Christopher Wray. “So, you no longer use the term Black Identity Extremism,” he had gloated. “That's great news.”

“So nobody is being investigated or surveilled under black identity extremism?” he demanded.

Nobody. Including David Anderson, the Black Hebrew Israelite hate group member, who had loaded up a U-Haul van with guns and explosives before setting out to kill Jews in the name of his racist hatred.

Had the FBI defied Senator Booker, the people at the JC Supermarket might still be alive today.

The end of the BIE category was great news for Booker who, along with Senator Dick Durbin, had waged a relentless crusade against the FBI for warning against the rising terror threat from black nationalists like the ones who murdered Detective Joseph Seals, Moshe Hersh Deutsch, Leah Mindel Ferencz, and Miguel Jason Rodriguez in the wave of brutal violence by Black Hebrew Israelite terrorists in Jersey City.

And it was bad news for those who lost their lives to the terrorists whom Booker was protecting.

After the hearing, Booker issued a press release urging “Director Wray to issue updated guidance notifying law enforcement agencies about the elimination of this misleading designation.”

The lack of awareness by local law enforcement in Jersey City, particularly by Detective Joseph Seals, who was unaware of the danger he faced when approaching the U-Haul of the black identity extremists, may have proven fatal not only to Seals, but the three people shot in the Kosher market, as well as to the two police officers wounded in the fighting. If Seals had understood the danger he was in, the entire attack could have been headed off at the Bayville Cemetery where the detective had confronted them.

At the Senate hearing, Booker followed the same talking points as other defenders of black nationalism did, objecting to Director Wray’s suggestion that racist violence was coming from both sides of the spectrum. “That language you said, both ends of the spectrum, the murders at synagogues, the murders we've seen motivated,” he rambled. “You said both ends of the spectrum, as if there actually is a movement of black identity extremism: it's almost creating this reality.”

Less than a year later, the reality that Booker was pretending didn’t exist hit home. The likely target, according to Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop, was a Jewish school and synagogue next door to the store.

Anderson and his girlfriend had opened fire on the glass front of the store while 50 children were trapped in a school and worshipers in a synagogue in the much less visible building next door.

The attack came from the black identity extremists whom Booker had been avidly protecting.

"The Trump Administration is conjuring up the idea that 'Black Identity Extremists' are a threat to our communities, particularly the safety of the brave men and women who serve in law enforcement. There is just one problem though: there is no such movement. No serious journalists or academics have written about or even found that 'Black Identity Extremists' exist," Booker had posted on Facebook.

That was in 2017. That same year, black nationalists Micah X. Johnson and Gavin Long, had murdered 8 police officers in mass shootings. These were some of the crimes that Senator Booker claimed didn’t exist.

And he wasn’t alone.

Booker, along with Senator Kamala Harris, Senator Dick Durbin, Senator Chris Coons, Senator Amy Klobuchar, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, and Senator Richard Blumenthal had sent a letter to Attorney General Barr this year claiming that "so-called 'Black identity extremists'" was a "fabricated term based on a faulty assessment of a small number of isolated incidents."

A letter by the Congressional Black Caucus had also taken issue with the BIE category. Rep. Donald M. Payne Jr, who represents the district in which the Kosher market shooting happened, is a CBC member. In his press release, Payne failed to mention the ideology of the gunmen, repeatedly describing the killings as “senseless” and blamed Republicans for not supporting Democrat gun control proposals.

“I will continue to encourage my House colleagues to support my Safer Neighborhoods Gun Buyback Act to help me get guns off the streets,” his press release boasted.

The Democrat House member failed to explain how buying back guns would have stopped a black nationalist terrorist who had stocked up on guns in order to kill police officers and Jews.

The FBI’s response to the rise in black nationalist violence was the right one.

You don’t stop terrorist attack with gun buybacks, but through monitoring and surveillance. Senator Cory Booker went to war to cripple the FBI’s ability to monitor and to warn local police departments of the threat of black nationalist terror. He shamelessly lied by repeatedly claiming that it didn’t exist.

And there is no reason to think that he will admit the truth now.

In between praising Greta Thunberg and touting his own political prospects in the 2020 election, Booker tweeted, "We won't be silent in the face of bigotry & hate. Sending love & prayers to the victims, their families, our Jewish neighbors & the JCPD."

The victims didn’t need Cory Booker’s love or prayers. Nor did the JCPD which lost one of its own, while two others were sent to the hospital, it needed to have the information to stop that from happening.

For the last two years, Booker had the opportunity to stand with police officers and the victims. Instead he chose to cover up for David Anderson and other racist black nationalist terrorists.

The people of New Jersey paid the price.

