General Antisemitism

Toulouse Massacre, the Guardian’s Jessica Reed and the tyranny of liberal guilt

Imagine if you raised a son who grew up in a prosperous Western country but, at some point in his life, began to identify with the most hideously violent and reactionary terrorist movements.

Imagine further that your son joined al-Qaeda and spent time in Afghanistan as a terrorist assisting the Taliban in killing NATO troops.

Then, over a period of 10 days your son went on a killing spree, murdering French soldiers, a rabbi, his two young children and another child outside a Jewish school in Toulouse.

Would you engage in self-reflection and try to understand what went wrong?

Would you offer an apology to the victims’ families?

No. Benanel Merah, the father of Mohamed, said that he wants to take the French state to court for failing to capture his son alive.

After a two-day standoff with police, Mohamed was killed (on March 22) in an operation in which three officers were injured, one seriously, after he refused to surrender.

Said Benanel Merah:

“Why were they so hasty?”

“Why did they kill him? He could have been sentenced to many years in prison or even a life sentence. There is no death penalty in France.”

According to France 24, Benanel Merah told reporters that he would “hire the biggest named lawyers and work for the rest of my life to pay their costs – I will sue France for having killed my son.”

Interestingly, Benalel Merah left his family when his son Mohamed was six years old. His other son Abdelkader is currently under investigation, suspected of aiding and abetting his brother’s crimes.

Benalel failed miserably as a parent. He abandoned his family, and at least one of his sons grew up to become a monster – a 23-year-old man so blinded by anti-Jewish racism that he shot a petrified little Jewish girl a point-blank range without a hint of remorse.

While Benalel’s attempt to project the guilt which should be assigned to his son onto French police is, in itself, evidence of profound moral pathos, there are those in the West who evidently similarly viewed Mohamed’s death as an injustice.

Though the Guardian’s coverage of the Toulouse massacre was itself an exercise in denial – determined to run interference for the Islamist ideology which would target Jewish innocents – a series of Tweets by Jessica Reed, the Guardian’s assistant editor at ‘Comment is Free, are quite telling of Western liberal guilt, those whose heart bleeds for even the most malevolent and decidedly illiberal actors.

Here’s a portion of a Twitter exchange I had with Reed on March 22.

I don’t know Jessica Reed. And, I certainly don’t know how she responded emotionally to news that four Jews (including 3 children) were murdered by Mohamed Merah.

Yet, as I follow Guardian Twitterers somewhat regularly, I couldn’t locate even one Tweet (by the dozens of Guardian writers who regularly Tweet) which expressed shock, outrage, or anger over Merah’s antisemitic rampage. 

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe told Radio Classique that “if I was the father of a monster [like Merah] I would shut my mouth in shame.”

President Nicolas Sarkozy’s chief advisor Henri Guaino told France Culture radio:

A little bit of decency right now would do everyone a lot of good. To try to blame the state is the height of indecency. This monster killed in cold blood. French society owes him absolutely nothing.”

The threat to sue came from the left-wing ideology that the criminal is never fully responsible for his acts, that it’s always other people that are responsible.”

Being a monster is not a symptom of the state of society…A monster is a monster. There is no social explanation for such a hideous crime.”

French police, political leaders and European journalists do not owe the father of such a cold-blooded killer a damn apology.

If liberalism means anything, it surely means identifying with the victims of racist violence – 30-year-old Jonathan Sandler, his sons Arieh, 5, and Gabriel, 4, and seven-year-old Miriam Monsonego – and not the cruel, sociopathic perpetrator.

30 replies »

  1. Dad must be proud of his son.

    In his twisted ideology, he committed a “mitzvah”. A good deed to better the world.

    The father is most likely proud of his offspring. He is sad that the kid is dead because in jail he would be a hero and a star.

    He will sue France and probably will lose. His son jumped from a balcony while shooting toward the police with a pistol. Technically he committed suicide by cop. His confessions, according to police mentioned a plan whereby he would have attacked more targets in Paris and that he had a mentor/leader directing him. Toulouse was a mere rehearsal for the big city.

    I expect that after losing in the French courts, the trials which will be aptly covered by the Guardian debating about state power, police brutality, unfair trials, expenses incurred by this poor Arab man, Sarkozy and his trigger happy racist hands etc…. the father (with the help of high profile left wing lawyers) will take the case to the EU Human Rights court thereby putting France on trial as it were…as he stated in his own words.

    Then France will be on trial. The Human Rights Court will dig into the laws and procedures dealing with terrorists. That too will be covered in the Guardian portraying the Republic as a violent state ready to kill its citizens without trial. Basically the same condemnations American and Israel typically get when they whack a terrorist. France will taste some of the medicine it prescribes by its elites to America and Israel.

