Interview de Philippe Karsenty

Philippe Karsenty est un intellectuel Juif et un élu francilien. C'est un analyste des médias et le fondateur/directeur de Media-Ratings qui épingle les partis pris des médias français. En 2004, il a écrit que France 2 et Charles Enderlin avaient mis en scène l'incident al-Dura en 2000, dans la bande de Gaza. Il a été poursuivi pour diffamation. Il a perdu le procès en première instance en 2006, mais il a gagné devant la Cour d'appel de Paris en 2008. Grâce à lui, une partie des rushes de France ont été rendus publics. Philippe Karsenty a aussi gagné un procès pour diffamation contre la chaine française Canal +, en 2010. En 2008, il a été élu sur une liste de centre-droit comme conseiller municipal, adjoint au Maire de Neuilly-sur-Seine. Il est candidat pour l'élection des députés représentant les Français de l'étranger au sein de l'Assemblée nationale, une des deux chambres du Parlement français.

Cet article a été publié en américain par Ami magazine.

That article was published in American by Ami magazine.

Quelles sont les circonstances de votre candidature ?

Je mène une campagne électorale dans une circonscription nouvellement créée qui comprend les citoyens français vivant à l'étranger, principalement en Israël, en Italie, en Grèce et en Turquie. Les Israéliens représentent la part la plus importante de la population de cette circonscription.

C'est une opportunité unique pour avoir au Parlement français un ami d'Israël qui a combattu en faveur d'Israël depuis des années, contre vents et marées et dans de nombreux pays.

Cette chance est rendue possible par la taille significative des électeurs vivant en Israël. La situation d'Israël devenant plus difficile chaque jour, nous ne pouvons pas nous permettre de laisser les ennemis d'Israël bénéficier de ce siège.

Qui sont les autres candidats pour cette circonscription ?

L'élection aura lieu en juin 2012. Je suis le premier à avoir déclaré sa candidature.

L'UMP, parti du Président de la République Nicolas Sarkozy, est représenté par Valérie Hoffenberg  qui a rejoint en 2009 le Quai d'Orsay, l'équivalent du Département d'Etat américain. Elle ne s'est jamais opposée à la ligne anti-israélienne de la diplomatie française. Le 11 mars 2011, le journal en ligne Atlantico a publié un article citant Claude Goasguen, président du groupe d'amitié France-Israël à l'Assemblée nationale française : "Elle est trop pro-palestinienne pour nous représenter dans cette 8^e circonscription (Israël, Malte, Turquie) où les Français d’Israël pèsent 70% de l’électorat". Le 3 mai 2011, Claude Goasguen n'a pas réellement nié cela sur son blog. Cet article est toujours sur le site d'Atlantico. Le 5 mai 2011, Claude Goasguen a écrit, sur son blog, qu'en tant que président de ce groupe d'amitié France-Israël, il est lié par son devoir de réserve jusqu'à l'ouverture officielle de la campagne électorale en 2012.

D'autres dirigeants de la communauté juive française songent à se porter candidats. Ils n'ont quasiment aucune chance de remporter ce siège car ils ont l'intention de mener campagne seulement en Israël, alors que l'élection concerne d'autres pays où j'ai déjà des soutiens.

Vous vivez en France et vous êtes adjoint au Maire de Neuilly-sur-Seine. Comment mènerez-vous votre campagne ?

Je me rends souvent dans ces pays pour y rencontrer des électeurs. Mes propositions répondront aux attentes de ces Français et viseront une large gamme de sujets.

Des comités de soutiens ont déjà été créés et je reçois des feedbacks positifs.

Nous utilisons aussi les médias sociaux. Des groupes ont été créés sur Facebook et nous enregistrons une montée en puissance sur Internet via Twitter et bientôt un site Internet dédié à ma campagne électorale.

Pourquoi pensez-vous que vous serez un atout pour les électeurs français Juifs ?

