There is a solution for the Paristinian uprising: Give them a state! After all, if it's good for Israel, then why not for France?
Seriously, it seems that everyone has forgotten that the major, mob-scale anti-social violence of Arab/Muslim youth in France started back in 2000 with attacks on Jews. These attacks on Jews were encouraged by the French media [TV, press, radio]--as well as by some politicians-- that at that time were presenting a very one-sided, pro-Arab view of events in Israel, going so far as to collaborate in the invention of the alleged death of an Arab boy, Muhammad al-Dura at the hands of Israeli troops. One year ago, Pres. Chirac fawned over yasser arafat, a notorious murderer of Jews.
For a long time, this anti-Jewish violence was overlooked or minimized by official France. Now the violence is striking at the French state itself, at French sovereignty in France. It was said years ago that outbursts of barbarism and brutality start by attacking Jews, then move on to others. This was put in another way by saying that Jews are like the canary in the coal mine. The canary is affected by the fumes before the miners are, hence, the canary is their early warning system. But France didn't learn that.
Now, France should be encouraged to quell the violence which is so often falsely interpreted by the media. BBC world affairs editor, John Simpson, went so far as to incite violence against France in an editorial on the bbc website.
This mad statement by Simpson should not merely be criticized but condemned. The man ought to be dismissed, if only in the name of EU solidarity. The madness of the bbc is fully the equal of anything on France2.
As long as I'm posting comments by blog readers of other blogs, I'd might as well post one from one of my readers, Gandalin:
I saw the videotape to which Reliapundit refers, and the rioters are clearly shouting "Allahu Akbar!" I've read their comments to the press, and on internet pages, in which they proclaim that "this" is their territory. I'm not sure if "this" means the immigrant zone, or the whole of Europe.
It is I think clear, whether we like or not, that whatever its character during the first night or two of violence in Clichy, the riots that now involve all of metropolitain France are taking on the character of jihad -- a struggle of Muslims against non-Muslims, in which an appeal is made to Divine right.
I don't claim that 100% of the rioters are jihadists or even Muslims. Undoubtedly, non-Muslims and non-jihadists are being swept up in the rioting, perhaps merely from excitement and frustration, but perhaps also out of a desire to fit in with their surroundings. But I think that the "vanguard" of the rioters, if you will permit me to use a Leninist phrase, is composed of committed jihadists. And they are the ones who seem to be giving leadership to the mobs.
To say that jihad is "against America" and that the anti-American French should therefore expect to be spared, is I think missing the point as to the significance of jihad. Jihad didn't begin in 2005, or 2003, or 2001, or even 1776. The jihad began 1300 years ago. Jihad raids into France began in the eighth century, I think, and were not even finally ended by Charles Martel's victory at Poitiers. The fight of the Algerians against the French in the 1830s had the character of a jihad. Abd el Kader was unless I am mistaken a Sufi religoious leader as well as a military commander.
By the way, France conquered most of North Africa in the 19th century, making colonies or protectorates of Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Mauritania, and Mali. And after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, France assumed hegemony over Syria and Lebanon. France has a long history of intervening in Middle Eastern affairs.
Since 1970 or so, the French government decided to throw its lot in with the Arab countries, and has pursued a pro-Arab policy. This policy has not helped them. Their failure to join the US and the UK in overthrowing Saddam Hussein was not greeted with gratitude in the Arab world, but seen as a weak willingness to accept their proper role as dhimmis. Part of the reason the ritoing is os widespread is that the rioters do not fear the French police or the French state. The rioters feel that they have already won. If they can force Chirac to fire Sarkozy, something that Chirac would probably like to do anyway, they will have won a significant battle. Imagine that -- they will have shown that the position is not filled by elections in France, but by the militant actions of the mob. Of the jihadist mob, as it happens. They will prove to themselves, and to the rest of the militant, jihadist world, that France is at their mercy.
Certainly the jihadists do NOT represent all Muslims. In Algeria, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat has been conducting a war against the Algerian government in which over 100,000 people, perhaps as many as 200,000 people have been killed. The Algerian jihadists have beheaded entire villages.
And they just recently proclaimed that France was their "enemy number one." Undoubtedly they have sympathizers and supporters, perhaps even hardened cadres, in the "hexagone" as well.
That the riots have been sustained for 12 nights is remarkable. That the riots have spread to over 300 French communities is remarkable. This may very well be a critical turning point. Nothing we have seen to date suggests that the French government is remotely prepared, capable, or willing to confront the problem of a widespread jihadist revolt. If that's the direction in which this phenomenon grows, you are going to be very surprised by what you see.
Contnental Europe has long been a front in WW4, maybe now they will act as if they know it - and FIGHT BACK WITH ALL THEY'VE GOT.