The Lebanization of Europe |


A trial is currently underway in Paris regarding the attacks on the editorial office of Charlie Hebdo and at the Jewish supermarket Hyper Cacher, which killed a total of 17 people. In a discussion between the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut and Haïm Korsia, Chief Rabbi of France, it was pointed out that this was an attack on France and the Jews. The cashier who survived the attack in the supermarket told the court that the Muslim terrorist who shot her said he killed her because she was French and Jewish. The French politicians are very clear about this: whoever persecutes the Jews is persecuting the entire republic.

However, the struggle for the values ​​of the republic becomes very difficult. An estimated 400,000 new immigrants arrive in France every year. While the previous group is anything but integrated, another one is added every year. The country cannot create hope for them and that is precisely one of the main causes of the hatred that is growing in some against the native population. The terrorists themselves are mostly born and raised in Europe. In a sense, they are the product of our education, of all the amenities that were provided to give them opportunities. However, integration was not an option for these Muslims and they live in their own world within the country. To counter the terror, separatism in the banlieues and anti-Semitism, according to the aforementioned personalities firmness in education needed: a tough approach combined with education. However, this does not seem to work with a hard core, so that the risk of new attacks increases rather than decreases. Mass immigration from non-Western countries makes a solution impossible.

Finkielkraut and Korsia believe that it is important for Islam to abandon the Ummah and to start with a critical study of the Koran. The Ummah is a worldwide Muslim community; extremist Muslims see the Ummah as a global caliphate where Islam has both secular and religious power and Sharia is introduced. This obviously clashes with the secularism in France which is not a rejection of religion, but means a strict separation between church and state. All religious utterances in the public domain are prohibited. Secularism is not anti-religious and sees religion as strictly private.

The successive attacks could mean that a new Middle East is emerging in France. As soon as something is admitted to the Muslims, new demands come up. An endless and hopeless battle is the result. We see, for example, how in the Middle East all peace treaties have failed so far. As soon as the Israelis admitted something, the extremists took over. When Israel left Gaza, Hamas came. Hezbollah arrived in Lebanon. For that reason, Israel will never leave the West Bank to avoid a libanization of Israel. In the latest peace treaty between Israel and some Gulf states, the Palestinians were forgotten. This is understandable because nothing constructive is to be expected from the Palestinian leadership.

Does this mean that France and Europe in general should close their borders? History shows that an empire that cuts itself off from the rest of the world is falling. An open empire is productive and has a lot of creative power. We see the latter especially in the United States. However, it seems that an open borders policy has become unsustainable. Civil war is underway in the US. It is no longer the country of social mobility. In Europe, there is a growing mass of young people from ethnic minorities in particular with no future prospects. The West cannot offer the mass of immigrants any hope for a better future.

Instead of an open borders policy where there is a massive influx of fortune seekers, there must be an open borders policy in which Europe or the West in general is oriented towards the rest of the world. So instead of openness to just let everyone in, openness to actively offer the rest of the world better opportunities. The latter naturally happens, for example if new medicines are developed in the West, the entire world can benefit from this. Likewise, anyone who wants to from a developing country can take online courses from Western educational institutions for free.

I illustrate what I mean by a different open borders policy as follows. In his family man has privacy. He doesn’t let in anyone he doesn’t want. In the privacy of the family, one gains the strength to take responsibility in the outside world. Likewise, a country must be a safe home for the native population. Such a country offers the strength to take responsibility for other peoples affected by calamity or other setbacks. A sovereign country is best able to make constructive agreements with other countries in the political, economic and cultural domain to the benefit of all parties.

Now we see, however, that without the population ever being asked, every country is inundated with a mass of unwanted foreigners. As a result, the European Union can no longer guarantee the security of its citizens and thus loses its right to exist. European leaders must be held responsible for every victim of an attack. Another attack has just been carried out by a Pakistani in Paris. What is that Pakistani doing in Europe? Who let him in?

We seem to forget that Europe is founded on Judeo-Christian ethics. This means that millions of Europeans are quite willing to create better opportunities for the people there in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in North Africa and in Black Africa. To make this possible, we must first have a safe home ourselves. What or who prevents us from placing all fortune-seekers on the plane, if necessary with military means to force the countries of origin to take them back in, thus putting an end to the degrading conditions on Greek islands, so that we, as Europeans, can finally find the right be able to offer solidarity aid to developing countries?

The latter can be financed with the money now spent on immigrants, the billions paid to Turkey to receive refugees itself and the costs of the asylum procedures.

other texts: 

   © Juliaan Van Acker 2024