<div>
<div>
Visiting Jerusaelm for the World Holocaust form, French President Emmanuel Macron used the site of a holy church to <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/macron-yells-at-israeli-security-to-leave-french-church-during-jerusalem-visit/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.timesofisrael.com/macron-yells-at-israeli-security-to-leave-french-church-during-jerusalem-visit/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1579878466728000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGd1lyLaA_FJ-ZMS6QNqiuEPliWKw">yell at the Israeli Police</a> who were protecting him.
This is just another episode of French antagonism to Israel’s presence in Jerusalem. In 2016, France supported a ludicrous UNESCO resolution that implied Jerusalem has no Jewish or Christian historical connection. The French prime minister at the time, Manuel Valls, subsequently expressed regret for his country’s action, but it did not stop France from doing it again: A year later, it abstained on a similar UNESCO resolution.
The following year, when President Trump announced that the United States will recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move its embassy, France was at the forefront of the passionate and angry European opposition — itself more aggressive than the Palestinian and Arab reactions. Macron repeatedly claimed that the recognition would have negative security repercussions well beyond Jerusalem, stating that “the status of Jerusalem is a question of international security which concerns the entire international community.&#8221;
Such European position is based on a 1949 U.N. resolution that designated Jerusalem and Bethlehem as a “corpus separatum” to be placed under an international legal regime — essentially a European colony.
Macron did not stop there, and tried to link the May 2018 Hamas-led &#8220;Nakba day&#8221; Gaza riots to the opening of the new U.S. embassy: “Experience shows that whether you like it or not, things like that provoke violence in response. … This leads to people dying.” He said.
French disruptive meddling in the Middle East is not new. In 1920, French actions triggered the first shots in what became the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. France invaded Syria in order to dethrone the pro-Zionist Arab Emir Faisal and to instill a French regime instead (nominally posing as a League of Nation mandate). While Jews attempted to stay neutral in the French-Arab conflict, local Arab commanders suspected French soldiers were hiding in the Jewish village of Tel-Chai and a deadly battle ensued.
The residue of French colonialism was very much on display in Macron’s visit to Jerusalem on January 22. Indeed, it traces back as far as the inter-colonialist dealings of the 1850s, when the Ottoman Empire gave the Church of Saint Anne to France as a reward for France’s support in the Crimean War.
“Get out,” Macron yelled at Israeli Police as they entered that church with him. Analysts view this as an orchestrated show directed at Macron’s Muslim and far-left anti-Israel voters. Previous French President Jacques Chirac pulled a similar stunt during his 1996 Jerusalem visit. Walking through the narrow alleys of the Old City — a venue of multiple stabbings and other terrorist attacks — Chirac confronted his Israeli security detail for their tight protection.
What is alarming about the January 22 incident is not that Macron, like Chirac, decided to take a shot at Israel for seemingly internal political grains, but that he chose to do so in one of Christianity’s holy sites, located right on the Via Dolorosa. As Macron ordered Israeli Police out, he yelled at them that those rules have been in place for centuries and “that will not change with me.” Macron got it wrong. This colonialist-era arrangement could have only been in place for one century and a half.
While Macron might wish for Jerusalem and Bethlehem to be taken away from the locals and given to the “international community,” this particular part of Jerusalem should apparently belong to France. His spokesperson even clarified this point. Israeli Police stated that Macron’s team later apologized for the incident, and Macron went on to shake the hands of his security detail as they continued their tour of the Old City.
Notwithstanding the apology, one cannot ignore the disturbing pattern. This week’s actions come just a year after Macron outraged the world in announcing his plans to honor Marshal Petain, murderer of the Jews of France and head of the collaborative Vichy government, for his role in World War I. Macron later retracted the plan. Symbolically, the Macron incident occurred as he gathered along with 45 world leaders in Jerusalem to remember the Holocaust — a genocide for which France is still in the early stages of recognizing its previous occupied government&#8217;s complicit guilt. For example, a recent <a href="http://www.claimscon.org/france-study/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.claimscon.org/france-study/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1579878466728000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEVIoRCH-fCTziIpPRiSTN_v0QSVQ">study</a> showed that 45% of French millennials are unaware of the occupied French government’s collaboration with the Nazi regime during the Holocaust.
Let us be clear — France is an important ally of both Israel and the United States, and Macron is a friend. He is a courageous fighter against anti-Semitism, including in his repeated proclamation that there is no difference between anti-Zionism and anti Semitism. But friendship requires honesty and France should be told that it is time to take a deep look inside.
France’s repeated episodes of opposition to Jerusalem should not be taken lightly, even if followed by some sort of retraction or apology. Moreover, anti-Semitism in France is rising yet again and trickling up into the mainstream of French society. This was just as it did in the 1890s during the Dreyfus Affair — a stunning case of state-sponsored anti-Semitism spanning multiple levels of French government and society — and just as it did in the 1940s with the Vichy government&#8217;s collaboration with the Nazis.
Rather than yell at Israeli Police that things &#8220;will not change with me,&#8221; it is time for Macron and France to enact radical changes that will put an end to the French government&#8217;s stance against Jerusalem. This should not be done to please Jews or Christians. It should be done for the sake of France itself.
<div></div>
Gol Kalev analyzes trends in Zionism, Europe and global affairs. For more of his articles: <a href="http://europeandjerusalem.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://europeandjerusalem.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1579878466728000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFitK7ujW6YkWYwdOOdDlab9h_iRg">europeandjerusalem.com.</a>
</div>
</div>