Je ne vois pas cette élection ainsi. Je serai un atout pour tous les électeurs français car mes combats ne sont pas seulement bénéfiques pour Israël, mais aussi pour la France. La France, l'Etat d'Israël, et plus généralement le monde libre sont confrontés à l'islam radical qui est le nouveau totalitarisme de notre temps.

Israël se trouve sur la ligne de front et, en soutenant cet Etat, je soutiens aussi les pays européens qui ne considèrent pas la menace islamique assez sérieusement.

Dans ma lutte contre l'accusation diffamatoire et fausse de crime rituel qu'est l'incident al-Dura, j'ai prouvé ma capacité à combattre efficacement pour la Vérité.

Pour être plus fort, je suis en train de fonder mon parti politique pour promouvoir nos valeurs communes qui sont le plus souvent oubliées de l'élite française.

Vous avez gagné deux procès dans l'incident al-Dura : le prétendu assassinat du jeune Palestinien Mohammed al-Dura le 30 septembre 2000 par des tirs israéliens. Vous avez donné de nombreuses conférences dans le monde. Que pensez-vous du reportage controversé de France 2 ?

Le 30 septembre 2000, France 2 a diffusé une supercherie qui a notamment enflammé le monde musulman. France 2 n'a jamais reconnu qu'elle n'avait pas respecté l'éthique professionnelle dans son reportage : elle n'a pas d'image de l'agonie ou de la mort de Mohammed al-Dura, elle a échoué à expliquer ses incohérences, etc.

Des médias français savent que si des mensonges de France 2 sont révélés, leurs mensonges et leurs mauvaises pratiques le seront aussi. L'attitude de France 2 est une honte pour la société française. Cette chaîne publique nationale devrait être punie pour ce qu'elle a fait.

La société française est malade de mensonges et de discours "politiquement corrects". De nombreux Français sont choqués par l'antisémitisme que le plupart des médias diffusent subtilement.

Le temps est venu pour une révolution dans les médias français !

Daniel Pearl était un jeune journaliste américain Juif égorgé par des terroristes islamistes en 2002 au Pakistan. L’image de l’incident al-Dura est incrustée dans la vidéo de sa dernière déclaration avant son assassinat. Le 16 mai 2011, à Neuilly-sur-Seine, vous avez remis au Président de la République Nicolas Sarkozy une lettre de Judea Pearl, père de Daniel Pearl. Quel est le contenu de cette lettre ?

Dans ce court message très émouvant, Judea Pearl écrit ceci :

"Mr. President,
Not single day passes by that
I do not hear the voice of my son, Danny, asking:
"Will President Sarkozy denounce the blood libel that took my life? Will he listen to the call of history and join the ranks of Emil Zola, or let the Al Dura Affair become a permanent stain on French media."
Respectfully".
(Ndlr : "Pas un seul jour ne passe sans que j'entende la voix de mon fils, Danny, m'interroger : "Le Président Sarkozy dénoncera-t-il ce blood libel (Nda : accusation fausse et diffamatoire de meurtre rituel d'un enfant non-Juif) qui m'a ôté la vie ? Ecoutera-t-il l'appel de l'Histoire et rejoindra-t-il les rangs d'Emile Zola, ou laissera-t-il l'affaire al-Dura ternir éternellement les médias français ?")

Le Service de protection de la communauté juive (SPCJ) a recensé 466 actes antisémites en 2010, contre 832 en 2009, soit une baisse de 43,9%. Depuis le déclenchement de l'Intifada II en 2000, le nombre "moyen" annuel d'agressions antisémites est demeuré à un niveau élevé : environ 500...

L'atmosphère intellectuelle est très hostile à l'égard d'Israël. C'est ce qui rend ces actes antisémites possibles.

La plupart des journalistes français sont très anti-israéliens et leur couverture du conflit au Proche-Orient est biaisée.

Quand Israël se défend - par exemple, lors de l'opération Plomb durci - contre les agressions de Palestiniens (tirs de roquettes Qassam à partir de la bande de Gaza), les statistiques révèlent une augmentation de la violence antisémite.