    Ironically in France the state can do things to terror suspects American neocons could only dream about. That too will be exposed. As that is what the “father” will want. Of course this will not be the “father”. He will merely be the figurehead for the movement of Islamists and leftists who want to systematically weaken Western defences against Jihad. The same people will fund this will be the ones who defended other terrorists. Caged Prisoners, A.I., perhaps even HRW and of course the usual coterie of Muslim Brotherhood fronts. Student groups, Israel hater gangs and radical leftists.

    France will become the next stage in their war against the West.

    If we recall, France was their first stage. Before even Israel and the UK and even America. France saw Jihadi attacks in the 80s and 90s. Cafes, libraries, trains and of course synagogues were blowing up in Paris and airlines were hijacked. One of those were planned to fly into Eiffel Tower.

    After those experiences France has set up a system of laws and processes to defend against these types of attacks. Many of their techniques were later adopted by the Americans after 911.

    It is time to dismantle them and castrate France’s ability to fight Jihad the way the UK was castrated and the US is being attacked by weakening police powers, etc etc.

    This is only the beginning.

    • My first response was, like yours, to believe that the EU court will uphold the father’s claim against France.

      BTW – this concerned father left the family when Merah was age 6, but seems to now believe his nasty son could be his lottery ticket.

  2. Incredible. Mohammed Merah kills 7, including several children, costs the French state millions to go through the charade of trying to take him alive when he intends to die a “martyr’s” death in the process anyway, seriously injures several more French policemen, then leaves a video depicting his crimes that he fully expects the press to publish. His only regret is that he did not kill more people, especially more Jews, which was fully his intent.

    With a few hours of work, he managed to discredit every cause for which he claimed to stand – Muslim rage about burqa banning in France, the Palestinians, al Qaeda, etc. etc., although you would hardly know it by reading the Guardian.

    Muslims in Toulouse march on his behalf. A few (very few) half-hearted expressions of regret – mostly that he hurt the Palestinian cause – from his Arab and Muslim brethren. His father wants to sue France for not taking him alive. A Jewish boy in Paris is beaten while his assailants make anti-semitic remarks. And, of course, the Guardian and its ilk make excuses, deny the antisemitic intent of the murderer, and as always, blames Israel and by extension the Jews, who by their very existence in the world are the cause of such evil behavior by others.

    But wait, as they say in the ads, there’s more. Not only were you the evil tool of every Jew hater in the world, Mohammed Merah, but you were also an idiot. If you had allowed yourself to be captured alive, you would have been given a more than fair trial. Some leftist lawyer would have defended you and got you off with a minimal jail sentence. You could have used the time in the public eye to spout more anti-western, anti-French and antisemitic rage, becoming ever more the darling of every Jew hater in the world. You could have spent the time in prison obtaining the college degree – perhaps in neo-colonialist studies, or post-Zionism – that you never did in life.

    And then, in the coup de grace, you could have been freed in a mass prisoner exchange along with hundreds as bad or worse than you, for some poor journalist who had the misfortune of covering the “Arab spring” from the wrong outpost. You would have been flown to Damascus or Gaza, where you could have had your own television show. You would have had Palestinian children write love poems about you, life would have been great.

    But you were evil and stupid, Mohammed Merah. The Guardian may still be covering for you, but even the French appear to have finally had it with you and your ilk. And, of course, you are dead, so your days of committing evil acts are through. If there is a god in heaven, let us thank him for that.

  3. Coming from an Islamo facist apologist I find this rich.
    Doesn’t she know that in Islam an eye for an eye is Justice?

    She best rethink her financialy motivated alliance with the “mistreated Misunderstood Jihadists”.

    • Re. “Islamo facist apologist”

      I only know her from her inane tweets and superficial BTL posts on CiF. What’s she said exactly?
      (it’s not that I doubt you – I’m just curious)

  4. Armaros:

    “In the twisted ideology that is Islam”

    I do not believe this is apropriate talk.
    Tarring an entire religion in the same way some of its extreme elements operate is not right.

    I am ashamed of Baruch Goldstein acts and even so of the shrine his followers created for him showing no remors for his actions.
    Never the less, his ideology was politically motivated, and though he was a religious man, and justified his actions in line with his religion, his warped understanding of Judaism is not what Judaism is.

    Not in a religious way and not in a national way.

    • On the whole I agree. BUT, it seems that a dis proportionally high percentage of Muslims use literal interpretations of the Koran and are not condemned strongly enough by people who refer to themselves as ‘moderate Muslims’.

      I think that we can say that 95% of Jewish Israelis were just horrified by Goldsteins murderous actions and condemn them without caveat.