Senator Cory Booker was not only silent in the face of bigotry and hate, he silenced the FBI. His silencing enabled the terror attack in Jersey City. And his response to a terror attack in his own state by the very black identity extremists whom he claimed don’t exist, was this perfunctory sending of “love & prayers.”

President Trump has been repeatedly asked about his ties to white nationalists. Imagine if President Trump had repeatedly quoted an admirer of Adolf Hitler who had called for the murder of Jews. Imagine if he had played a major role in shutting down surveillance and monitoring of the KKK and Neo-Nazis. And imagine if nobody in the media were willing to report on it or ask him about his motives.

It’s time Cory Booker were asked, as he aspires to Trump’s job, why he covered for black nationalists.

And whether, after the bodies were removed from the floor of that small Jersey City market while he rushed between fundraisers and campaign events, he has any regrets.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The End of a Jewish Presence in Europe? - Guy Millière

by Guy Millière

Leftist anti-Semitism is present all over Europe. Its followers, as in France, do their best to hide and protect Middle Eastern anti-Semitism.

  • "Although Jews represent less than one percent of the population, half of the racist acts committed in France are committed against Jews." — French Member of Parliament Meyer Habib.
  • Anti-Semitism is advancing throughout the continent and often has a Middle Eastern cast. Yet, the authorities also talk only about right-wing anti-Semitism.
  • Leftist anti-Semitism is present all over Europe. Its followers, as in France, do their best to hide and protect Middle Eastern anti-Semitism.
  • The demographic transformation taking place in France is also happening throughout Western Europe, and the growing submission to Islam is being silently accepted by the ruling authorities almost everywhere.

On December 3, the French National Assembly passed a resolution adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of anti-Semitism. MP Meyer Habib, who supported the resolution, delivered a passionate and poignant speech, highlighting the extent of the anti-Semitic threat in today's France, and the close links between hatred of the Jews and hatred toward Israel. Pictured: France's National Assembly in Paris. (Image source: Daniel Vorndran/DXR/Wikimedia Commons)

On December 3, the French National Assembly passed a resolution adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of anti-Semitism. The resolution stressed that the definition "encompasses manifestations of hatred toward the State of Israel justified solely by the perception of the latter as a Jewish collective." MP Meyer Habib, who supported the resolution, delivered a passionate and poignant speech, highlighting the extent of the anti-Semitic threat in today's France, and the close links between hatred of the Jews and hatred toward Israel:
"Since 2006, twelve French people have been murdered in France because they were Jewish. Although Jews represent less than one percent of the population, half of the racist acts committed in France are committed against Jews. Anti-Zionism is an obsessive demonization of Israel and an abuse of anti-racist and anti-colonial rhetoric to deprive the Jews of their identity."
He added that getting the votes to pass the resolution was extremely difficult because of a general lack of "political courage" -- sadly, a quality often absent in France when it comes to anti-Semitism and Israel.

French political leaders often declare that fighting against anti-Semitism is of utmost importance; they say it every time a Jew is murdered in the country. The only anti-Semitism they seem ready to fight, however, is right-wing anti-Semitism. They seemingly refuse to see that all the Jews killed or assaulted in France since 2006 were victims of Muslim anti-Semites -- and French political leaders never utter a word about it. They appear to hide Islamic anti-Semitism -- embedded in the Qur'an and Hadiths and reinforced in the 1930s by the Nazis' friendship with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini -- under a Muslim hatred of the Jews based on a supposedly "legitimate" Muslim hatred of 'Zionist crimes'".

French political leaders also seemingly refuse to see another form of anti-Semitism that is on the rise: leftist anti-Semitism. It is precisely this leftist anti-Semitism that uses the mask of anti-Zionism to spread anti-Jewish hatred.

French political leaders also never speak about the way the French mainstream media talk about Israel, or about the consequences of those articles and reports. They constantly -- and falsely -- describe Israel as an evil country whose soldiers cavalierly kill Arabs on a daily basis and whose citizens "illegally occupy" territories (despite having been there for more than 3,000 years) that might belong to another people whom they cruelly deprive of everything.

French political leaders do not criticize anti-Israel articles and reports: the way most of them talk about Israel is just as anti-Israel as the worst anti-Israel articles. The government itself does no better. When Israeli Jews are murdered in a terrorist attack, the French government publishes a statement "deploring" the attack and urging Israel to "show restraint" and avoid "starting a cycle of violence". When an attack takes place in the eastern part of Jerusalem or in the West Bank, the statement mentions that "East Jerusalem" and the West Bank are "Palestinian territories illegally occupied by Israel". It is a way of saying that Jews should not be there, that the victims are the guilty party, and that those who attack them had good reason to do so.