Quelle est l'attitude des autorités politiques et des citoyens français à l'égard des Juifs et de l'antisémitisme ?

Les autorités politiques françaises luttent contre l'antisémitisme sans comprendre le problème de l'incitation. L'establishment français est si partial contre Israël qu'il ne se rend pas compte qu'il vit dans une monde fictif et inversé, où Israël est présenté comme l'agresseur et les Arabes comme les victimes.

Le Président de la République Nicolas Sarkozy a déclaré qu'il était un ami d'Israël, mais sa diplomatie est devenue de plus en plus hostile à Israël. La plupart des soutiens d'Israël se plaignent de l'attitude du président américain Obama à l'égard de l'Etat Juif. Et ils ont raison.

Cependant, le 18 février 2011, le président Obama a mis son véto à un projet de résolution "condamnant la poursuite de la colonisation par Israël dans les territoires occupés, y compris Jérusalem-Est" soumis au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies, tandis que la France du Président Nicolas Sarkozy a voté en faveur ce texte. Dans "leur déclaration commune au Conseil, la France, le Royaume-Uni et l’Allemagne ont rappelé le caractère illégal de la colonisation et la menace qu’elle constituait pour une solution à deux Etats".

Que pensez-vous du débat de l'UMP sur la laïcité et l'islam en France ?

C'est un débat tronqué car des politiciens français refusent de traiter le problème réel : l'islam défie les démocraties occidentales, notamment car il ne distingue par le spirituel du temporel.

En 2010, une loi française a interdit la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public, par exemples des vêtements musulmans tels le niqab et la burka. Elle est entrée en vigueur le 11 avril 2011.

La République française continue d'être testée par les islamistes. Au lieu de stopper l'islam radical, des politiciens occidentaux, et spécialement Français, ont accepté progressivement certaines de leurs requêtes.

A Paris, Marseille, Toulouse et Nice, des musulmans bloquent illégalement et régulièrement des rues pour des prières le vendredi sur le domaine public. Est-ce acceptable ? Non.

Afin de justifier leur inaction, des politiciens français allèguent que les musulmans n'ont pas assez de mosquées et qu'il est indispensable de construire des mosquées. Absurde !

Articles sur le blog concernant :

- l'affaire al-Dura

- France

- Chrétiens

- Judaïsme/Juifs

- Monde arabe/Islam

- Articles in English

Cet article a été publié le 23 mai 2011 et modifié le 6 décembre 2011.

Orthodox Union's Delegation Met with Paris Consistoire's Officials

Rabbi Moshe Elefant, OU's Executive Rabbinic Coordinator/Chief Operating Officer, and Rabbi Menachem Genack, OU 's Rabbinic Administrator, met Paris Consistoire' s high rank officials in France 's capital (9-12 May, 2011).

In 1808, Emperor Napoleon 1st created the France Consistoire and local Consistoires. All local Consistoire are members of the France Consistoire Central. The Paris Consistoire, which also gathers Jewish communities living in the city capital's suburbs, is the most important local Consistoire.

Rabbis Elefant and Genack were invited by the Paris Consistoire for meetings regarding kosher products.

They participated in ceremonies at the Paris Great Synagogue of  La Victoire for Yom Hazikaron (Israel's Remembrance Day) and Yom Haatsmaut (Israel's Independence Day).

They visited several Jewish communities and schools, as well as the Fleg Center. Located in the Quartier Latin, the Fleg Center is dedicated to Jewish students.

On May 11, Rabbis Elefant and Genack discussed key issues with Parisian rabbis in charge of kosher services. They were offered a lunch of refined French kosher cooking in the Paris Great Synagogue with Senior Professional staff and rabbis from the Parisian suburbs' Jewish communities. They tasted a wine who had the OU and the Paris Beth Din (KBDP) kosher symbols on its label. The Paris Beth Din is the Paris Consistoire's Kashrut supervising authority. It has faced rivals, especially the Rabbinat Loubavich de France's certification.