      I wish I could say the same for Muslims as a whole.

      • Ah, come on. The Tanakh features rape, murder and penis scalping – but that doesn’t make Judaism “twisted.”

          • This is simply not true. The Jews are barely mentioned in the Quran.
            Are you simply ignorant about this, or are you consciously smearing Islam?

            Jew hate is central to Islam.
            That’s arguably hate speech in itself.


              The Jews are not mentioned often but their role is a central one to the early establishment of Islam. In other words, their mention is central albeit not large in number. Adam and Eve are not mentioned often in the Bible either yet their role is a central one n’est pas?

              In order to understand what is going on in the world one must face the reality. A reality which many cultural Muslims may not even know. Hence my wording “central to Islam” instead of saying “central to Muslims”.

              Islam was established upon a massacre and expulsion of Jews from Medina. An actual genocide if you will. This is when the rules of Jihad were established. The rules which define massacres, rape and enslavement of prisoners and taking their wives and daughters.
              Mos little wife Aisha was a daughter of a local Jewish tribal leader.
              She was taken as booty (unfortunately by both meanings of the word) upon the killing of her father.
              One must examine this if one wants to understand why these terrorists target children. Which they do regularly. From Arafat to Samir Kuntar to the Sbarro Pizza, there is an MO to target Jewish children (and also Christian ones in Egypt and Iraq recently or in Indonesia).
              Children are not killed as bystanders. They are killed because they are targeted specifically because of an interpretation of scripture.

              You can read up on this in the works of Robert Spencer or even Bernard Lewis, so I will not recite the battle of Medina, the Kourash and why one can hear the chants by Jihadis regularly “Kaybar Kaybar aya Yahhud” A chant often heard at Hamas/Hezbollah rallies and UK Universities.
              Now a moderate Muslim like Zuhdi Jasser or Tarek Fatah would argue that the Jew hating passages (of which there are many more than you ever would acknowledge) are confined to that specific time and place when this nasty tribal conflict took place. Therefore they should not be a reason or excuse to hate Jews today and outside of Medina.
              Needless to say, this view has not been adopted by the vast majority of 1.4B Muslims in the world. Hence the reason for the regular outburst of Jew hate, both in words and deeds.
              Until Islam faces up to this and reforms these attacks will continue.
              Islam will never reform if we aren’t even willing to acknowledge the maggots under the stone.

              If you accuse me of hate speech then you should also accuse the Koran of hate speech. Though I did not call upon anybody to act violently or even to hate anybody.

              • [Aisha] was taken as booty (unfortunately by both meanings of the word) upon the killing of her father.

                Excuse me?

                Children are not killed as bystanders. They are killed because they are targeted specifically because of an interpretation of scripture.

                Yes, and the people who do that indeed have a “twisted ideology”, i.e. their own perverse interpretation of scripture (just as certain apartheid-era South African Christians had re. the Bible).

                But they do not represent Islam.

  5. Henri Guaino:

    “The threat to sue came from the left-wing ideology that the criminal is never fully responsible for his acts, that it’s always other people that are responsible.”…”

    This is not entirely true and is a political statement prior to elections.
    This suing mentality which we see as second nature now is the wonderful legacy of the US capitalist greed, driven by “no win no fee” claim lawyers.

    Just this week Apple was sued for 1,000,000$ by an 83 year old woman because she is daft enough to walk into a glass door.

    Correct me if I’m wrong but a broken nose or even reconstruction does not cost 1,000,000$.

    This is greed driven by her lawyers.
    This has been going on since the 80’s and has created a world where every thing that happens to me is someone else’s fault.

    This is the rot in the current western societies and this is what allows the Chutzpa of this Muslim father to even think of suing.

    One could even imagine him as Jeff Dunham’s Achmed the dead terrorist shouting out the slogan:

    “Shut up!, I Sue you…”

    It was only a matter of time that so called left wingers or so called liberals will adopt this suing technic and carry on abusing the system on another level thus spitting into the well they drink from.
    Human rights have been flattened thanks to them.
    Real cases of abuses are now being compared to idiotic claims and our economies are being wasting billions on this fictious industry which not only creates an untouchable society (gangs, minorities, some workers) but also raises the tension between different sectors of our society.
    We can see the UN shifting important human rights violations aside to focus on one small country which is not even remotly close to the top.

    So who’s the winner of this all?

    The Islamists are, the Russians are, the Chinese are, South American socialists are.

    The Trojan horse springs to mind.

  6. Penetrating comments from armaros and Samson. Exactly so.

    As for Reed, she is both a clever fool and a smart alec* – a combination of character traits – attitude, man! – which seem to be de rigueur among the youthful cohort at the Guardian and to which the older crew hilariously aspire (see, for example, Deborah Orr). Oh so hip, oh so cool and pretty pretty vacant.

