Displaying posts published in

June 2017

After Middle East, Will Islamists Uproot Christians in Europe? by Giulio Meotti

About terrorism and Islamist violence, Christian leaders offer only words of relativism and moral equivalence. Is it possible that after two recent big massacres of Christians, Catholic leaders have not a single word of courage and honor, but only the same offer of the other cheek?

Our secular elites condemn proselytizing only when it is practiced by Christians, never when practiced by Muslims.

In Syria and Iraq, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of places of Christian worship that Islamic fundamentalists have demolished in the past three years. These images, along with the mass decapitations and the rape of the minorities, shock the public, it seems, for one day.

We do not yet know enough about the three terrorists who, saying “This is for Allah!”, killed and wounded so many in London on June 4, but consider these two recent scenes:

Scene one: Manchester, United Kingdom, the “free world”. A British-born Muslim terrorist prays in a former church. All around him, the Christian sites and congregations accepted being turned into Islamic sites. The day after, this terrorist goes on a rampage, murdering 22 concert-goers.

Scene two: Minya, Egypt, the “unfree world”. An Islamist terror group stops a bus full of Christian pilgrims. The terrorists demand that their victims recite the Islamic creed, the shahaada. The Christians refuse to abandon Christianity and become Muslims. The Islamists murder them, one by one.

What do these scenes tell us? Christians resist Islam more in the Middle East than in Europe.

Salman Abedi, the British terrorist who massacred 22 innocent men, women and children at the Manchester Arena, could, every day, enter what was once a beautiful Christian church, consecrated in 1883. It was desecrated in the 1960s, during a great wave of secularization. People still remember the Methodist Church that it was until it was bought by the local Syrian Muslim community to make it a place of Islamic worship, the Didsbury Mosque. One can still see the typical architecture of a church, from the bell tower to the windows. But inside, instead of an altar, Abedi would be headed to the mihrab, the niche in the mosque that indicates the direction of Mecca. The pulpit is still there, but it is no longer used by a Christian pastor. It is used by the imam for the Khutba, the Islamic prayer.

Outside the Didsbury Mosque there is a sign announcing: “Do you want to know more about Islam? Come and socialize”. Such a sign for Christianity would be unthinkable in any European city. Our secular elites condemn proselytizing only when it is practiced by Christians, never when practiced by Muslims. On YouTube, an Islamist organization celebrates “the church converted to a mosque”. Instead of the times for Mass, there is another sign: “Prayer Room for Men”.

A few days after the Manchester attack, Islamists again struck Christians; this time, pilgrims in Egypt. That attack took place after Pope Francis’s trip to Egypt, where he offered the local suffering Christians only a vague condemnation of “every form of hatred in the name of religion”. The head of the Catholic Church evidently did not have the courage to address the question of Islamic fundamentalism, as had his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, at Regensburg.

The Fanatical Prophet of Climate-Change Doom Michael Mann demands that skeptics submit to the ‘scientific consensus.’ By Ian Tuttle

Editor’s Note: This piece originally appeared in the February 20, 2017 issue of National Review.

In early January, Slate columnist Eric Holthaus tweeted: “I’m starting my 11th year working on climate change, including the last 4 in daily journalism. Today I went to see a counselor about it.” Holthaus announced that he was in “despair” over climate-change inaction: “There are days where I literally can’t work. I’ll read a story & shut down for rest of the day. Not much helps besides exercise & time.” His job, he says, is “chronicling planetary suicide.”

Holthaus’s tweets, and the massive online group-therapy session that followed, would be amusing were they not so pitiful. Here is the emotional toll of buying into one of our most saleable beliefs at present: that the planet faces imminent destruction as a result of anthropogenic climate change, rescue from which is being held up by greedy midwestern oilmen, the political operatives in their pocket, and obnoxious Republican uncles swallowed up in ignorance.

There is an extensive literature in this new millenarianism, the latest contribution to which is Michael E. Mann and Tom Toles’s The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy. Mann, as National Review readers may know, is the creator of the much-ballyhooed “hockey stick” climate graph, which purports to show an unprecedented, precipitous warming of the climate beginning in 1920; he is also currently suing National Review for having the audacity to question his findings. Tom Toles is a cartoonist for the Washington Post, whose contribution to the book is several dozen smug, self-congratulatory drawings mocking Republicans as avaricious, oblivious, and/or simply stupid.

Readers familiar with climate-change zealotry will find recognizable sound bites here: “The warming of the planet caused by our profligate burning of fossil fuels poses perhaps the greatest challenge that human civilization has yet faced. . . . If we continue with the course we are on, our destiny may indeed be to leave behind an unlivable planet of destroyed ecosystems and continuous, unpredictable chaos.” One short chapter gives an overview of the “overwhelming” scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change, another chapter elaborates the threat — “Be it national security, food, water, land, the economy, or health . . . the specter of climate change is upon us” — and then Mann gets to his real purpose: scolding anyone who thinks differently from Michael Mann.

That there are varying degrees of skepticism toward the large set of questions that constitute the climate-change debate, or that different people partake of different motives, seems not to have occurred to Mann. Skeptics are “deniers,” and “deniers” are obviously on the payroll of fossil-fuel companies or their shadowy network of supporters. (The Koch brothers, who are apparently funding the entire Republican party, should be paying Mann as well, given the space they’re occupying in his head.) Scientists, by contrast, are just humble servants of the truth, and anyone who suggests that there might be perverse incentives operating in the scientific community simply does not know how scientific scholarship works. There is “a roughly 97 to 99 percent agreement among scientists that climate change is real and caused by humans.”

That familiar statistic, trotted out regularly by the Obama White House to bolster its climate agenda, is based on a convenient sampling of the relevant literature. In fact, there is a vigorous, vocal minority of dissenters from the climate-change consensus within the scientific community, the vast majority of whom have nothing to do with ExxonMobil. And it’s not as if there are no reasons to exercise caution. Environmental forecasts have been wildly wrong going back half a century. In 1970, Life magazine reported growing evidence that “by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching Earth by one half.” That same year, ecologist Kenneth Watt told an audience at Swarthmore College that, “if present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” NASA scientist James Hansen, an early advocate for climate-change action whom Mann cites approvingly, testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 1986 that, “in 20 years, the global warming should reach about 1 degree Celsius, which would be the warmest the Earth has been in the last 100,000 years.” (It increased by about 0.38 degrees Celsius.)

Seeing oneself as a visionary repelling a global threat does not lead to politics as much as to fanaticism.

Islamic State Claims London Attack U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May says more must be done to stop people being radicalized; police arrest 12By Jason Douglas, Stu Woo and Jenny Gross

LONDON—The third terror attack in Britain in as many months laid bare a growing challenge to Europe’s police and intelligence agencies and prompted Prime Minister Theresa May to say tolerance of Islamist extremism in the country had gone too far.

The attack, which killed seven people and was claimed by Islamic State, interrupted the campaigning for national elections for a second time and shook confidence in the country’s counterterrorism strategy, which Mrs. May said would be reviewed.

“Since the emergence of the threat from Islamist-inspired terrorism, our country has made significant progress in disrupting plots and protecting the public. But it is time to say enough is enough,” Mrs. May said on Sunday.

Mrs. May warned that more must be done to stop people from becoming radicalized, pointing out that attackers have been inspired by those that have come before, often using unsophisticated means.

She added that in the U.K. there is “too much tolerance” of extremism and more must be done to stamp it out, saying the government will consider lengthier prison sentences for extremist-related offenses.

She took aim at internet companies for what she said was allowing extremism—a “perversion” of the Islamic faith—to flourish online.

“We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the internet and the big companies that provide internet based services provide,” Mrs. May said.

With voting set for Thursday, campaigning will resume on Monday, with security issues likely to take center stage. For Mrs. May, the issue is a double-edged sword: As a former Home Secretary from 2010 to 2016, she knows the issue inside out. But any lapses that emerge from investigations of possible failings by the police or security services could also be laid at her door.

Three knife-wielding men carried out the deadly rampage in the capital Saturday night, plowing a rented white van into pedestrians on London Bridge and then indiscriminately stabbing people in a lively area of pubs and restaurants nearby. In addition to those killed, dozens were injured, with 21 of them in critical condition on Sunday.

Police ended the violence by shooting and killing the assailants just eight minutes after they received the first reports of the bridge incident.

Islamic State on Sunday said on its official Amaq news agency that a “covert unit” had carried out the attack.

Police haven’t released the identities of the three men. At least one of the men was born in Pakistan, a Western security official said. It wasn’t clear when the man came to Britain or whether he had acquired British citizenship. CONTINUE AT SITE

The Diminishing Returns of a College Degree In the mid-1970s, far less than 1% of taxi drivers were graduates. By 2010 more than 15% were. By Richard Vedder and Justin Strehle See note please

With rare exceptions they graduate more ignorant and biased than they were in high school…why waste the money? rsk
In the 375 years between 1636, when Harvard College was founded, and 2011, college enrollments in the United States rose almost continuously, rarely undergoing even a temporary decline. When the American Revolution began in 1775, only 721 students attended the nine colonial colleges. By 2010 enrollments had surpassed 20 million.

Yet from 2011 to 2016, the National Student Clearinghouse reports, total higher education enrollments declined every fall, falling to 19 million from 20.6 million. Although the declines were concentrated in community colleges and for-profit institutions, even many traditional four-year schools saw previously steady enrollment growth come to an end. Many smaller schools have even missed their annual enrollment goals.

Illustration: David Gothard

Why is this happening? Some point to demographic influences, such as a drop in birth rates during the 1990s. Others cite increases in job opportunities, which lured college-age Americans away from the academy in the aftermath of the Great Recession. But two longer-term trends are at work: The cost of college attendance is rising while the financial benefits of a degree are falling.

The evidence on rising costs is well established: From 2000 to 2016, the tuition-and-fees component of the Consumer Price Index rose 3.54% annually (74.5% over the entire period), adjusting for overall inflation. With sluggish business investment, a slowdown in income growth has aggravated the rising burden of paying for higher education. American families have taken on more than $1.3 trillion in student-loan debt—more than what they borrow with credit cards or to buy cars.

Less well known is that the earnings advantage associated with a bachelor’s degree compared with a high school diploma is no longer growing like it once did. Census data show that the average annual earnings differential between high school and four-year college graduates rose sharply, to $32,900 in 2000 (expressed in 2015 dollars) from $19,776 in 1975—only to fall to $29,867 by 2015. In the late 20th century rising higher-education costs were offset by the increasing financial benefits associated with a bachelor’s degree. Since 2000 those benefits have declined, while costs have continued to rise.

Rising costs and declining benefits mean the rate of return on a college investment is starting to fall for many Americans. Some observers have begun asking whether it might not be better for more students to forgo college in favor of less expensive postsecondary training in vocations like welding and plumbing. The New York Federal Reserve Bank says about 40% of recent college graduates are “underemployed,” often for a long time. They sometimes resort to taking jobs as Uber drivers or baristas. With some inexpensive vocational training, they could easily get jobs that pay much better.

To be sure, the payoff from a college education varies sharply depending on school and major. U.S. Department of Education data suggests recent attendees of Stanford University earn on average far more than twice as much as those attending Northern Kentucky University ($86,000 vs. $36,000). Electrical engineers typically earn twice as much as psychology majors. No wonder elite students flock to schools like Stanford and demand for graduates with engineering degrees remains robust, while many state universities, community colleges and smaller liberal-arts schools struggle to attract students. CONTINUE AT SITE

Jihad Returns to Britain The U.K. is waking up to the ideological nature of the Islamist threat.

Saturday’s terror attack in the heart of London, Britain’s third murderous assault in 72 days, poses a difficult choice for free societies: Do more to contain this internal Islamist insurgency now, or risk a political backlash that will result in even more draconian limits on civil liberties.

No group had taken responsibility by midday Sunday, but the operation that killed seven and wounded 48 bore the hallmarks of recent jihadist atrocities. The London Bridge area and nearby Borough Market are packed with bars and restaurants popular with tourists and young people. The three alleged perpetrators rammed a van into pedestrians, then began stabbing people before police shot them.

Prime Minister Theresa May said Saturday’s attack wasn’t directly linked to the suicide bombing committed by Salman Abedi at a pop concert in Manchester last month. But the three attacks in succession show why governments must target the threat at its roots, in self-isolating Muslim communities that reject mainstream values and create homegrown or Islamic State-inspired radicals like Abedi.

On this front, Mrs. May is well ahead of many of her European counterparts. The Prime Minister in a speech Sunday morning outlined a new counterterror strategy that puts ideology and Muslim integration at the forefront. The trio of recent attacks in Britain, she said, were “bound together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism.”

Mrs. May went on to call for a battle of ideas against Islamism and tough love for British Muslims who have failed to confront radicals in their mosques and community centers. Said the Prime Minister: “We need to live our lives not in a series of separated, segregated communities, but as one truly United Kingdom.”

Mrs. May suggested this would involve “difficult and often embarrassing conversations” with the Muslim community, and she is right. This has to include an end to political coddling of so-called soft Islamist groups and imams who treat candor about the Islamist threat as anti-Muslim or refuse to identify radicals in their midst.



[Note by Tom Gross]

Tomorrow marks the fiftieth anniversary of the outbreak of the 1967 Six Day War – a war that some say changed the Middle East. In the run up to the anniversary, there have been a number of attempts at historical revisionism by some academics and journalists, distorting the facts in a bid to turn the Arabs into victims and Israel into an aggressor. For example, a new BBC online “backgrounder on the Six Day War” suggests that Egypt’s President Nasser had no intention of fighting Israel.

I attach three articles below which help counter these distortions. The first is by Israeli commentator Ben-Dror Yemini, who points out, citing examples, that Arab leaders announced unequivocally that their plan for Israel was annihilation. For instance Syria’s Hafez Assad declared: “Pave the Arab roads with the skulls of Jews… We are determined to saturate this earth with your (Israeli) blood, to throw you into the sea.” The second piece is by Michael Oren, the former Israeli ambassador to Washington, who writes confidently that “Israel will never again be nine miles wide”. And the third is by Bret Stephens, who recently moved from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times to become their token non-anti-Israeli columnist, who says that “for the crime of self-preservation, Israel remains a nation unforgiven”. (All three writers are subscribers to this Middle East dispatch list.)


Ben-Dror Yemini (Yediot Ahronot, Tel Aviv):

There is a mega-narrative that exempts the Arabs from responsibility for the Six-Day War. Yet both the Arab League and the leaders of all neighboring states announced in an unequivocal manner that their plan for Israel was annihilation. Considering the fact that the Arab and Muslim world was engaged in endless massacres – which are still going on – it was pretty clear that what they were doing to themselves they would also do to Israel.

The Arab states never accepted the State of Israel’s existence, not for a moment. There was no occupation from 1949 to 1967, but a Palestinian state wasn’t established because the leaders of the Arab world didn’t want another state. They wanted Israel. In 1964 the Arab League convened in Cairo and announced: “collective Arab military preparations, when they are completed, will constitute the ultimate practical means for the final liquidation of Israel.”

In 1966, then-Syrian defense minister Hafez Assad declared: “Pave the Arab roads with the skulls of Jews… We are determined to saturate this earth with your (Israeli) blood, to throw you into the sea.”

Nine days before the war broke out, Egypt’s Nasser said: “The Arab people want to fight. Our basic aim is the destruction of the State of Israel.”

Iraqi president Abdul Rahman Arif said: “This is our chance… our goal is clear: To wipe Israel off the map.”
There are extracts first for those who don’t have time to read the articles in full.

Muslims Take Over New York Street – Start Praying in Front of Trump Tower for Ramadan (VIDEO) Cristina Laila

New York – Muslims continued on with their civilization Jihad as they took over the street in front of Trump Tower during ‘Iftar’ or ‘breaking their Ramadan fast’.

There is no reason for this other than Muslims letting the infidels know that they here and working on their Islamic takeover.

Of course Hamas-linked, Linda Sarsour was also there spewing more lies about her intentions as a Muslim activist. She claims Trump is full of hatred and divisiveness which of course is untrue. The real hate and divisiveness comes from Islam and Sarsour knows it.

Muslim countries are the most bigoted places on earth. Several Muslim countries don’t even allow Israeli Jews to enter, yet Sarsour acts like a victim. Saudi Arabia prohibits Christian churches and Jewish Synagogues from being built, so save us the crocodile tears, Sarsour.Below is video of the Muslims ‘praying’ as they take over the street in front of Trump Tower:http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/muslims-take-street-start-praying-front-trump-tower-new-york-ramadan-video/

The U.N. Human Rights Council whitewashes brutality : Ambassador Nikki Haley *****

The president of Venezuela, whose government shoots protesters in the street, recently thanked the international community for its “universal vote of confidence” in that country’s commitment to human rights.

The Cuban deputy foreign minister, whose government imprisons thousands of political opponents, once said Cuba has historic prestige “in the promotion and protection of all human rights.”
How can these people get away with saying such things? Because they have been elected to the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose members are — on paper — charged with “upholding the highest standards” of human rights.

Last month, a U.S. Senate subcommittee met to consider whether the United States should remain a part of the council. Expert witnesses shared their viewpoints, not on the question of whether America supports human rights — of course we do, and very strongly. The question was whether the Human Rights Council actually supports human rights or is merely a showcase for dictatorships that use their membership to whitewash brutality.

When the council focuses on human rights instead of politics, it advances important causes. In North Korea, its attention has led to action on human rights abuses. In Syria, it has established a commission on the atrocities of Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

All too often, however, the victims of the world’s most egregious human rights violations are ignored by the very organization that is supposed to protect them.

Venezuela is a member of the council despite the systematic destruction of civil society by the government of Nicolás Maduro through arbitrary detention, torture and blatant violations of freedom of the press and expression. Mothers are forced to dig through trash cans to feed their children. This is a crisis that has been 18 years in the making. And yet, not once has the Human Rights Council seen fit to condemn Venezuela.

Cuba’s government strictly controls the media and severely restricts the Cuban people’s access to the Internet. Thousands are arbitrarily detained each year, with some political prisoners serving long sentences. Yet Cuba has never been condemned by the council; it, too, is a member.In 2014, Russia invaded Ukraine and took over Crimea. This illegal occupation resulted in thousands of civilian deaths and injuries, as well as arbitrary detentions. No special meeting of the Human Rights Council was called, and the abuses continue to mount.

The council has been given a great responsibility. It has been charged with using the moral power of universal human rights to be the world’s advocate for the most vulnerable among us. The United Nations must reclaim the legitimacy of this organization.

For all of us, this is an urgent task. Human rights are central to the mission of the United Nations. Not only are they the right thing to promote, they are also the smart thing to promote. In April, I dedicated the U.S. presidency of the U.N. Security Council to making the connection between human rights and peace and security.

Next week, I will travel to Geneva to address the Human Rights Council about the United States’ concerns.

Keeping Faith With Tiananmen by Claudia Rosett

It’s 28 years since the Tiananmen uprising, in which China’s people peacefully took away control of their huge capital from China’s ruling Communist party, and asked for liberty, democracy, justice. And it was 28 years ago today — on June 4, 1989 –that the Communist Party of China took back control, sending in the People’s Liberation Army, with guns, armored personnel carriers and tanks, to retake Tiananmen Square, symbolic heart of the protests. China’s rulers followed up, nationwide, with arrests, executions, imprisonments, surveillance and censorship that continues to this day.

During the uprising, demonstrators propped a big poster against the Monument to the People’s Heroes in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. In Chinese characters, it said: “1989, a year China will remember.”

I was there, reporting in Beijing for The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, and in a story I filed for the May 22 Asian edition, on “The Creed at Tiananmen Square,” the message on that poster figured in the lead. One of my editors, Seth Lipsky — who now runs The New York Sun — added a line that comes to mind today: “What’s happening in China right now is something the world will remember.”

We must remember. It is a matter not only of keeping faith with the heroes of Tiananmen, but with our own creed that liberty is an unalienable right. It is a matter of understanding something vital about the undercurrents in China, something that Beijing’s rulers would prefer we forget.

In the 28 years since June 4, 1989, China’s ruling Communist Party has done everything in its power to obliterate inside China the memory of the Tiananmen uprising. As far as China’s government alludes to it at all, Tiananmen’s haunting cry for freedom is recast as a “disturbance,” caused by a rabble. The lone man who on June 4 stopped a column of tanks has become an inspiring symbol abroad, but in China he has literally disappeared. It is by now routine to find in the news, on each anniversary of the June 4 slaughter in Beijing, articles such as today’s dispatch in the Financial Times, headlined “Support grows in China for 1989 Tiananmen crackdown.” The FT reports:

“The bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square nearly three decades ago saved China from a Russia-style meltdown, according to a strongly held view among the generation that will enjoy unprecedented international clout as it takes up the baton of power in Beijing.

…many in China’s political and economic elite and among the broader middle class believe the country’s recent economic success could never have been achieved if the ruling Communist party had not called in the army 28 years ago to maintain its monopoly on power.”

We in the Free World would do well to ask a basic question: Do the people of China have any real choice but to toe that official line? They live under a ruling party that wields its monopoly on power to stifle, isolate, immiserate and imprison those who pursue democratic dissent. They live under a ruling party that in 1989 demonstrated its willingness to kill China’s own people in the streets. This is a government that today keeps its country’s Nobel Peace laureate, democratic dissident Liu Xiaobo, in jail, and his wife under house arrest.

New York-based Human Rights Watch, in its review of China for 2016, reports:

“Under the leadership of President Xi Jinping, who will remain in power until 2022 and possibly beyond, the outlook for fundamental human rights, including freedom of expression, assembly, association and religion remains dire.”

Washington-based Freedom House, in its 2017 review of China, reports:

“The ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has tightened its control over the media, religious groups, and civil society associations in recent years … The state president and CCP leader, Xi Jinping, is consolidating personal power to a degree not seen in China for decades.

Freedom House also notes that China’s ruling party tries to justify its despotic ways by casting Western democracies as the enemy:

Faced with a slowing economy, the leadership continues to cultivate nationalism, including hostile anti-Western rhetoric, as a pillar of legitimacy.”

Naturally, China’s government would like to credit its chokehold on China’s more than 1.3 billion people as a vital element in China’s economic rise. CONTINUE AT SITE

A public television debacle in Germany

Thanks to dear friend and e-pal Joan S….


The article is about a documentary „Selected and Excluded – Jew Hatred in Europe“ by Joachim Schroeder and Sophie Hafner in German. The article is English translated. A warning to Jews wherever they are. This is a MUST READ. The movie must be brought to US, subtitled and shown, at least, in PBS. Holocaust centers have to acquire the movie for daily showings. Isaac Barr MD For Michigan Forum, Forwarded to 426 contacts.

German public television commissions a documentary film about anti-Semitism, and then refuses to include it in their programming. The reasons are scandalous!

Today I saw the film documentary „Selected and Excluded – Jew Hatred in Europe“ by Joachim Schroeder and Sophie Hafner. Never before have I seen such a comprehensive documentary detailing the roots of current Jew hatred in Europe. It’s scandalous that the public broadcasters ARTE and WDR („West German Broadcasting“) refuse to broadcast the documentary. Their silence is supporting the hatred.

„I am convinced that the Arabs in France would never have been violent towards the Jews, had they not been convinced that it was their duty to show solidarity with their brothers in faith in Palestine. They would never have done this. But they have been told that solidarity is necessary, while some of those in power let it happen by justifying and supporting the attacks.“

Those are the closing words in the documentary „Chosen and Excluded – Jew Hatred in Europe“ by Joachim Schroeder and Sophie Hafner. In the film one can hear demonstrators in Berlin shouting the following epitaphs in public:

„Jew, Jew, coward swine, come out and fight alone.“
„Jews to the gas chambers!“
„Adolf Hitler!“
„Death to the Jews!“

Among other incidents, the following anti-Semitic attacks are dealt with in the documentation:

On January 21, 2006, Ilan Hamimi was abducted in France by a group of Muslim men and tortured to death during a period of three weeks because he was a Jew. While he was still alive they cut off his penis.

On March 19, 2012, three children and one adult were murdered in front of a Jewish school in Toulouse by a self-proclaimed Islamic fighter because they were Jews.

On May 24, 2014, two Israelis and one French woman were shot at the Jewish Museum in Brussels.

On December 3, 2014, a Jewish couple in Paris was brutally attacked. The attackers stormed into their apartment and shouted, „You are Jews, so you must be rich!“ They robbed jewelry and money. They raped the woman in front of her friend. Weeks before, the same perpetrators had beaten a seventy-year-old Jew.

On January 9, 2015, a self-proclaimed fighter of the Islamic state took several hostages at a Jewish supermarket and killed four Jews.

On November 13, 2015, the Bataclan Theater in Paris was the target of an attack whereby ninety people were slaughtered. The theater was not coincidently chosen. For many years the Jewish owners of the Theater had organized charity galas for Israel. The theater was under threat since 2008 and escaped a terrorist attack for the first time in 2011.

After having seen the documentary I am surprised by the reasoning behind the WDR social media team’s refusal to include the documentary in its programming:

„The film had only partially fulfilled the job requirements which were to highlight „anti-Semitism in Europe „. The WDR seconds ARTE’s criticism that the film doesn’t deliver what it was commissioned to cover.“