The apprehension of the gunman in France (notice I do not say French gunman)

A News Alert sent from the Wall Street Journal at 11:22 last night:

Police carried out a raid on a house in Toulouse, France, where a 24-year-old Frenchman suspected of carrying out a string of attacks in the region is under siege.

Shots have been fired outside the house, which has been surrounded by a SWAT team since about 3 a.m. local time, authorities said. Two policemen have been injured, they said.

French Interior Minister Claude Guéant, who is at the scene, said the suspect is speaking to police from behind a door of the house.

Kristor, who forwarded the story, writes:

The French Interior Minister is at the scene? So this is a crisis for the French nation, rather than a local police incident featuring a madman?

- end of initial entry -

Bill A. writes:

With respect to this comment:

“The French Interior Minister is at the scene? So this is a crisis for the French nation, rather than a local police incident featuring a madman?”

The Republique Francaise is a highly centralized, bureaucratic state.

The gendarmerie reports to the Interior Minister. There are no “local police” in France, the entire force is a national police force, in military rather than “police” uniforms (kepi and all), and in fact attached to the military rather than any local authorities.

In a sense, all police matters in France are the interests of the centralized, national bureaucracy.

However, I think it is a good thing that these attacks on French soldiers and French Jews are perceived as nationally important.

LA replies:

I think we may safely predict that the attacks will instantly be seen as infinitely less important, now that the shooter has turned out merely to be a Muslim associated with al Qaeda, rather than a white rightist.

Philip M. writes:

You wrote:

“I think we may safely predict that the attacks will instantly be seen as infinitely less important, now that the shooter has turned out merely to be a Muslim associated with al Qaeda, rather than a white rightist”

Perhaps such attacks will fuel anti-Semitism amongst liberals and leftists in Europe. Liberals are caught between a rock and a soft place, the rock being the intractable hatred of Muslims for Jews, the soft place being the Europeans’ own sense of right and wrong and their attitudes to Israel.

Knowing that they cannot change Muslim attitudes, they will choose the far easier option of blaming the Muslim attacks on the Jews and on French support for Israel. It is just a lot easier and safer. In many minds, there will probably be a sense of resentment towards Jews, a feeling that if Israel had never existed these attacks would never have happened and we could all get along with our Muslim neighbours in peace and harmony.

It is far easier to say, “If there was no such thing as Israel and no Western involvement in Muslim countries, Muslims would stop doing these things,” than it is to say, “We have a problem with Islam in the West which we can only resolve by asserting our national interests and cultural supremacy in our own lands.” Seen as a choice between these options, there really is no choice.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 21, 2012 06:16 AM | Send