    The problem for the Guardian is that while it uses such people (neither reporters nor journalists nor even hacks) in the belief that this manufactured ‘attitude’ will broaden its appeal among the young, the management consistently underestimates the intelligence of their readers of whatever age. The Guardian contemptuously believes that the young – and this is a key demographic profile they are chasing within the UK – are superficial and amoral and they are betting the farm that the superficial, amoral and profoundly plastic Reed (and her acolytes) will herd them in.

    *One who is given to obnoxious or insolent humor; a wise guy.
    *One who is pretentious about their own cleverness or knowledge; a know-it-all.
    *One who is obnoxiously self-assured; a show off.

  7. A juvenile tweet from Jessica Reed. Her job at the G. appears to consist of posting utter inanities all day long on Twitter. I only know because they’re always appearing on the right hand side of the CiF homepage.

  8. The New York Times is guilty of the same purposeful distortion of reality as the Guardian. Although the likelihood of finding overtly anti-Israel and anti-semitic writing on any given day is greater in the Guardian, neither paper seems capable of deviating from their editorial bias – even when it means ignoring actual facts. The Times reports in an article titled “After Killings in France, Muslims Fear a Culture of Diversity Is at Risk” that was published on 3/27/12:

    “…“All of this does not correspond at all with what Toulouse is,” Pierre Cohen, the mayor, said of the killings. But “we’ve just come out of a very tense period,” he said. “Unfortunately, this risk exists.”

    Already, a false rumor has spread through the city, Mr. Cohen said, suggesting that Muslims were organizing a demonstration in defense of Mr. Merah.”

    Now, it might be true that the mayor of Toulouse actually made these statements. Evidently, however, the author had not read or purposely failed to report the following report, distributed by Reuters and published in Paris Match and elsewhere the day before:

    “…The initiative is as astounding as it is wretched. Thirty young people, mostly girls, gathered Saturday in the district of Toulouse, where Mohamed Merah came from, to honor the memory of the killer of seven people shot dead by police Thursday, comparing their suffering to the families of the victims. One hundred members of security forces surrounded this event during which a woman wearing a full veil exhorted the group.

    “What we ask today is that we stop demonizing Mohamed, that’s it, he died,” she said. “We share the pain and suffering of the families because it is the same pain for us here,” said the girl, who declined to give her name. “I think what influenced him is what he has seen in his many travels. He could not manage all that. It was still a teenager in his head, despite his 23 years. ”

    The police had detected other calls to demonstrate in Toulouse Saturday morning and prevented the group from joining another. The demonstration was dispersed in the late afternoon without incident. This is not the first tribute to the author of the murders of three soldiers and four of the Jewish faith, including three children. Just hours after the death of Mohammed Merah, several Facebook pages have been created in his honor. Graffiti saying “Viva Merah”, “Vengeance” and “Fuck the kippa” were also identified and cleaned up.”

    Of course, later in the Times article, young men from Toulouse are quoted as saying:

    “…Someone had the nerve to ask me, ‘Do you agree with what he did?’ ” Mr. Elmu’min said, exasperated. President Nicolas Sarkozy called for the rejection of “easy falsehoods” about Muslims last week, after Mr. Merah was killed by police commandos, Mr. Elmu’min said. “The ‘easy falsehoods’ are already here,” he lamented.

    A friend, Abd’allah, 19, dressed in a cream-colored djellaba beneath a hooded sweatshirt, said, “We’re the victims in the story.” He declined to give his full name, saying he feared trouble from the French authorities.”

    So, to recap, in a NY Times article lamenting the potential disappearance of a “culture of diversity” in Toulouse following the murder of three French soldiers and four Jews, including three young children, the author fails to acknowledge that there really were public displays of support for the murderer, but does report that local Muslims claim that they are the true victims of this story.

  9. The sniper that put a bullet through Merah’s head did us all a favour. It’s an added bonus to know that his odious father is pissed off.

    If Merah’s father does sue, it would be a huge own goal for the Islamists and their fellow-travellers on the liberal left. It would be another Dreyfus case, this time exposing the depth of anti semitism amongst Europe’s Muslim population.

  10. He’s still dead. His father’s still angry because he knows he’s largely responsible for the fucked-up anti-Semitic murdering mess his now-expired son turned out to be. And CiF still confirms that the Left has no boundaries for what it will lend support to, if it thinks that championing is in any way a possibility to hinder the West, conservatives, and most of all Jews/Israel.

  11. There seems to be no depths to which some (most?) of the Guardian’s staff will sink in their bizarre ideological safari into delirium.