Emmanuel Macron

KALEV: Macron Must End France’s Colonialist-Like Stance Against Jerusalem

Benjamin Netanyahu

Foreign Policy

France

Hamas

Israel

Jerusalem

Middle East

United Nations

Zionism

Last week, Israeli prosecutors charged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with three counts of corruption. At the core of the indictment is an accusation that Netanyahu accepted bribes in the form of positive press coverage (or more precisely, reduction in negative coverage). In exchange, Netanyahu allegedly advanced the interests of two powerful Israeli media organizations.
The unprecedented designation by prosecutors of press coverage as a currency for bribery has far-reaching implications on the freedom of the press, and could curtail journalists’ ability to report the truth.
For example, the morning after Netanyahu’s indictment, several prominent journalists and editors called for Netanyahu&#8217;s immediate resignation, thereby creating public pressure for his removal. If Netanyahu resigns, and one of those journalists later receives some sort of benefit from the new government, such as an exclusive interview, then according to last week’s precedent, that journalist could be exposed to charges of bribery.
Another challenge to freedom of the press that arose from last week’s indictment relates to journalists’ complex, multi-layer relations with their sources — a process that certainly includes a lot of give and take. A journalist&#8217;s interaction with sources, including politicians, is now suddenly under scrutiny — criminal scrutiny! With such restrictions, it is possible that many journalists&#8217; headline-grabbing exposures, such as Watergate, would have not been uncovered.
There are those in Israel who dismiss this by arguing that the indictment has nothing to do with freedom of the press, but rather with Netanyahu’s corruption. For decades, alas, Israeli prosecutors and investigators sought to find wrongdoing by Netanyahu and his <a href="https://www.haaretz.com/ag-to-handle-sara-netanyahu-s-bottle-deposit-scandal-1.5366779">family</a>. “This is the best they could come up with,” explained one commentator about the prime minister&#8217;s indictment. Decades of searching for misconduct now resulting in such a bizarre charge could paradoxically be interpreted by some as a testament to Netanyahu’s integrity. Indeed, many around the world were quick to condemn the Israeli prosecutor’s action. For example, Mark Levin <a href="https://twitter.com/marklevinshow/status/1197644963061882882">tweeted</a>: “I’ve carefully reviewed these charges and they’re outrageous. This is an assault on freedom of the press and the investigation was corrupt.”
But there is also another side to the story. Israel is a hub for global innovations: Turning air into water, saving lives through medical breakthroughs, generating cutting-edge ideas that alter long-held beliefs. In this realm, perhaps the revolutionary treatment of press coverage by Israeli prosecutors, who are revered around the legal world for their high professionalism, awakens the issue of the power of the press and brings it for debate in the global public square.
After all, the media shape people’s minds. Why should it not be held accountable? Should journalists and media outlets be investigated about what really motivates their coverage? For example, the BBC, which influences millions of British citizens, has long been perceived to have a positive bias toward the European Union (EU) and to give negative coverage to the Brexit campaign. It was then revealed that the BBC has <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/06/bbc-faces-brexit-bias-accusations-4m-eu-funding/">allegedly been the recipient</a> of millions of Euros from the EU. Similar realities exist with other news outlets around the world. Some are open about their bias — and are even proud of it.
Decisions by journalists and editors can make or break the careers of politicians and influence the outcomes of elections. Nowhere is this more paramount than in the case of Netanyahu, who, along with his family, has been a subject of a smear campaign by the Israeli media for over 25 years now. The negative press has been so extreme that even Netanyahu’s arch-rival, Arab Joint List Knesset Member Ahmed Tibi, who was a close associate of PLO leader Yasser Arafat, came to Netanyahu’s defense in 2010. Tibi denounced what he labeled the “inhuman treatment” of Netanyahu’s wife. In an emotional speech from the podium of the Knesset, he stated: ”I will do whatever it takes to unseat you, but will never use attacks on your wife and family to do so.”
With media outlets deploying their enormous power to achieve their objectives, such as to unseat Netanyahu or to reject Brexit, perhaps Israeli prosecutors taking the lid off the sanctity of the freedom of the press should not be brushed off so quickly. Granted, there are other problematic aspects of Netanyahu’s indictment, such as the allegation of selective enforcement (many politicians received positive coverage, but none were indictment). Alan Dershowitz, for example, argued earlier this year that “to bring down a duly elected prime minister on the basis of an expansive and unprecedented application of a broad and expandable criminal statute, endangers democracy.&#8221;
No matter what one thinks about the merits of the indictment, one thing is clear: A historic debate about the freedom of the press has been launched.
&nbsp;
Gol Kalev analyzes trends in Zionism, Europe and global affairs. For more of his articles: <a href="http://europeandjerusalem.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://europeandjerusalem.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1574865012618000&amp;usg=AFQjCNE0a1_7ZfpExUVJPpsBaQ_UwuzfLw">europeandjerusalem.com.</a>

