We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to: Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 – Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284; E-mail: rob@isranet.wpsitie.com
Why Hollande’s France is the Sick Man of Europe: Konrad Yakabuski, Globe & Mail, Nov. 25, 2013— France is in a funk. François Hollande is the most unpopular president in the history of French polling. The country's economy is now considered "the sick man of Europe" and French voters still see the cure as worse than the disease.
France Fights Back Against German “Sick Man of Europe”: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Telegraph, Dec. 6, 2013 — The overriding strategic story in Europe today is the breakdown of Franco-German condominium.
Could Spreading European Anti-Semitism Drive Jews From Homelands?: Liam Hoare, Forward, Nov. 25, 2013 — As the gnashing of teeth about the fate of American Jewry in the wake of the Pew Research Center survey continues, a newer and far more troublesome study of European Jewry ought to keep the supposed problem of defining Jewishness by the food you eat and the jokes you tell in some sort of perspective.
An Israeli Umbrella Group For World Jewry: Sam Sokol, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 11, 2013 — There are many competing organizations that position themselves as representing the Jews of Europe.
Greece's Dismal Demographics: Nikos Konstandaras, New York Times, Dec. 9, 2013
Dutch FM: Europe Judges Israel by a Different Standard Than Other Middle East Countries : Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post, Dec. 10, 2013
European Bias: Robert Horenstein, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 28, 2013
WHY HOLLANDE’S FRANCE IS THE SICK MAN OF EUROPE
Konrad Yakabuski
Globe & Mail, Nov. 25, 2013
France is in a funk. François Hollande is the most unpopular president in the history of French polling. The country's economy is now considered "the sick man of Europe" and French voters still see the cure as worse than the disease. Any attempt to adjust, even minimally, France's statist economic model and cradle-to-grave social safety net is met with paralyzing howls of protest. The country is effectively ruled not from the Elysée (the presidential palace) or the National Assembly, but by opposition politicians on the far left and far right. Barely 18 months into his five-year term, Mr. Hollande is a canard boiteux (lame duck) whose party may get rid of him before voters get a chance to.
No wonder Mr. Hollande, a Socialist who lucked into the presidency in 2012 after voters had tired of Nicolas Sarkozy's hissy fits, prefers foreign to domestic affairs. He has distinguished himself and his country by taking courageous stands against the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons (well before U.S. counterpart Barack Obama), urging allies not to be duped into relaxing sanctions against Iran and intervening militarily against Islamic terrorists in Mali. Unfortunately, such actions won't win Mr. Hollande many votes at home. Nor will it fix France's broken economy. Just as Spain, Ireland and other bailed-out euro-zone countries are stabilizing, Europe's second-largest economy risks derailing the continent's recovery. France's private sector contracted again in the third quarter and warnings about the country's economic decline have grown louder by the day.
France's credit rating just got downgraded again by Standard & Poor's. And while markets shrugged off the news, the rating agency's stiff rebuke of Mr. Hollande's economic policies has sparked an even more bitter debate than usual (by French standards) about the country's future. That debate intensified last week after the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development released a scathing report blasting France's stubborn refusal to get with the program: "Over several years, many European countries have accelerated the adoption and implementation of essential reforms. This adjustment has not happened in France."
Government spending now accounts for an astounding 56 per cent of France's gross domestic product, compared to a bit more than 40 per cent in Canada. So far, Mr. Hollande has sought to meet European Commission-mandated deficit targets by raising taxes – to the tune of €30-billion ($43-billion) in 2012 alone. Not only does he keep missing the deficit targets, he keeps putting off critical spending reforms. The result is a further deterioration of France's competitiveness and a tax revolt the likes of which the country has never seen. It started after Mr. Hollande imposed a 75-per-cent levy on income above €1-million. The country's top court declared the tax unconstitutional, so Mr. Hollande simply shifted the burden to employers. No matter, the wealthy are voting with their feet. In July, France's former ambassador to Iraq and Tunisia was arrested trying to smuggle €350,000 in cash out of the country. He is just one of a new breed of so-called "cash commuters" seeking to escape Mr. Hollande's confiscatory tax policies by any means possible.