November 12, when US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that Jewish communities in the disputed territories do not contravene international law, the French government immediately issued a statement saying that "the Israeli policy of colonization in the Palestinian occupied territories is illegal under international law, in particular international humanitarian law".

This reaction is in line with the positions taken by the French government in recent years: when US President Donald J. Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the US embassy there, French President Emmanuel Macron said that the move was a "serious mistake" and stressed that the French embassy would remain in the make-believe capital of Israel, Tel Aviv. An official statement added that France is "the friend of Palestine" and supports "the creation of a Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital". France does not recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel's territory: the French consulate in Jerusalem is described in French official documents as "the French Consulate in Jerusalem"; the word "Israel" is omitted. When French citizens residing in Israel vote, the votes of those in Jerusalem are counted separately from the votes of those elsewhere in Israel.

At the Institute of the Arab World, funded by the French government and Arab countries, opened its doors in the center of Paris in 1987, the conferences and exhibitions are often imbued with anti-Israeli hatred. Currently, at an exhibition called "AlUla, marvel of Arabia", visitors can see a map where the entire land of Israel is covered with the words "Palestinian territories". When Jewish organizations protested, the word, Israel was finally added next to "Palestinian territories".

Almost all the murders of Jews in France were not only committed by Muslim anti-Semites, but by Muslims unjustly identifying French Jews with "criminal Israel". Mohamed Merah, who murdered Jewish schoolchildren in Toulouse, told a police officer that he killed Jewish children because "the Jews kill Palestinian children" and that he saw "many reports on French TV showing it". What he said did not prompt the French government to ask French television stations to be more careful to avoid whatever could be regarded as incitement to hatred and murder.

At the moment, Meyer Habib is nearly the only French MP denouncing anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, anti-Israeli bias in the French media and the anti-Israel positions of the French government and many politicians. He often receives anti-Semitic death threats; his family and he need to live under around-the-clock police protection. He represents French citizens living abroad -- in Israel, Italy and Turkey; he could not be elected anywhere on French territory.

Habib has also said that the December 3 resolution is just a resolution. Only a minority of MPs voted in favor of it. The only reason it was passed at all is that many MPs chose to abstain. Several voted against it and once again announced that they were proudly "anti-Zionist". Either way, the resolution will not become a law and has no consequences.

The French media, political leaders and government will almost certainly not change their hostile positions regarding Israel. No French political leader supports Meyer Habib or dares to disagree with the French government's statements regarding Israel, except to say that the French government is still too pro-Israel.

As a demographic change is rapidly taking place in France, the country's media, political leaders and government are behaving accordingly. Jews have become a shrinking part of the population -- 0.6 % -- and carry no political weight. The French Muslim population is quickly growing -- to more than 12% of the total. It has become virtually impossible to win an election in France without now counting on the Muslim vote.

The few people who still criticize Islam and Muslim anti-Semitism in France are mercilessly harassed by Islamic organizations and even more harshly condemned by the courts. A few days ago, on December 4, a prosecutor asked the court to sentence Christine Tasin, president of the anti-Islamic movement Republican Resistance. In June 2017, she wrote an article containing the statements: "Anti-Muslim acts of anger are inevitable in the short or medium term in all European countries, including France, which are undergoing a Muslim invasion" and "Islam may be incompatible with Western civilization". Tasin was accused by the Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF) of inciting "anti-Muslim terrorism". The CCIF, is an organization created by Muslims of France, the French branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The prosecutor said that the charge pressed by the CCIF was "perfectly valid", and that Tasin "needs a lesson". She could be the first person in France to be sent to prison for the "crime" of "Islamophobia".

Many participants at the Islamic and leftist demonstration against "Islamophobia" in Paris on November 10 shouted explicitly anti-Zionist slogans, such as "Israel Assassin" and "Palestine shall win". Several demonstrators carried Palestinian and Hamas flags. By contrast, a demonstration a week later, denouncing Islamic terrorism, brought together fewer than 2,000 participants.

On October 30 in Paris, when President Macron inaugurated the European Center for Judaism, he named all the Jews recently murdered in France. He did not, however, name the murderers. He merely denounced the "foul beast", an expression created by Bertolt Brecht and now often used in France to incriminate Nazi sympathizers. He mentioned threats posed by "those who want to sow hatred and division " and expressed his support for the Muslims wounded in a failed attack on the mosque in Bayonne, in southwest France. He spoke positively of a time when a large part of Spain was Muslim, and said that there, in Andalusia, "the Jews, despite their dhimmi status, developed an extraordinary culture".