Rabbi David Messas, Great Chief Rabbi of Paris, is the son of former Chief Sephardic Rabbi of Jerusalem, Shalom Messas. He was invited to visit the OU headquarters a few months ago. His vibrant speech during that lunch was focused on the necessity to repair the world by showing brotherhood, feeling love for Israel, and reinforcing unity.

Rav Jermiyahu M. Kohen, Av Beth Din, lauded the OU's rabbis’ expertise.

Joel Mergui, President of the Paris Consistoire, defined Paris Consistoire's characteristic: it is a non-profit service organization. For instance, he gave recognition to all rabbis who gave Kosher Le Pessah meals for Jews in hospitals, in the Army, in jails, etc. He hoped that kosher food would be affordable for every Jew, including poor Jews. He wanted to enlarge the range of Kosher products. He wished that "more Jews would come closer to Jewish organizations and to Judaism through kashrout -- eating kosher food at home or in restaurants, etc. -- and ethics". He briefly mentioned the Consistoire's fight to prevent the adoption of a European ban of ritual slaughter (shehita).

A OU Rabbi echoed President Mergui's speech underlining that the OU, "a community base organization", is also guided by religious and social considerations.

After prayers, Rabbis Elefant and Genack joined the Parisian Rabbis' Beth Hamidrach's Seminar.

"The KBDP is a French and European important certificate. The OU has high standards of kosher certification and deploys a European and world wide activity. OU and Paris Consistoire's representatives met in order to envisage setting up partnerships in the interest of Jewish communities. We share the same goals: to serve the Jewish community. We wish to optimize our actions. The French food-processing (agroalimentary) industry will be more interested in manufacturing kosher products if we propose a scale which includes the American market, besides the French one", President Mergui told me on May 11, 2011. He added that activists who support boycotts of kosher products might put pressure on some food-processing manufacturers.

"OU and Paris Consistoire have strict standards of Kosher certification. Their activities are complementary. Thus, a synergy will be positive for both organizations. For instance, OU benefits from the Paris Consistoire's expertise in kosher wine production in France. Thousands of bottles of OU/KBDP certified wines were sold", Alain Korcarz noted. Korcarz's enterprise is a "European leader of Kosher bakery and viennoiseries" whose two sites of production are certified by OU and Paris Consistoire.

"Our impression of the French Jewish scene was a very positive one. We were truly impressed by the rich Jewish life that exists in Paris. The synagogues, schools, Jewish institutions, restaurants, all showed us a very vibrant and growing community. We were particularly impressed with the work of the Paris Beth Din and their staff, both on a lay and professional leadership side. We were excited by the opportunity to continue to develop our relationship with the Consistoire to help facilitate the availability of all types of kosher foods to the kosher public, both in Europe and the United States. By co-marketing, we believe the community as a whole will be the beneficiary", Rabbi Moshe Elefant wrote to me on May 25, 2011.

My article was first published by Ami magazine and modified on May 26, 2011

On this blog :

Articles in English

Judaïsme/Juifs

French Journalist and Israeli Surgeon Condemned for Defamation of Jamal Al Dura

 

That article was first published by Ami magazine in a more concise version.

On April 29, 2011, a Parisian Tribunal found Israeli surgeon Dr. Yehuda David, French journalist Clément Weill-Raynal and French Jewish weekly magazine Actualité juive (1) guilty of public defamation of Palestinian Jamal Al Dura.

Jamal Al Dura had charged the defendants with defaming his honour and his reputation by two articles authored by Clément Weill-Raynal and published on September 4 and 25, 2008, by Actualité juive.

Those articles, especially an interview of Dr.Yehuda David, asserted that Jamal Al Dura's wounds dated back to a Palestinian attack on him with axes in 1992, and not to an Israeli gunfight in 2000 at the Netzarim junction (Gaza strip).