Such evasion is rightly condemned by politicians on the left. But many, including Mr. Hollande's ex-wife, 2007 presidential candidate Ségolène Royale, have repudiated the President by siding with the farmers who forced Mr. Hollande to scrap implementation of a carbon tax on transport trucks. Protests spread across the country this month as merchants and restaurant owners joined the farmers to fight an increase in the value-added tax. The latter is meant to offset cuts in payroll taxes (now nearing a punishing 50 per cent) – cuts that almost everyone agrees are needed to get French firms hiring again. The country's unemployment rate stands above 11 per cent, and four out of every five jobs added in 2012 were temporary contracts. Mr. Hollande's economic policy is full of contradictions. (He appointed an anti-globalization crusader as his minister of industrial renewal.) And he is dogged by open dissension among members of cabinet jockeying to replace him on the Socialist ticket in 2017. The best hope lies in Interior Minister Manuel Valls, even though he is considered a populist heretic by the Socialist elite. Mr. Sarkozy, meanwhile, is considering a comeback – which suddenly doesn't sound so crazy.
FRANCE FIGHTS BACK AGAINST GERMAN “SICK MAN OF EUROPE”
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Telegraph, Dec, 6, 2013
The overriding strategic story in Europe today is the breakdown of Franco-German condominium. The two great nations have together run the EU on a foundation of equality since the 1950s, always finding some way to bridge the chasm between North and South. It was stretched a little after France lost Algeria – a French Department, not a colony – and with it lost population parity. But that hardly mattered as long as Germany wished to tuck behind France, usually letting Paris take the lead. It was stretched a great deal further with the Reunification of Germany, driven home a few years later when a Brandeburg "Ossi" who spoke fluent Russian – but no French – became Chancellor.
The formalities go on. Angela Merkel and François Hollande still meet to celebrate the Élysée Treaty of 1963: "Convinced that the reconciliation of the German people and the French people, ending a centuries-old rivalry, constitutes a historic event which profoundly transforms the relations between the two peoples.
Recognising that a reinforcing of cooperation between the two countries constitutes an indispensable stage on the way to a united Europe, which is the aim of the two peoples … "
Yet it is a loveless marriage now. The two have been quarrelling over Libya, Mali, Syria, and much else besides. Nothing is quite as toxic as the fundamental clash over monetary union, and the deflationary bias of macroeconomic policy. Hollande campaigned on a growth ticket, pledging to end austerity overkill and to pull the eurozone out of depression. And yes, it is a depression. Output is still 3pc below the 2008 peak almost six years later, and industrial output is 12pc lower. As you can see from this Krugman chart, it is worse than the 1930s. Nor is there much evidence that this will change soon.
Instead, Hollande is subject to almost daily strictures from Germany on the need for reform. The language is polite – mostly – and much of the German critique is correct. France desperately needs reform. The encephalitic state is 55pc of GDP. The tax wedge is one of the highest in the world. But the French know that. The unsolicited advice is mixed up with a lot of ideology, Teutonic pedantry, and disguised self-interested. It is starting to grate on the nerves…
We now have some remarkable comments from Jacques Attali, former head of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and one of luminaries of the French cultural Left. In a series of interviews in the French media and now in the German magazine Focus, he has lashed out at Germany as the real "Sick Man of Europe", describing its low unemployment rate as a "joke", the by-product of paying low-skilled workers €5 an hour or less. "Germany is an ageing country with catastrophic schools and falling productivity, and most of its export products are being copied," he said. German firms are mostly also-rans in the cutting edge fields of biotech and information technology. Within a decade, China and others will have pirated much of their mid-tier engineering range. He goes on to say that the country faces a demographic disaster as the ratio of pensioners to workers goes through the roof. See this exchange in French. The national savings are inadequate, not that saving even more will do them any good under the current deformed structure. It will merely dig them deeper into the same hole. The banking system is largely Kaputt, and in worse shape than French banks (I don't agree on that).
