----- Original Message ----- From: "Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLWPD/RZO/BOZO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 11:01 AM Subject: RE: Trouble in Europe
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Verzonden: maandag 8 april 2002 17:42 > > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Onderwerp: Re: Trouble in Europe > > > > How are the European governments "refusing to accept responsibility > > > for protecting citizens"? > > > > By the way they react to the violence. A reasonable verbal reaction is > > "this type of violence is totally unacceptable, it has no place in > > France, we will do everything in our power to prosecute those that > > perpetrate it." > > Which is exactly what will happen. Arson is still a crime, and will > therefore be investigated. When the perpetrators are caught they will be > tried and convicted. > > > > A reasonable police reaction would be to both start a manhunt for the > > perpetrators and police protection for all synagogue. > > And how exactly are we going to pay for that protection? Saying we should > give permanent police protection to all synagogues is easy, but one must > also keep an eye on the costs. May I suggest that protecting the citizens of a country is more important than subsidizing inefficent agriculture in order to lower imports from Australia. There is plenty of money to be found in wasted programs. >It is simply impossible to give every synagogue 24/7 police protection. Well, citizen voluenteers from the community can also be used. >Synagogues are already included in regular police patrols (just like mosques), but no government >is going to be able to assign police officers to all synagogues around the clock. I guess you've missed the rest of my most. My _family_ has been involved with this need for protection agains racist violence in the past. It has been done in the US in the past, it can be done in Europe now. I strongly suggest that y'all look to our experience for leadership in this area. Another example that can be used was the response of the American government towards violence against Moselems in the US after 9-11. When idiots threatened mosques, both police and citizen volunteers worked hard to protect them. Both national and local leaders were vocal in how unAmerican and dispicable such acts were. The violence died down quickly. Perfection isn't suggested. An honest effort is. Every indication is that the lack of effort protecting synagouges is a political decision. > > Even if it *were* possible, it would only lead to perpetrators find other > Jewish targets, from Jewish shops to individual homes. Are we supposed to > assign a police officer 24/7 to each and everyone of them? Nonsense. Again, look to the United States for leadership. We've been there; done that. Now, I don't mean to imply that racism is a thing of the past here. It isn't. We're just much further down the road adressing racism than y'all seem to be adressing anti-Semitism. > > An analogy is if a government, after a series of rapes in the > > community, reacted by saying: > > > > 1) There was no way for the government to prevent rape > > 2) men and women should stop being angry with each other. > > Well, like it or not, it *is* impossible for any government to prevent >rape (unless they assign a police officer 24/7 to every individual woman, which > is simply impossible). The best they can do is hunt down the rapist(s) and > send him/them to prison. That's not the point. No one expects perfection. But, when a job needs to be done, the right answer is "we'll do our best" not "we'll we're not perfect." Even though the latter is true, it is also usually stated as a whinny excuse. > It might be possible that the French government did not consider his > statement to be anti-Semitic, but since I do not have the statement handy >I cannot comment on that. Can you post the comment? The latest quote from the list is "And all of this from the same French government that declined to recall its ambassador to Britain when he created a ruckus last December by referring to Israel as "that s----- little country." Ambassador Daniel Bernard added, "Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?" from http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=105001871 There were earlier references to this on the list too. Dan M.