KALEV: Netanyahu’s Indictment Could Be A Game-Changer For Freedom Of The Press

Freedom of the Press

Media

A symbolic coincidence occurred earlier this week. In the same morning that Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists pounded Israeli towns with rockets, the <a href="https://fortune.com/2019/11/12/israel-european-ruling-wine-labels-diplomacy/">European Court of Justice affirmed a European Commission special labeling requirement</a> for Jewish-owned businesses in the West Bank.
Those two events are unrelated. Iranian-sponsored Islamic Jihad fired over 200 rockets in reaction to Israel intercepting its leader Bahaa Abu Al-Ata, who was responsible for numerous attacks on Israeli civilians. The European Court ruling was in reaction to an appeal filed by Psagot, an Israeli winery located in the West Bank, which was prohibited by the European Union (EU) from labeling its wines “made in Israel.”
The juxtaposition of those two assaults on Jewish sovereignty is indicative of the current state of Judaism, and the threats it faces: The jihadi one is a tactical threat that puts the lives of individual Jews in great danger, but it poses a strategic threat to neither Judaism nor the Jewish State. The European action, on the other hand, does not put any Jewish lives in direct danger, but it represents a strategic threat that is part of a string of European anti-Israel measures.
The history of Europe and Jewry has often been fraught. The feuds date back to the ancient Greek and Roman invasions of Judea, which were followed by European Jews’ centuries-long general refusal to assimilate out of existence. Tensions have since evolved. When Europe was more religious, it often deployed religion as the currency of its opposition to Jews. When Europe turned more secular, many came to oppose Jews through a more national and ethnic opposition to Judaism. Toward the end of the 19th century, this new form of Jew-hatred got a name: Anti-Semitism.
While many European countries are today strong allies of Israel, the re-establishment of the Jewish state and its astonishing success seem to have provided a new outlet for European anti-Semitism. Indeed, it is hard to explain the European product-labeling directive on its merits, as it inflicts more damage to Palestinians than it does to Jewish-owned businesses in the West Bank. Those businesses employ Palestinians and some of them mentor Palestinians. European efforts to sabotage Palestinian employment in Jewish-owned businesses do not end with the product-labeling decree, and stand in sharp contrast to the U.S. policy of encouraging coexistence and business cooperation. For example, Europeans spent ample funds and political resources to pressure SodaStream to close its West Bank factory. Europe was successful, and hundreds of Palestinians lost their jobs as a result.
Europeans claim that such actions are meant to help Palestinians. The notion that a European would know what is better for an individual Palestinian is regrettably a recurring theme in Europe’s disruptive intervention in Israeli-Palestinian affairs. Many European countries support NGOs and U.N. agencies, such as UNWRA, that promote Palestinian victimhood and rob Palestinians of opportunities to reap the benefits of the start-up nation next door. Perhaps even worse, many European countries supported or abstained on ludicrous UNESCO resolutions implying that Jews and Christians have no historical connections to Jerusalem.
The repeated rounds of attacks from Palestinian terrorists, such as the current one, will be contained. The repeated rounds of political hostility from Europe, on the other hand, requires more attention than is currently given.
Indeed, it is time for Europe to end its intervention in Israeli-Palestinian affairs and focus its energy and capital on its own problems. There are no shortage of those: Europe’s conflict with radical Islam, the debate about the essence of Europeanism, the potential secession of EU member-states, Europe’s battle with home-grown terrorism, as well as the long list of unresolved intra-European conflicts that were temporarily shoved under the rug.
Projecting or blaming Israel will not make European problems go away. In fact, it might awaken them: If the EU insists that Psagot winery needs to remove from its labels “made in Israel,” then some might argue that the EU should also prohibit wine produced in Italian-controlled South Tyrol from being labeled “made in Italy.” Similarly, the EU might preclude wine made in Corsica from being labeled “made in France,” and in Catalonia from being labeled “made in Spain.”
No matter what the EU says, the reality remains that Psagot, as well as the dozens of other West Bank wineries, continue to produce superb Israeli wine that reap award after award in international tasting competitions. Perhaps instead of escalating the feud with the Jewish state, EU politicians and bureaucrats should change course and benefit from the great blessings that are coming out of Israel.
&nbsp;
Gol Kalev analyzes trends in Zionism, Europe and global affairs. For more of his articles: <a href="http://europeandjerusalem.com">europeandjerusalem.com</a><a href="http://europeandjerusalem.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://europeandjerusalem.com&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1573746251659000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGN3aLV_J5u3l1Byp8enDBgEXoRnw">.</a>

Close-up on the EU flag.

KALEV: European Political Opposition To The Jewish State Should Not Be Taken Lightly

Europe

European Union

Palestinians

Menu

KALEV: Macron Must End France’s Colonialist-Like Stance Against Jerusalem

KALEV: Netanyahu’s Indictment Could Be A Game-Changer For Freedom Of The Press

KALEV: European Political Opposition To The Jewish State Should Not Be Taken Lightly