Mr Attali says the Germans are deluding themselves if they think their austerity formula has in any way solved the eurozone crisis. He makes an explicit parallel between the social and political upheavals in France today with events in Germany in 1933. Again, I don't agree. Marine Le Pen is not remotely like the Nazis, and Hollande is not remotely like Chancellor Bruning. The key years were the deflation era of 1931 and 1932, not the reflation year of 1933 under Hjalmar Schacht. In any case, today's events feel much more like 1935 in France itself under Laval as the deflation decrees kept coming (to keep France on the fixed-exchange Gold Standard). But obviously he can't say that as a loyal French socialist.
My point is not that Jacques Attali is right or wrong. What interests me as an political anthropologist is that he is saying such things, and that they are no longer hushed up by the French media as violations of the Élysée Treaty spirit. We are watching the historic French nation come out of slumber and subservience at long last, as it was always bound to do once its (justifiable) Gallic pride was hurt and interests were deeply threatened. This is the new fact on the ground. My own view is that Germany has another five years or so of illusory hegemony in Europe before it all gives way to demographic fundamentals. The younger Entente of France and Britain will take the lead again, buttressed by the high fertility Nordic bloc.
This is why I regard the Brit-Brit internal debate over EU exit and the costs and benefits of withdrawal as stale, narrow, and ill-informed. The CBI's attempt to put a figure on it is laughable. The great EU fight over the locus of democracy, and whether or not the ancient nation states are or are not the proper foundation of European societies. A penny here or there is a squalid distraction. Even if it could be shown that the EU enhances British GDP – and it cannot be shown because there are too many political and economic variables – it would not make the slightest difference. The strategic landscape is changing before our eyes. The EU no longer exists in its old form. The contours seem frozen in the imagination of British Euro-sceptics and British europhiles (usually even more provincial). They are both arguing over 20th Century issues that no longer have any meaning. Sorry to offend everybody at once. Bad habit, to be sure.
ANTI-SEMITISM DRIVE JEWS FROM HOMELANDS? Liam Hoare
Forward, Nov. 25, 2013
As the gnashing of teeth about the fate of American Jewry in the wake of the Pew Research Center survey continues, a newer and far more troublesome study of European Jewry ought to keep the supposed problem of defining Jewishness by the food you eat and the jokes you tell in some sort of perspective. Conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, known as the FRA, “Discrimination and hate crime against Jews in E.U. Member States: experiences and perceptions of anti-Semitism” surveyed 5,847 individuals 16 years old and over who considered themselves Jewish, residing in Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The headline figures were frightening enough. Across Europe, 66% of Jewish people see anti-Semitism as a problem in their respective countries today — as high as 90% in Hungary and 85% in France. The perception, moreover, is that over the past five years, the level of anti-Semitism has increased, with 76% of respondents saying it had gone up a lot or a little.
Where this increase has taken place might be surprising. But first, some more numbers. Thirty-eight percent of Jews now avoid, all the time or frequently, wearing, carrying or displaying things that might help people identify them as Jews in public; 60% of Swedish Jews and 51% of French Jews act this way. Forty-eight percent of Jews in Hungary and 46% in France have considered emigrating because they do not feel safe living in those countries as Jews, with 90% of French Jews stating that the Arab-Israeli conflict affects their feelings of safety. Immediately discernible from the statistics, though, is that the number of people who fear becoming a victim of anti-Semitism is greater than those who have experienced it as verbal insults, harassment or a physical attack. While 21% have been the actual victim of an anti-Semitic incident in the past 12 months, 46% worry about the possibility of such an assault. There is also tremendous regional variation between fear and experience. In France, for example, an astonishing 70% fear becoming the victim of a hate crime. In the United Kingdom, however, the fear is not as heightened, with 28% of respondents worrying about becoming a victim of verbal assault, and 17% the victim of a physical assault — still high numbers, to be sure.
