General Antisemitism

Should we laugh or cry over Catherine Ashton’s remarks about Toulouse massacre?

A Guest post by AKUS

A report in YNet reads:

The European Union issued Tuesday a corrected version of a speech by its foreign policy chief which had angered Israel because it appeared to link a French school shooting and Gaza.

 The new transcript of Catherine Ashton’s remarks mentions the situation of children in both Gaza and the southern Israeli town of Sderot after the first version only mentioned the Palestinian territory.

So there it is – a “balanced view” of the shooting of a father his two children, and a little girl pursued into the school in order to be shot at point-blank range, and possibly even photographed by the killer with a camera French police have reported they believe he wore around his neck.

Ashton commented:

“I am really saddened by the distortion of my remarks,” she told the EU parliament’s foreign affairs committee. “I drew no parallel whatsoever between this tragedy and events elsewhere in the Middle East.

“I condemn unreservedly the terrible murders at the Ozar Hatorah school in Toulouse yesterday and extend my sympathies to the families and friends of the victims, to the people of France and the Jewish community.”

Leaving aside the obvious fact that Gaza and Sderot are commonly considered to be in the Middle East, her comment is self-serving, to say the least. Are we supposed to laugh or cry when we read her feeble attempt to exonerate herself? Obviously she “drew a parallel” in the typical over the top way that Israel is criticized at every opportunity – or even when there can be no opportunity.

If we want to draw parallels, there are many to draw from, and Israel’s defensive operations in Gaza are not among them. Here are some real parallels:

  • The murder of the Fogel family by terrorists coming into their home to kill the parents and children
  • The murder of Rabbi Gavriel and Rivka Holzberg in Mumbai by terrorists who came into Bet Chabad to kill them, missing their little son only thanks to the bravery of his Indian nanny
  • The murders of hundreds of innocents in dozens of attacks in pizza parlors, buses, the Dolphinarium, Hotel Park and many others by terrorists in Israel
  • The murder of 85 at a Jewish community center in Argentina

The only parallel is that in all these cases terrorists sought out Jews in order to kill them just because they were Jews. One can find only one or two similar cases perpetrated against Muslims in Europe or in Israel but Israel does not go into Gaza with the express purpose of killing unarmed parents and their children and there can be no comparison with a response to terror and the acts of terrorists like the perpetrator of the Toulouse massacre.

Shame on the EU if it keeps this reprobate on as their EU Foreign Minister. The only job she is suited for is as a columnist at the Guardian.

28 replies »

  1. What can you expect fro a person who honors UNRWA?

    If she does not see that this organisation is a big piece of the problem than we can’t help but expect more of these analogies and semi apologies.

  2. Mentioning both the children in Gaza and those in Toulouse in the same breath is making a moral equivalence between them. Her feeble throwing in of Sderot, both for grossly mispronouncing it to almost unrecognizable, and for mentioning the city, not the children makes no amends. Nobody should be suprised by her making this moral equivalence, after all, she was speaking to Palestinians at the time. And g-d forbid, they be told they can’t target and kill Israeli children, or be told there’s a difference to targeting and massacring children, on purpose, to the inadvertent death as the result of protecting one’s children from missiles. The fact that she doesn’t bother to call out the Palestinians for using both their own children as human shields to target Israeli children is also quite telling.

  3. Interestingly The Telegraph came to her defence, first in person of Iain Martin, citing the first transcript

    “… when we know what is happening in Syria, when we see what is happening in Gaza and in different parts of the world – we remember young people and children who lose their lives.”

    She didn`t say what her critics claim? Exactly this was correctly quoted.

    “It seems a perfectly fair observation. She wasn’t comparing the murders in Toulouse with the deaths which result from conflict in Gaza.”, according to Mr. Martin.
    Not comparing ? What else? Just a row of free associations for a Freudian analysis?
    What happens in the mind of Mr. Martin?

    In came the second, Mr. Waterfield, for defence when Baroness Ashton chose to change the line.

    “Brussels diplomats issued a corrected transcript of a speech by Baroness Ashton of Upholland last night after an incorrect version sparked a furious row between the European Union and Israel. ”

    Blaming her officials is the easiest task to fulfil. That`s what they are for.

    “Until the clarification Lady Ashton’s office had mounted a strong defence of the incorrect version of her speech before realising that she had been misquoted by her own officials.”