Dr. David told Weill-Raynal that he performed a tendon transfer surgery from Jamal Al Dura’s left foot to his paralyzed right hand in 1994, at the Tal ha Shomer hospital in Tel Aviv. Thus, Al Dura's scars in that foot and in that hand resulted both from the axe wound and from his reconstructive surgery. Dr. David was also convinced that Al Dura's other wound was not a bullet wound.

The defendants had thus contradicted a report which was aired on September 30, 2000 by France 2 TV. Charles Enderlin, Chief of the France 2 bureau in Jerusalem, had then commented regarding his Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu Rahma's images:

"Jamal [Al Dura] and his son Mohammed are the targets of gunshots that have come from the Israeli position... Mohammed is dead and his father seriously wounded".

The Tribunal did not follow Public Prosecutor Dominique Lefebvre-Ligneul's sentencing recommendation to drop the charges against the three defendants. It ordered each of the three defendants to pay a 1,000 € ($ 1,480) fine, but issued a total stay of execution of that sentence.

Moreover, it ordered them to pay together to Al Dura 5,000 € ($7,404) in damages and the same amount of money in Tribunal costs.

It granted its partial summary judgment by Actualité juive within one month, but dismissed Al Dura's other demands.

Thus, the Tribunal issued a severe judgement.

It considered as defamatory several passages of those two articles which alleged that Jamal al-Dura had deliberately fooled the public by falsely claiming his old wounds and his son's death had been caused by Israeli shootings, as well as by participating in a staged scene with Palestinian doctors' complicity.

The Tribunal did not dismiss the charges against the defendants because it stated that they failed in giving the proof of the truth of the defamatory statements and of their "good faith".

It noted that Dr. David, Weill-Raynal and Actualité juive's proofs -- Al Dura's Israeli medical file, France 2's film -- were not "perfect and complete", and didn't "correlate to the defamatory accusations in their materiality and their breadth".

The Tribunal asserted that Al Dura's Israeli medical file about his surgery in 1994 does not prove that his perpetrated wounds would have been staged with his complicity on September 30, 2000. According to the Tribunal, the Jordanian medical report made a difference between Al Dura's "old wounds in his right hand" from "other wounds" which, "on that report basis, would have been noticed when Al Dura was admitted to Al Hussein Hospital, in Hamman", on "December 4, 2000".

The tribunal also disregarded Richard Prasquier, President of the CRIF, the French Jewish umbrella organization, and Journalist Luc Rosenzweig's testimonies, as well as the 2008 Court of Appeals judgment, because they didn't bring "any detail on the civil party's wounds".

As to the "good faith", the Tribunal acknowledged that it was legitimate for Dr. David to answer questions related to that controversial footage, and for Weill-Raynal to interview him in order to inform readers on an international affair, the image of Mohammed Al Dura's death having become "emblematic of the Palestinian cause".

However, the Tribunal considered that the defendants could not benefit from the "good faith" excuse. Dr. David gave his "peremptory declaration" on all Al Dura's wounds without "examining his former patient or reading his Jordanian medical file". Weill-Raynal was not a "neutral" interviewer and his investigation was not "serious".

The three defendants will appeal the judgment.

Maître Orly Rezlan, Al Dura's lawyer, wrote to me on May 1, 2011: "That trial allowed to show the limits of " Dr. David's sayings.

Nevertheless, many questions, discrepancies and contradictions remain to be resolved:

- when was Al-Dura admitted to the Amman Hospital? According to the Tribunal, Al Dura's Jordanian "medical report" mentions as his admission hospital date "December 4, 2000". Prof. Walden based his one-page report on Al Dura's Jordanian "medical chart for the hospitalization at the Al Hussein Medical City Hospital in Amman on October 1st, 2000". But France 2 TV filmed Jamal Al Dura at Gaza hospital on "October 1st, 2000" ;

- in 2004, Al Dura showed an alleged  bullet scar near his right foot, whereas he was filmed on October 1st, 2000, without any injury, any bandage, near his right foot, etc.