The reason for this disparity between perception and experience, however, is not groundless panic or hysteria; it comes because of new manifestations of anti-Semitism, principally dissemination via the Internet and new media. When asked where anti-Semitism against Jewish communities occurs, 75% of European Jews pointed toward anti-Semitism on the Internet above all else, followed by 59% for anti-Semitism in the media. Internet anti-Semitism today is considered a greater problem than the desecration of Jewish cemeteries, the vandalism of Jewish buildings or institutions, and expressions of hostility toward Jews on the street and in other public places. The perception is that the level of anti-Semitism on the Internet over the past five years has increased, as discussion forums and social networking sites are now the main places where European Jews are most likely to have seen or heard anti-Semitic comments. While 75% reported seeing or hearing anti-Semitic comments on the Internet in the past 12 months, 51% saw or heard them in a social situation, 47% among the general public and 42% at a political event.
And what exactly are they hearing? Forty-eight percent of respondents have seen or heard someone make the statement that Israelis behave “like Nazis” toward the Palestinians; 38% that Jews have too much power in the economy, politics and the media; 37% that Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own purposes, and on and on. Small wonder, then, that European Jews fear that they, their friends or their families might become victims of an anti-Semitic attack, if all this is a regular part of European discourse. That the threat has gone online, as well, rather complicates the question of what is to be done. The FRA suggests that E.U. member states consider enhancing “the legal basis for the investigation and prosecution of hate crime and crime committed with anti-Semitic motives on the Internet.” In so doing, states should establish “specialized police units that monitor and investigate hate crime on the Internet and put in place measures to encourage users to report any anti-Semitic content they detect to the police.”
One problem, however, is that the FRA’s own survey also showed an entrenched disbelief in the ability of national police forces to deal with anti-Semitism. When it came to reporting anti-Semitic incidents, only 8% of respondents reported harassment to the police: 17% reported physical violence, and 22% cases of vandalism. When asked why they did not report the offense, 47% said that nothing would happen or change by reporting the incident. Thus, if anti-Semitism on the Internet is to be considered a hate crime equal to verbal or physical confrontation, there must be other avenues to reporting it. To that end, it would be a decent idea for E.U. member states to foster closer cooperation between police forces and Jewish community organizations.
The other issue, however, is the question of whether one can — or should — police the Internet at all. A case of anti-Semitic harassment or intimidation online is one thing, but to monitor the discourse is quite another. By way of example, 21% of European Jews report hearing or seeing the statement that the Holocaust is a myth or has been exaggerated in the past 12 months. In Belgium, France, Germany and Hungary, it is a crime to deny or minimize the Holocaust, but it is inherently impractical to police the Web for signs of it, never mind the question of one’s right to make a statement as abhorrent as that the Holocaust never even happened. The struggle against anti-Semitism in Europe is unwinnable to the extent that it is ineradicable. It is a virus for which there is no cure — it can only be contained. What makes the FRA survey disheartening in particular is the knowledge that the Internet has become for European Jews the main context for encountering anti-Semitism. It only makes the struggle that much harder.
AN ISRAELI UMBRELLA GROUP FOR WORLD JEWRY Sam Sokol
Jerusalem Post, Nov. 11, 2013
There are many competing organizations that position themselves as representing the Jews of Europe. Between the European Jewish Congress (a subsidiary of the World Jewish Congress), the European Jewish Parliament, the European Jewish Association, the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress and all of the national umbrella groups such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews and France’s CRIF, sometimes it seems as if there are too many to keep straight. However, last September another group, based in Israel, was added to the list of organizations claiming to represent European Jewry in some capacity: the Jerusalem-based Israeli-Jewish Congress. IJC CEO Michel Gourary, a Belgian immigrant to Israel, sat down over coffee with The Jerusalem Post to explain why Diaspora Jewry needs another group to represent it, and what differentiates the IJC from its contemporaries.
