- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Happily, President Obama N’est Pas Charlie

Obama is taking heat for not rushing to Paris to preen besides other heads of state in the Je Suis Charlie march. The president was correct not to go. The jihadist murders were vile, horrific, and inexcusable, as the deliberate murder of civilians always is. France’s task of dampening (it will never extinguish) the terror threats it faces will be long and arduous, and hopefully will entail a shrewd combination of wisdom and tough measures, and the United States should and will behave as a steadfast friend and ally of France.

However the Je Suis Charlie march was too freighted with blatant hypocrisies. Sending an ambassador, visiting the embassy, (as Obama did) were appropriate gestures; so too is tighter coordination with France on monitoring jihadists. But as Christopher Caldwell pointed out [1] in a smart column, the attack on Charlie Hebdo was not an attack on French values, it was an attack on the French state.

Terrorists could—and have—committed murder in Moscow or in China, and those attacks are not viewed as an attack on Russian or Chinese values. Neither country has any qualms about defending itself. France was attacked last week, in its capital. Because it counts among its inhabitants at least hundreds possibly inclined to commit similar murders, its domestic security agents will be busy for a long time. (It was reported that a twitter message expressing enthusiasm for the attacks received 18,000 retweets.)

But the French seem determined to interpret last week’s attacks as an assault on their values, foremost among them freedom of expression. This is a value today’s France honors quite selectively. Muslim inhabitants of the Paris suburbs have ample reason to believe that France is far more committed to the defense of free speech which insults them than it is to free speech in the abstract. Charlie Hebdo was free to plaster on newsstands all over Paris vivid cartoon depictions of Mohammed as an eager homosexual bottom, but five years ago when one of its cartoonists wrote an item suggesting that a son of the president was making a good career move by converting to Judaism he was summarily fired and put on trial [2] for “inciting racial hatred.” Literally, put on trial. The country of Voltaire, yup.

Last summer, as Israeli tanks and planes were smashing the defenseless population in Gaza, France became the only country in Europe to ban demonstrations [3] against the assault. Those who marched in, or even advertised anti-Israel demonstration on social media faced a year in prison and hefty fines—which virtually guaranteed that those who insisted on demonstrating nonetheless would be ready to engage in criminal acts. It is well known that the popular French-African comedian Dieudonne is forbidden to perform in France because many of his jokes are anti-Semitic. In a more elevated vein, last December the distinguished University of Tel Aviv post-Zionist Shlomo Sand was barred from speaking at the University of Nice, after he was invited to lecture there. Sand is part of a considerable list of academic anti-Zionists who have been barred from speaking at conferences in the French university system.

It is unlikely in the extreme that the killers of January knew or cared that Shlomo Sand was barred from speaking at a French university, but they could hardly have failed to absorb that the storied liberties of France are differently allocated according to what group one belongs to.

Adam Shatz [4] noted that the Je Suis Charlie slogan expresses a “peculiar nostalgia” for 9/11, a time of Western innocence and “moral clarity” before the destruction of Iraqi state under false pretenses, the torturing at Abu Ghraib, the renditions, and all the rest which has tarnished the American self-image of utter righteousness. Le Monde actually ran a headline proclaiming that the Paris attacks were “France’s 9/11”—and one can only hope that that doesn’t mean France is going to go berserk as America did and invade countries that had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks. Shatz observes that prominent liberal hawks have been quick to warn Americans against asking any questions about what might have radicalized the young men on their path to murder last week. (One of the Kouachi brothers was apparently set on his path to jihadism by outrage at Abu Ghraib, and initially tried to go to Iraq to fight Americans there.) Nope, they say, forget all that, it’s just radical Islam, the evil ideology.

Benjamin Netanyahu and his entourage are reinforcing this message. The task is complicated for the Israelis, and their American neoconservative friends—their primary wish is for a Western war against Shi’ite Iran, and Sunni radicalism is definitely a distraction. So Netanyahu (the Israeli left is having fun with images [5] of him elbowing his way to the front of the Je Suis Charlie march, his bodyguards pushing aside French culture minister Fleur Pellerin so Netanyahu could get on the dignitary bus before her) is making a strenuous effort to conflate them, Shia, Sunni, groups which celebrated the attacks, groups which instantly condemned them. In his Paris speeches, Netanyahu stated that the Israel and the West’s common enemy consists of terrorists driven by an implacable hatred of our freedoms, and a desire to return the world to medieval darkness. (Surely it must be Iran’s hatred of modernity which requires Israel to assassinate Iranian scientists). In any case, this argument worked well enough in the aftermath of 9/11: Americans became convinced that secular Iraq should be destroyed to punish Al Qaeda radicals. Under the Je Suis Charlie banner we are supposed to go off to war again, against the Sunni extremists of ISIS and all radical Islam, and also the Sh’ites (Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria, and Iran) who collectively are ISIS’s primary enemy.