By ignoring Dr. David's expertise and experience as a surgeon on the battlefields for an IDF paratroopers unit, Al Dura's refusal to answer Weill-Raynal's questions and some contradictions and discrepancies, the Tribunal issued a questionable judgment.

 

Addendum :

Dr Yehuda David, Clément Weill-Raynal and Serge Benattar appealed.

 

In February 15, 2012, the Appeals Court of Paris reversed the lower court’s judgement that found Dr Yehuda David guilty of defaming Jamal al-Dura. It also ruled that Clément Weill-Raynal had libeled Jamal Al-Dura, not in his interview, but in his September 25, 2008 answer to Charles Enderlin: the Paris Court of Appeals ordered Weill-Raynal to pay a 1,000 € ($ 1,480) fine, but issued a total stay of execution of that sentence, to pay to Al Dura 1,000 € in damages and 6,000 € in Court costs.  As Serge Benattar died on  July 2011, the legal proceedings against that defendant ended.

 

Clément Weill-Raynal lodged an appeal, and Jamal Al-Dura appealed Dr David's acquittal.

On September 2013, the French Supreme Court (Court of Annulment) overturned the February 2012 appeals court decision concerning Weill-Raynal, confirmed David's acquittal and dismissed Al-Dura's request. Thus, that judgment without appeal is a legal victory for Weill-Raynal and David.

 

 

(1) I was journalist for Actualité juive hebdo (2001-2004).

Articles about:

Affaire al-Dura/Israël 

Aviation/Mode/Sports 

Chrétiens 

Culture 

France 

Il ou elle a dit... 

Judaïsme/Juifs 

Monde arabe/Islam 

Shoah (Holocaust) 

Articles in English

That article was published on May 9, 2011.

Questions & Answers with Philippe Karsenty

Philippe Karsenty is a Jewish intellectual and an elected official. He is a French media analyst and the founder/director of Media-Ratings which monitors French media for bias. In 2004, he wrote that France 2 and Charles Enderlin had staged the al-Dura incident in 2000, in the Gaza strip. He was sued for libel. He first lost the case in 2006, then he won before the Paris Court of Appeals in 2008. Thanks to him, part of France 2’s footages were released. Philippe Karsenty won a case against French channel Canal + for defamation in 2010. In 2008, he was elected on a center-right ticket as a deputy Mayor of Neuilly-sur-Seine. He is running to be elected deputy at the NationalAssembly, one of the two chambers of French Parliament.

Interview en français

What are the circumstances of your candidacy?

I am campaigning to represent a newly created constituency, which comprises French citizens living abroad, mostly in Israel, in Italy, in Greece and in Turkey. Israelis make up the largest percentage of this newly represented population.

This is a unique opportunity to have in the French Parliament a friend of Israel who has fought in favour of Israel for years, against all odds and in many countries. This chance is made possible by the significant size of the voting population living in Israel. With Israel’s situation becoming more precarious each day, we cannot afford to let Israel’s enemies benefit from that seat.

Who are the other candidates for that constituency?

The election will take place on June 2012. I was the first to declare my candidacy.

The UMP -- President Nicolas Sarkozy’s party -- is represented by Valerie Hoffenberg, who joined in 2009 the Quai d’Orsay, the French State Department. She never opposed to the anti-Israel line of the French diplomacy. On March 11, 2011, French on line newspaper Atlantico issued an article quoting Claude Goasguen, the head of the France-Israel Friendship Group at the French National Assembly, who said that “Hoffenberg shouldn’t run for the UMP in Israel because she is too pro-Palestinian”. On May, 3, Goasguen did not really deny in his blog. That article is still on Atlantico’s website. On May 5, 2011, Goasguen wrote in his blog that, as the head of that France-Israel Friendship Group, he is bound by his duty of discretion until the  official campaign period starts in 2012.

Some other French Jewish community’s responsibles are thinking about joining the race. They barely have no chance to win the seat because they intend to campaign only in Israel, whereas the election will also be done in other countries where I already have supporters.

You live in France and you are a deputy Mayor of Neuilly-sur-Seine. How will you campaign?