    Strange enough it took twenty hours to find the guilty ones.

    “Over 20 hours after the row broke out, Lady Ashton’s office produced an amended transcript of her speech, showing that she had also made a reference to Israeli victims of Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza in the city of Sderot in southern Israel. ”

    Which is now the correct transcript? And who thinks that Baroness Ashton would boldly mention Sderot in front of Palestinians?

    Back to The Guardian who obviously dislikes the protection of Jewish schools.

    • In the recorded clip I saw on Israel TV, she did include Sderot in her remarks. However, lumping the Belgian children killed in the bus accident in Switzerland, the children killed by Merah in Toulouse, the Norwegian adolescents, children in Sderot, Gaza and elsewhere indicates a total lack of discernment and an inability to take circumstances into account. Politically correct verbiage- garbage, really- at its worst.

  4. What was she doing speaking at an event put on by Palestinian activists?

    She’s head of a supposedly neutral organisation, trying to be peace broker.

    She’s either utterly disingenuous or completely naive.

    Either way, she’s totally unsuitable for the post of EU foreign minister.

  5. Laugh? Cry? No. Yell. This is a time to be outraged. The European Union is partly to blame for these killings by its years of slandering the Jewish state and the Jewish people, by declaring a moral equivalence between the killing of soldiers during a war and the killing of Jewish civilians because they are Jewish and for no other reason, thus justifying these killings, and for manufacturing false justifications for killing Jews by turning words like “occupation” and “settlement” into anti-Jewish war propaganda to justify killing Jews, even when they live on Jewish land in the Jewish state, and to promote organizations like Hamas and the Palestinians whose sole purpose for existing is that they want to kill Jews. The European Union has been promoting the killing of Jews. This is where their rhetoric leads. Give them hell.

  6. Someone please refresh my memory.

    Where is it in the Middle East that children are being slaughtered by the hundreds at this very moment?

    But since they’re nor being killed by Israel Ashton isn’t interested.

    Anyway, mentioning it might “offend” the tender Arab sensibilities.

  7. In the rush to defend Ashton, her supporters seem to be overlooking one quite pertinent issue: in the light of the tragic events on the day, why did Ashton continue with the closing paragraph of her speech at all? It was not so essential that without it, her speech would have been meaningless.

    The EU issued a condemnatory statement the day after the murders: it should have been made immediately and, as mentioned, Ashton should have had the diplomatic and political sense to scrub round her closing remark.. In my view the EU have further sullied themselves by including a defence of Ashton in this statement.

    Ashton is not a junior hack on a local evening rag: she’s a high-ranking EU offical and should not be excused knowledge of protocol. At worst the order of events and the closing remarks of her speech are wilful: at best naive – but if the latter is the case she should not be trusted to maintain a role in the ME peace process.

  8. I would add that if ‘wilful’, the same applies!

    She should be removed from her post – preferably along with the rest of the unelected EU pretenders.

  9. Baroness Ashton is a typical example of the type of useless political activist so beloved of the Labour party in the UK, just take a look at her career:

    1. CND worked as an administrator.
    2. Business Manager for a left wing management group
    3. Director of Business in the community?
    4. Activist for minority groups up to her elevation to a life peerage by the last discredited Blair led Labour government
    5. Sent to the EU as the UK’s replacement for its previous political appointee the artful doger himself Peter Mandelson.

    Since she has been the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, she has managed to upset the Dutch, French, Germans, British and even the French, now she has added the Israelis to the list.

  10. This Ashton woman’s idiotic and highly offensive remarks unfortunately typify the mindless irrational antiIsrael (and I believe antiSemitic) bias which seems to have become an embedded component of Europe’s liberal bureaucratic mentality.

    If the EU leadership doesn’ t promptly dismiss her, they will lose whatever credibility they have left.

  11. The remark by Catherine Ashton about revenge for Palestinian children has been confirmed by the suspect.

    Catherine Ashton needs to be investigated for conspiracy. Very suspicious that she was certain of this information before the suspect confessed.

  12. We should neither cry nor laugh,just get a huge pile of smelly shoes and aim them at this idiot the next time she opens her mouth.

  13. This woman headed CND when they were accepting money from the old USSR whose stated aim was to add western Europe to their empire in the east. She is a fool and unfit to head a parish council.