One can be critical of the Je Suis Charlie ideology and hope that it doesn’t become a 9/11-level galvanizing force for a new wave of futile invasions, and still recognize that France has an Islam problem. France’s freedoms were not attacked, but France was, and Parisians cannot feel comfortable knowing that quite possibly one in a hundred French Muslims—more than 50,000 people that is—harbor some degree of sympathy for the January killers. One can dispense with the talk about France’s glorious freedoms, and still realize that there is a France, a blood and soil country of shared history and culture—which is threatened by mass immigration, especially by immigrants who lack the means or will to fully blend into that culture.

The one party in France which seems fully to recognize that—the Front National, was not invited to participate in last Sunday’s Paris march, despite the fact the Front National’s leader, Marine Le Pen, leads or close to it in virtually all opinion polls for the next presidential election. This was a curious exclusion for a so-called national unity march. Still, Le Pen’s party—despite the many racist or unsavory remarks made in past years by her father—seems to be on to something important: there is a France which people don’t want to vanish (I fully share that sentiment), and that France is threatened by transnational commitments—such as the EU’s commitment to open borders—quite as much as it is threatened by jihadist murderers.

The way out of the French dilemma almost certainly involves some disconnection—far less Western military engagement in Muslim lands, far less Muslim immigration to what we can no longer call Christian lands. This recommendation unfortunately is the exact opposite of the liberal internationalist agenda, which if it can be boiled down, seems to be more immigration and more war. Early on in the crisis the blogger Steve Sailer wrote something [6] which strikes me as quite true: an arrangement of 200 separate countries is not the worst way of organizing the world, in a world where different people have different cultures and needs. It is preferable to grand transnational and multicultural enterprises which have the almost impossible task of formulating cultural rules which make sense for everyone.

Despite serious efforts, France has been failing in that endeavor—though the failure is far from absolute. There are, it should be noted, millions of quite French, quite assimilated, and relatively secular French Muslims. The prospect of a French total war against “radical Islam” coupled with continued high levels of immigration cannot possibly make their lives any easier.

Scott McConnell is a TAC founding editor.

31 Comments (Open | Close)

31 Comments To "Happily, President Obama N’est Pas Charlie"

#1 Comment By Johann On January 13, 2015 @ 9:07 am

Its a sordid show of PC gone mad. There will be no introspection. They will in fact double down on their madness. The European right will be shouted down as usual, but will probably continue to gain steam.

#2 Comment By Rich Broderick On January 13, 2015 @ 9:24 am

This may seem counterintuitive, but the views in this article — which I agree with totally — stand shoulder-to-shoulder with an editorial that currently appears in Australia’s Red Flag, an article published by that country’s Socialist Alliance. Once again, I am left wondering if there is not room for a united front that combines truth tellers from the right and the left who see through the lies, hypocrisy, and murderous self-righteous of the illiberal, neoliberal consensus.

[7]

#3 Comment By Kurt Gayle On January 13, 2015 @ 9:51 am

Some other reasons why it made sense for Obama to stay home:

From 2006 to the end of 2013 there were more than 200 mass killings in the U.S. resulting in more than 900 deaths. Mass killings — defined by the FBI as four or more victims, not including the killer — have occurred across the U.S. at the rate of about one every two weeks since 2006.

In other words, if protesting mass killings is the object of the exercise, a US President would be better served to protest mass killings in the US. I credit Obama for staying away from the hypocrisy of Paris.

#4 Comment By T. Sledge On January 13, 2015 @ 9:53 am

Sailer wrote:
” Granted, I’m some kind of weirdo nut who thinks the basic arrangement of the world into 200 separate countries is,
on the whole, a pretty good idea. But everybody who is anybody knows instead that All We Have to Do is invite every
Iron Age culture in the world into our countries and then come to a mutual agreement with them upon protocols of
behavior governing every aspect of our mutual lives.