I’m campaigning by visiting these countries quite often and meeting people in each and every country concerned by this election. My proposals will meet French electors’s expectations and will address a wide range of topics.

Some support committees have already been created and I’m getting nice feed-backs. We also use social media. Groups have been created on Facebook and we’re getting bigger on the internet with Twitter and soon a dedicated website.

Why do you feel that you will be an asset to French Jewish voters?

I don’t see the things that way. I’ll be first an asset for all the French electors because my fights are not only good for Israel, but also for France. France, the State of Israel, and more generally the free world are confronted with radical Islam which is the new totalitarism of our time.

Israel in on the frontline and by supporting Israel, I’m also supporting the European countries which are not considering this Islamic threat seriously enough. In the al-Dura blood libel, I have proven my ability in fighting efficiently for the Truth. In order to be stronger, I’m creating my own political party to convey our common values which are most of the time forgotten by the French elite.

You won two trials in the al-Dura incident: the alleged killing of Palestinian boy Muhammad al-Dura. You participated in many conferences all around the world. What do you think of France 2’s controversial report?

In 2000, France 2 aired a hoax which in particular inflamed the Muslim world. It never acknowledged that it did not respect journalism ethics in its report: it has no image of Muhammad al-Dura’s agony or death, it failed explaining incoherencies, etc.

French media know that if France 2’s lies are revealed, their lies and malpractices will be revealed as well. France 2’s attitude is a shame for the French society. That State-run channel should be severely punished for what it did. The French society is sick of lies and of “politically correct” discourses. Many French people are shocked by the anti-Semitism most of its media outlets are subtly diffusing. Time is up for a revolution in the French media outlets!

The Jewish Community Protection Service (SPCJ) reports that 466 anti-Semitic aggressions were registered in 2010, as compared with 832 anti-Semitic attacks in 2009 -- a 43.9 percent drop. Since the start of the Intifada II in 2000, the “average” annual number of anti-Semitic cases has remained at high level (around 500)…

The intellectual atmosphere is very hostile towards Israel. This is what makes these anti-Semitic acts possible. Most of French journalists are very anti-Israel and their coverage of the Near-East conflict is biased. When Israel defends itself -- for instance, Operation Cast Lead -- against the aggressions of Palestinians (firings of Qassam rockets from the Gaza Strip), data show an increase in anti-Semitic violence.

What is the French political authorities and citizens’ attitude towards Jews and anti-Semitism ?

The French political authorities fight against anti-Semitism without understanding the problem of incitement. The French establishment is so biased against Israel that it doesn’t realize that it is living in an upside-down fictional world where Israel is presented as the aggressor and the Arabs are presented as the victims.

President Sarkozy claimed that he was a friend of Israel, but his diplomacy turned to be more and more hostile to Israel. Most of supporters of Israel are complaining about President Obama’s attitude towards the Jewish State. And they are right. However, on February 18, 2011, President Obama vetoed a draft resolution “condemning the continuation of settlement activities by Israel in the occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem” at the UN Security Council, while President Sarkozy’s France voted in favour of the resolution. In “their joint statement to the Council, France, the United Kingdom and Germany reiterated the illegality of settlements and the threat it constituted to a two-state solution”.

What do you think about the UMP’s debateabout Islam and Secularism in France?

It’s a truncated debate because French politicians refuse to address the real problem: Islam defies Western democracies.

Instead of stopping radical Islam, Western politicians, and especially French ones, have progressively accepted some of its requests. In 2010, a French law banned the burka and other Muslim coverings, such as niqab, in public places. It will go into effect on April 11, 2011. Its implementation may be difficult.

In Paris, Marseille, Toulouse and Nice, Muslims illegally and regularly block streets for Friday prayers on the public ground. Is it acceptable? No. In order to justify their impotence, French politicians claim that Muslims lack mosques and that building mosques is indispensable. Nonsense!

That article was originally published by Ami Magazine

Other articles in English