Why do we need an IJC when we have all these competing groups? First of all, we are an Israeli-Jewish congress, based in Israel, consisting of Israelis. We are not competing with any European organization, not at all. Our role is to say that we have many Israelis who are concerned by the fate of the Jewish communities abroad, especially in Europe, because Europe is at the frontline of all the anti-Semitic attacks and all the delegitimization attacks against Israel. Basically, we came out and actualized the idea of the Israeli Forum, an initiative that I was part of about 15 years ago. The Israeli Forum, like the IJC, said very clearly that we would like to show that we have Israelis who are concerned about the Jewish communities abroad, because we are one people. [We are here] to reinforce and build a bridge between Israel and the Diaspora.
You mostly focus on Europe? For the moment yes, but in November we have a partnership with the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America. We are a partner of the GA. Why? Because we say we are with all the Jews. Why especially Europe for the moment? Because Europe is the frontline of a lot of problems regarding anti-Semitism [such as the proposed] ban on circumcision and ritual slaughter, and delegitimization of Israel. You have approximately 700,000 Israelis who already have European citizenship, or who are entitled to get it, so we say this is the most natural link that we have [to European Jewry]. We are now in the 21st century. What we said 20 years ago about Zionism and about emigrants and dual citizenship has changed.
Do you know how many French citizens who are also Israeli citizens are voting in the French parliamentary elections? 70,000. Do you know how many Italian people voted for a representative of Italy? 11,000. You have at least two countries in Europe, France and Italy, that have deputies representing their citizens living in Israel. Imagine all the kinds of leverage you can have in the global world. One idea we are exploring now with MKs is that at some stage the Knesset can have two or three or four members representing Jews or Israelis living abroad. A few years ago, I asked the French ambassador what France was doing to combat the missile attacks on French citizens in the South. He said, ‘You made a mistake, they are Israelis.’ ‘Mr. Ambassador,’ I said, ‘you have 10,000 French citizens living in the South.’ He said, ‘Wow, you are right,’ and that changed everything…
What is the main challenge facing European Jewry? Is it the ritual- slaughter issue, anti-Semitism, attacks on Israel’s legitimacy or attempts to ban circumcision? It is all of these together, but something even more pernicious. If one country in Europe is banning shechita [ritual slaughter] it could cause a domino effect.
Freedom of religion in Europe is not equally and evenly implemented. In only 13 countries out of the 28 do you have legislation against the denial of the Holocaust. It’s incredible. In some countries you have certain parameters for the restitution of looted assets. In some countries you receive only a certain percentage, in some countries it’s only public assets, it some countries it’s only private assets – but there is no EU regulation of all that. Shechita is also the same. Poland can ban it, but you also have some calls to do it in Denmark and the same in Holland. It can be the domino effect.
What is your view of the future of European Jewry? The question has to be asked of the Jews there and their leaders. You have some leaders who say no, they don’t see any future there, like the head of the Jewish community in Rome. Some don’t say it openly, but when I meet them I think some of them believe there are dark clouds on the horizon. There are too many dark clouds on the heads of the Jews in Europe. Meaning? There are too many challenges and because of that, we have to strengthen relations with Israel.
On Topic
Greece's Dismal Demographics: Nikos Konstandaras, New York Times, Dec. 9, 2013 — The Greeks are in a struggle for survival. And the odds are piling up against us.
Dutch FM: Europe Judges Israel by a Different Standard Than Other Middle East Countries : Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post, Dec. 10, 2013 — Europe judges Israel by a different standard than other countries in the region because it is seen as a “European country” that should be judged by European standards, Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans said Monday.
European Bias: Robert Horenstein, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 28, 2013— The EU consistently singles out Israeli policies for condemnation while totally ignoring more egregious Palestinian behavior.
Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.
CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at https://isranet.org/.
The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.
CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.
Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research/ L'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org
Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.wpsitie.com