That’s All We Have to Do. ”

I suppose that in 8th century Al-Andalus Muslim and Jewish scholars could have asked of Sailer’s ancestors:

“Are we to invite these Northern Europeans to take time away from smearing blueberry juice on their bodies as they trod along their pig paths, long enough to come to our libraries and become civilized?”

As for their “Mission Civilisatrice”, the Muslims had THEIRS also, Mr. Sailer might like to remind himself.

#5 Comment By Matt On January 13, 2015 @ 10:50 am

Scott,

your Telegraph link to the Hebdo firing and trial for ‘inciting racial hatred’ is borked. Please fix.

#6 Comment By Matt2 On January 13, 2015 @ 11:07 am

Here are some more examples of Western Civilization’s glorious support for liberté de la presse:

[8]

[9]

#7 Comment By Steven D. Rennet On January 13, 2015 @ 11:36 am

It was actually quite proper to ban the FN from the march, given that Charlie Hebido had urged the outlawing of the FN: [10]

Or, since one picture is worth a thousand words: [11]

#8 Comment By df On January 13, 2015 @ 11:40 am

And yet, it is Jews leaving france while muslims pour in.

#9 Comment By Mr. Amagi On January 13, 2015 @ 12:37 pm

Yes, Obama did well to stay away from the campy march of the heads of state.

As for Charlie, a magazine I never heard of until these murders, j’en ai assez. Enough already.

#10 Comment By JohnG On January 13, 2015 @ 1:42 pm

Merci! Calm and intelligent analysis I expect from TAC.

PS On a side note, I have to note that Jean-Marie le Pen was, yet again, one of the first to have the courage to challenge those who wanted everyone else to line behind the “Je suis Charlie” slogan. Also, he does say things that are blunt and non-PC but I never thought them truly racist. Maybe the crowds (and our age) obsessed with racism and discrimination are not realizing that they may be discriminating against people who simply grew up and lived during different times when some terms had different connotation and meaning. Given the aging of our societies, maybe we should be more tolerant of their use of language and not rush to conflate it with racism, bigotry, etc.

#11 Comment By Send Out The Clowns On January 13, 2015 @ 1:54 pm

The world aches, but it is a French tragedy. I suppose that the presence of leaders from France’s neighbors, had it been more discreet, would have been appropriate. But the spectacle of Obama, who has done so much to foment and perpetuate the wars that feed Islamic rage and who has set the world such an execrable example by his failure to stop immigration, would have been utterly tasteless.

As it was, the scene was made farcical by the caperings of Punch and Judy, the absurd Netanyahu and his hapless sidekick Abbas. Whoever chose to send our ambassador rather than someone of greater stature got it exactly right.

#12 Comment By REMant On January 13, 2015 @ 4:18 pm

Not terrorism, and not cowardly. Not freedom of speech, nor journalism. The media got it all wrong. What these fellows did was to avenge the defamation of God and the prophet Mohammed, which it unquestionably was. And why was this important? Because, like all really religious ppl, they found it idolatrous, with respect to the latter, and disrespectful of the former. It ignored both the injunctions to love God, and to love others. It was not cowardly, because we’d left them no choice. The cartoons were not free speech, because clearly libelous. Free speech refers to prior restraint by the govt, as freedom of religion, to conscience. It is not a defense against libel. And surely we know that cartoons are not reporting. The fact is that the West has been exposed as the hypocrites they are, and they don’t like it. But the evil isn’t out there; it’s within us.

I’m afraid I have zero sympathy for the French or for what we call journalism today. The French are more ungovernable than even the British, with a history as bigoted as any on the planet. Yes, they welcome immigrants, tho only as long as they become “French.” They may be entitled to that, but not to ghettoize them. Nor neocolonialize them. And what can one say about a country in which the accused are guilty until proved innocent? They are a prime example of my observation that you never find democracy without autocracy: Hollande touting the unity of France in the state, the protection of the state, and so forth. Not allowing their citizens to be responsible for themselves, the liberals now find themselves unable to be liberal. And you have to ask, what price, this peace? The world is presently going bankrupt trying to keep it, and the result is only more strife. People need to be made responsible for their own lives, for their own good, as well as, their neighbors’. We don’t have a liquidity trap; we have an illiquidity trap.