The author Barbara Lefebvre saw in these words a eulogy for Jews -- an acceptance of dhimmitude [being ruled under Islam as a third-class "tolerated" citizen, sometimes paying a "protection" tax] and of the submission that comes with it. She wrote that "summoning the brown plague and the dark hours of our history to evoke the threat faced by the Jews living in France is a historic, memorial and political insult", and that Macron's speech paved the way for condemning the French Jews to "move out of the country or lock themselves in a community bubble, like dhimmis in the land of Islam".

In Europe, France is no exception. Anti-Semitism is advancing throughout the continent and often has a Middle Eastern cast. Yet, the authorities talk only about "right-wing anti-Semitism".

In Germany, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution conducted a study analyzing Muslim attacks perpetrated against the Jews there in 2017 -- but it explicitly refused to say that these attacks were anti-Semitic, and instead attributed them to "religious and cultural beliefs that Muslim immigrants bring with them" to Germany.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas added, as if it were an excuse, that Muslims arriving in Germany "come from countries in which the powerful incite hatred toward Jews and Israel". A study conducted in the United Kingdom by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research showed that anti-Semitism is far more prevalent among British Muslims than among other citizens of the country -- but the study was reported only in the British Jewish press.

Leftist anti-Semitism is present all over Europe. Its followers, as in France, do their best to hide and protect Middle Eastern anti-Semitism.

In the United Kingdom, anti-Semites entered the Labor Party through the Left. The leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, was recently accused by Britain's chief rabbi Ephraim Mirvis of "anti-Jewish racism".

Most major European media are as anti-Israel as the major French media. In July, Josef Schuster, president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, described an article published by the magazine Spiegel as using "anti-Semitic clichés" to vilify Israel. It is not the only article of its kind in the German press. Shuli Davidovich, an Israeli press attaché in London, said a decade ago:
"Definitely some papers never give any credit to Israel ... for some people especially in such papers as the Guardian, the human face of the Israeli does not exist. It's always the helmet, the rifle, the aggressor, the occupier."
Today, nothing has changed. The Guardian often publishes articles supporting the economic and cultural boycott of Israel. Manfred Gerstenfeld, a commentator, noted the growing abundance of anti-Semitic cartoons that now accompany anti-Israeli articles in the European press. Anti-Semitic cartoons, he pointed out, abound in Norway -- a country with only 700 Jews. Many cartoons, he said, depict Jews as "parasites", exactly as in the Muslim countries' press.

Most of Europe's political leaders are as hostile to Israel as France's political leaders are. The European Union stubbornly defends the idea that Israel must return to the 1949 armistice line, often referred to as the "1967 borders". The EU claims that Israel illegally occupies "Palestinian territories". Every time Federica Mogherini, Vice President of the European Commission until last month, speaks about the Middle East, she describes Israel as an "occupying power". Her successor, Josep Borrell, advocates for unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood. "Iran wants to wipe out Israel," he has said; "nothing new about that. You have to live with it". Nine of the 28 member States of the European Union -- Sweden, Cyprus, Malta, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania -- recognize a "state of Palestine" but ignore that the Palestinian Authority has never renounced its plan to obliterate Israel and take its place, nor stopped committing acts of terrorism.

The demographic transformation happening in France is also spreading throughout Western Europe, and the growing submission to Islam is being silently accepted by the ruling authorities almost everywhere. Political parties opposed to Islamization are pushed to the margins. Some Central European leaders – Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki in Poland and President Miloš Zeman in the Czech Republic -- are the only ones explicitly to reject the Islamization of their countries and take measures to curb Muslim immigration. They are often condemned by Western European leaders who want to force them to welcome immigrants by the thousands.

Reports show, not surprisingly, that the rise in the number of Muslim immigrants has led to an even broader rise in anti-Semitism.

In 2018, the EU's Fundamental Rights Agency surveyed Jews in the 12 European countries with the largest Jewish populations. The report concluded that "28% experienced some form of harassment for being Jewish", "47% worry about anti-Semitic verbal insult or harassment and 40% about physical attack", "38% have considered emigrating in the past five years over safety fears".

Another study, undertaken by Germany's University of Bielefeld in 2011, showed that 40% of European adults agreed with the statement, "Israel behaves toward the Palestinians like the Nazis behaved toward the Jews."

In an article named "Judenrein Europe", the American political commentator Joel Kotkin wrote that all available data show that anti-Jewish hatred and anti-Israel prejudices will continue to spread throughout all Europe, and that it could mean the end of Jewish presence on the continent:
"For millennia, following the destruction of the Second Temple and the beginning of the diaspora, Europe was home to the majority of the world's Jews. That chapter of history is over. As Jews continue fleeing the continent, by the end of this century all that's left will be a Jewish graveyard".

Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter