American ambassador (Jewish) Kushner recently published “A Letter to Emmanuel Macron” (President of France) in The Wall Street Journal [*].
“I write out of deep concern over the dramatic rise of antisemitism in France and the lack of sufficient action by your government to confront it. Antisemitism has long scarred French life, but it has exploded since Hamas’s barbaric assault on Oct. 7, 2023. Since then, pro-Hamas extremists and radical activists have waged a campaign of intimidation and violence across Europe. In France, not a day passes without Jews assaulted in the street, synagogues or schools defaced, or Jewish-owned businesses vandalized… I urge you to act decisively: enforce hate-crime laws without exception; ensure the safety of Jewish schools, synagogues and businesses, prosecute offenders to the fullest extent; and abandon steps that give legitimacy to Hamas and its allies.”
Reread that indictment. The math is obscene: Jews now represent approximately 0.75% of France’s population, with the Jewish population at around 500,000 people! And yet attacks on Jews (not Israelis!) are “almost daily” (to paraphrase Kushner), not isolated incidents, so it’s not the growing Arab population either. It’s right up there with “don’t complain about the rain”.
Well, the accused called this literary action “unacceptable” and even summoned the American Jew for an Ellul “rebuke”. Not because the facts are not factual, even according to them, but because the French government has weighed its own suppressive actions and — Surprise! — found them quite adequate. France’s diplomats add that ambassadors are not permitted to interfere in a country’s internal affairs under the Vienna Convention.
We can learn from the bienpensants’ example. Here we see that not always is ‘the best defense a good offense’. They should have held their tongue in this case.
Let’s first try to understand why they think their preventive actions against Jew-haters in France are enough. Hmm, could they mean they adopt classical-liberal ideas on the limits of state power over hearts and minds? “Virtue cannot be legislated”? Of course not; this is hijab-banning France.
No, it rather appears this response is the ultimate admission of guilt.
A juror who admits racial bias gets dismissed from the entire case, so France isn’t only not a “moral authority”, but is disqualified from judgment in every sense, including legally, and must recuse itself. (Even the data collection could serve Jew-hating goals by encouraging Jewish emigration. The statistics are the threat.)
And their government isn’t made up of Martians, they’re also French (perhaps even more so)! Imagine a cop who claims he’s powerless to stop a mass lynching while on duty, but then the clock ticks 17:00, so he tears off the uniform and happily joins in once he’s off duty. He isn’t even incompetent, rather he himself is one of the bloodthirsty mob (albeit not as a cop, unless it’s the whole police department of the entire country).
All governments are a fiction, and in extreme cases such as this, can’t be separated from the people. In other words, they have no standing to say or do anything with Jews in any country or on any issue, because their own records prove they hate the Jews with a French passion. “They“, whether as the French Republic or as Frenchmen.
So, the whole response is an own-goal, a solid performative contradiction: “We are fully and implacably biased and untrustworthy when it comes to Jews. We prove it daily! That’s who we are. Oh, and we also strongly think (if “think” is the right word) Israelis in Aza are this and that, and must do such and such”.
It’s like a person documenting their own hallucinations, then asking to serve as an expert witness.
And to say the US government has no say whatsoever regarding little Jewish kids with skullcaps getting beaten up on their way to school because “National Sovereignty” [the cheese-eating surrender monkeys “do their best”!], while at that very same moment interfering with Israel’s actions on another continent because they’re part of the UN or whatever? That’s a double chutzpa!
Of course, invoking supposed diplomatic protocol to deflect even gentle criticism about protecting a vulnerable minority population echoes dark historical precedents, especially as far as Jews. It’s “My Jews, My rules” all over again (It’s an “internal matter”. Think: Mortara Affair and the like, Romania’s attack on Jews at the Congress of Berlin in 1878, and should I mention the Dreyfus Affair?). Can one really use the “Whatever Convention” to argue they are allowed to murder their children under property rights in their own domain?!
Why, one could almost have the evil thought that “steps giving legitimacy” to Israel’s enemies is a more genteel form of beating up a Jewish child walking to school…
[*] By the way, I love how state diplomats write letters to unread, establishment legacy media (now using paywalls because unread!) and then deem this echo chamber activity “publishing” an “Open” letter. So, I don’t actually know what the text says, but must rely on second-hand reports in the low-brow media giving a summary.
Oops, almost forgot; I didn’t mention Aliyah anywhere! Here goes: Aliyah. (There, done.)