Multiculturalism ceases being multicultural when it demands that ppl deserve respect without earning it. Charlie Hebdo made a business of this, ridiculing all religion and truth, the only real basis for understanding. And it’s said they were going bankrupt, so pandered to Islamophobia. It should be the height of irony to find them being supported by Fox News. If Fox really knew what it was talking about, it’d be on the side of the Muslims. They’re just money-grubbing. Yet the same could be said for the reporters, pundits and academics, who make so much noise: sophists and pens-for-hire, all. Churchill would, no doubt, in a fit of blinkered self-righteousness, brand it demagoguery aimed at those out-of-work, by those who won’t. I might add that Voltaire was of the same ilk.

There can never be a government large enough to police the world. Ppl will accept law and government, when they no longer need it, and until then, they will fight, and that is only just, as both Hobbes and Locke argued. While you could say the assailants took the law into their own hands, you could just as well say the law failed them. Even our own Constitution attempts to shut the door on revolution, yet we’ve had one civil war, and may yet see another, for it’s astonishing that after all this time we still haven’t taken to heart the lessons of the Reformation, republicanism and free trade, or of Sept 11, 2001.

#13 Comment By Matt2 On January 13, 2015 @ 7:18 pm

It should be said that Jean Marie le Pen has done far worse than utter racist remarks. He almost certainly tortured Algerians.

#14 Comment By Matt2 On January 13, 2015 @ 7:19 pm

Here’s the link regarding le Pen’s torture: [12]

#15 Comment By Sweguy On January 13, 2015 @ 7:28 pm

“But the French seem determined to interpret last week’s attacks as an assault on their values, foremost among them freedom of expression. This is a value today’s France honors quite selectively. Muslim inhabitants of the Paris suburbs have ample reason to believe that France is far more committed to the defense of free speech which insults them than it is to free speech in the abstract. Charlie Hebdo was free to plaster on newsstands all over Paris vivid cartoon depictions of Mohammed as an eager homosexual bottom, but five years ago when one of its cartoonists wrote an item suggesting that a son of the president was making a good career move by converting to Judaism he was summarily fired and put on trial for “inciting racial hatred.” Literally, put on trial. The country of Voltaire, yup.”

Well, there are worse countries to live in. Swedens largest evening paper, Aftonbladet, stood up for freedom of speech by changing its logo from “Aftonbladet” to “Je Suis Charlie”. Than it translated the entire next coming issue of Charlie Hebdo in to Swedish. But, than, all of a sudden the papers editor in chief Changes his mind. There will be publication of the Swedish version of Charlie Hebdo. Aftonbladet, allegedly, wanted to publish a selective (censored) edition of Charlie Hebdo. But when they couldn´t do that they decided not to publish at all. The logo was also changed back from “Je Suis Charlie” to “Aftonbladet” again.

Other large papers in Sweden also made a stance and showed their support for Charlie Hebdo. The liberal newspaper Expressen, Swedens next largest evening paper, trough its editor in chief held a public speech at a demonstration in support of Charlie Hebdo and freedom of speech. This editor in chief, Thomas Matsson, decided a couple of months ago to, with the support of a leftleaning Group called “Researchgruppen” (The Research Group) to publish Picture of Swedes an cite their anonymous comments from comment fields, just like this one, on the front page. The reason for this being that their comments where critical of current immigration policy in Sweden and that the commenters had written hateful and sometimes racists comments.

In one of Swedens largest tv-channels Anonymous commentors on certain sites, by Swedish mainstream media labeled “hate sites”, are confronted by reporters in their own home or at work for expressing hateful comments on the internet. Most of the people confronted by the reporter haven’t even expressed themselves in a way that is illegal in Sweden.

Of course, in Sweden, their is no true free speech. There are limits to what you can say and not. The translated version of “Charlie Hebdo” no doubt could have crossed the line. This was probablys the reason why Aftonbladets editior in cheif, Jan Helin, decided not to publish. He could be criminally charged for publishing a Swedish version of the paper and face time in prison for “inciting racial hatred”. Anyway, the Swedish medias support for Charlie Hebdo, Always struck me as hypocritic. My sense as a swede is that mainstream media in Sweden suppresses freedom of speech, not that they support it.

A journalist working for the public service radio station, SR (Sveriges Radio), by the way expressed a few months ago that the security police should leave Lars Vilks (an artist that painted a Picture of Mohammed as a roundabout dog) to himself. The storming of his house by islamists intent on killing him, the journalist proposed, should be broadcasted and be seen as an “artistic installation”. This is freedom of speech alright but tell you something about the sentiments of Swedish public figures and journalists.

That is the kind of respect for freedom of speech that we have in Sweden.

#16 Comment By Joan On January 13, 2015 @ 7:35 pm

@df;
Have you seen an article entitled “14 African Countries Forced by France to Pay Colonial Tax For the Benefits of Slavery and Colonization” that seems to be out there in several places on the Internet?

Also, it is in the interests of the bureaucrats who run large businesses that the unskilled should be numerous, to drive down wages as low as possible, but that people educated enough to compete with them for jobs should be scarce. Those interests are well served by letting large numbers of Muslims immigrate, then keeping them in slums where they won’t assimilate and thus will retain the inclination to side with their co-religionists in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, an inclination that is very likely to combine with their resentment of their bottom-of-the-heap status to result in hostility to Jews, prompting the latter to depart.

#17 Comment By Sweguy On January 13, 2015 @ 7:46 pm

It would be nice if american journalists took the lack of freedom of speech in European countries more seriously. You should investigate, interview and call your journalist friends in Sweden and other european nation out on this issue. I for one would love to see editors of the largest papers and tv-channels confronted on this issue. You should also confront our politicans on these issue. And get them on tape and put the information out on the web for all to see. Your Swedish colleauges are not supporting freedom of speech. They supress freedom of speech and make Life a living hell for some people, normal people with no political Power or other means to fight back, for the crime of expressing themselfes, undoubtedly sometimes in a stupid way. But thats not the Point. The Point is that they are suppressing freedom of speech with scare tactics.

Contact the danish journalist Mikael Jalving ( [13]) for more information about the situation in Sweden.

#18 Comment By BillWAF On January 13, 2015 @ 8:05 pm

No real comment except that this is an excellent article. I could quibble about a few points, but so much is correct in this piece that it would be churlish to do so.

#19 Comment By Winston On January 13, 2015 @ 8:42 pm

Jihadis share same mentality as “Gangs of New York” gang member and present era gangs-which by the way also include minority and white gangs. Actually Jihadis are most analogous to the White Supremacists gang members.

I think it is remarkable how well Muslims have integrated into France, since they are mostly poor stuck in ghettos.

[14]
There Are More French Muslims Working for French Security Than for Al Qaeda

Akbar Ahmed makes an important point Europeans need to keep in mind since they have porous borders with 2 continents.
would extend that and say they shouldn’t destabilize countries.

We often forget in the United States how close Europe is to Africa and Asia. The continents actually meet; both in the west, with Spain and Morocco, and in the east with Turkey and Greece. This means that borders are “porous.”
[15]

Why Right Now Is a Crucial Time for Islam in Europe

#20 Comment By tz On January 13, 2015 @ 9:03 pm

Are they “innocent civilians” by our standards? When you post a YouTube about the US Government torturing or invading a Muslim holy land, it is “material support of terror” and you are considered an “enemy combatant”.

I’d love to consider Charlie merely someone engaging in speech, but if it was on the other side, wouldn’t it be considered as enemy propaganda?

#21 Comment By Hibernian On January 13, 2015 @ 10:05 pm

The assembled heads of government at the march were rightly showing solidarity with the innocent civilized French people who were endangered or even killed by this barbarous instance of private vengeance. (Two policemen were killed, and there was a companion incident in which shoppers at a kosher supermarket were taken hostage and some were killed.) As for the blasphemous cartoonists and the editor, they did not deserve privately administered capital punishment. It was shameful that the US did not at least send the VP or one of the big four cabinet officials. (AG Holder was in France on other business and left the night before the march.)

#22 Comment By dedc79 On January 13, 2015 @ 11:48 pm

I was wondering how you’d manage to make a terrorist attack, in which four jews were slaughtered by islamic fundamentalists for no other reason than their being jewish, about the evil Netanyahu/Israel, but it didn’t occur to me that you’d just leave out that part of the tragedy entirely.

#23 Comment By Olivier Braun On January 14, 2015 @ 1:58 am

Dear Mr McConnel,

Parts of your analysis are interesting and ring true, but a lot of your affirmations are misleading, voluntary or not, I cannot tell, maybee because your ideology blinds you.

Yes, Free speech in France (my country) is quite selective, e.g. never say anything like heterosexuality is moraly superior than homosexuality, you’d loose your seat in the parliament and would be convicted (see the Vaneste case). But no, anti-zionism is not nearly banned, actually, it is the most popular opinion, encouraged by the mainstream media. Your story about the banning of a demonstration against Israely’s army retaliation in Gaza is incomplete. There was a pro-palestianian demonstration which resulted in nasty attacks agains Jews and destruction on property. Because of that violence, the authority decided to ban further such demonstration the next days. It was definitely NOT free speech against zionism that was banned.

And that is just an example of your misleading statements an American reader would not be able to spot easily and would therefore have an utterly false idea of what happens in France.

#24 Comment By Clint On January 14, 2015 @ 4:47 am

But the French seem determined to interpret last week’s attacks as an assault on their values, foremost among them freedom of expression.

Barack Obama,
“The fact that this was an attack on journalists, attack on our free press, also underscores the degree to which these terrorists fear freedom of speech and freedom of the press,”

Apparently,Obama isn’t correct either.

#25 Comment By Scott McConnell On January 14, 2015 @ 11:36 am

@Olivier Braun, I appreciate your commenting all the way from France. I’m not sure you’re right about the demo. I know there were several, and they all erupted into violence. But here is an account of what I believe is the first, also banned–on an (official?) French source.
[16]

Nothing about an earlier “legal” demonstration. There really is better way to ensure violence at a demonstration than to make it illegal.

#26 Comment By Scott McConnell On January 14, 2015 @ 11:37 am

I meant to say “no better way” to ensure violence. . .

#27 Comment By JohnG On January 14, 2015 @ 1:59 pm

@Olivier Braun

But no, anti-zionism is not nearly banned, actually, it is the most popular opinion, encouraged by the mainstream media.

Maybe you are a little blinded as well, how else to interpret the outright bans on the comedic (or “comedic”) performances of Dieudonne and his complete absence from the mainstream (or even all) media?

PS I hear he was arrested this morning.

#28 Comment By BobPolicy On January 15, 2015 @ 6:05 pm

It’s easy to focus on the Jews since they are not very numerous; however, the Sharia military Activist Sects have set about to exterminate the Christians in Egypt, Iraq, and all over the rest of the Middle East.

If and when these same Activists begin to attack the Vatican, will the United States be urged to mind its own business, and will Israel be told that the Vatican’s blood is on its hands ?

#29 Comment By BobPolicy On January 15, 2015 @ 6:08 pm

P.S. from a previous comment:

It can also be said that we are not Charlie Hebdo, although he did not deserve to murdered in a country that has no second amendment, where even the police do not carry guns.

It can also be said that the magazine has engaged in gratuitous, adolescent mockery of all religions, and for what legitimate purpose ?

To prove it has a right to do this, for it does have a right, or to lower the levels of civilized discourse ?

#30 Comment By TGGP On January 15, 2015 @ 6:50 pm

Charlie Hebdo was also put on trial for offending Muslims, but they won that case.

#31 Comment By Olivier Braun On January 16, 2015 @ 2:12 am

Dear Mr McConnel,

There were several demonstrations last year, the first in July, that were not banned. And, as I said, I agree a lot about what you said. Yu know, it is customary to ban demonstrations in France, when the authorities don’t like the ideas of the demonstrators. For example, recently, the local state authorities (préfecture) banned “anti-islamisation” demonstrations, of the like of PEDIGA in Germany. They often (not each time) ban National Front demonstrations as well, and even sometimes some peacefull “la manif pour tous” demonstrations against the new homosexual marriage law. And yes, the legal justification of the bans is to ensure “public order”.

But in the pro-palestine demonstrations, the ban was definitely not because the authorities dislike pro-palestine ideas.

In France we take great pain to explain the difference between anti-zionism and anti-semitism. But since anti-semitism expressions are strictly banned, a lot of antisemites hide behind the cover of anti-zionism. That is why Dieudonné has so much trouble with justice. But if he is now “en garde à vue” (arrested for a maximum of 24 or so hours for the sake of investigation), it is because he wrote something that could be an vidication of the Casher-supermarket killings.