Worried by France's Intifada, European elites and our own American left has been trying to convince themselves that the riots were mainly the work of disaffected youth and not, as most have pointed out, the product of France's failed attempt to fully assimilate its swelling Muslim and immigrant (but mostly Muslim) population. Nice try, but the facts don't support their wishful thinking:
Once news of their deaths was out, Clichy was all up in arms. With cries of "God is great," bands of youths armed with whatever they could get hold of went on a rampage and forced the police to flee. The French authorities could not allow a band of youths to expel the police from French territory.
So they hit back — sending in Special Forces, known as the CRS, with armored cars and tough rules of engagement. Within hours, the original cause of the incidents was forgotten and the issue jelled around a demand by the representatives of the rioters that the French police leave the "occupied territories."
By midweek, the riots had spread to three of the provinces neighboring Paris, with a population of 5.5 million. But who lives in the affected areas? In Clichy itself, more than 80 percent of the inhabitants are Muslim immigrants or their children, mostly from Arab and black Africa. In other affected towns, the Muslim immigrant community accounts for 30 percent to 60 percent of the population. But these are not the only figures that matter. Average unemployment in the affected areas is estimated at around 30 percent and, when it comes to young would-be workers, reaches 60 percent.
Taheri is right. There are most certainly other factors at play here - poverty, unemployment, social marginalization to name a few - besides radical Islam. But those factors are secondary to (or even caused by) France's failure to obtain a minimal standard of civic and social cohesion between European society and its immigrant population. Efforts to whitewash the relevant demographics, to pretend that the riots lack a coherent political aim is to subsume the truth to a suicidal political correctness. It's another attempt view every story through the Lens of the oppressor and the oppressed. Here's Belmont Club on the uniformity of the rioter's tactics:
Although it may be coincidental, the remarkable uniformity in the rioter's rules of engagement and the rapid development of their tactics suggests they have a tacit consensus as to their strategic aims: to confine action to inherently political acts in exchange for political concessions.
The strategic aims of the Islamic community should not come as a surprise - it's merely the logical extension of their growing numbers. The influence of fundamental Islam in the ghettos of Paris has been on the rise for some time:
Apart from poverty, feminists say the dominance of traditional cultures among families of Arab and black African origin, combined with the growing role of Islam in the suburbs, have contributed to the harsh treatment girls get there.
Pressure is mounting for Muslim women to wear veils. Forced marriages that snatch them from college and career -- where they do much better than their male schoolmates -- are on the rise
France's problem with its Muslim population, its failure to assimilate them - both culturally and economically - as citizens, is made that much more difficult as it folds into the gigantic super-state, the European Union. The European Union prides itself on its avowedly secular and progressive outlook - an outlook the radical elements of the Islamic community does not share. But an overly tolerant politic, one the legitimizes the brutal fundamentalism that now resides within, looks awfully close to appeasement and is likely sowing the seeds of its own destruction.
Even worse, by clumping these populations together, France is actually economically and culturally isolating them, perpetuating both the poverty and frustration (as America learned in its own War on Poverty) felt by the immigrants. It's a vicious cycle, one most often broken by violence. But the violence is symptomatic of more than economic frustration: it's an expression of a twisted political will. A secularized society is something to which many of France's Muslims feel no allegiance, and they are asserting themselves. They already conceive of their suburbs as their territory, areas they would like to govern the way they see fit. Notice the way the rioters demanded that the police leave the 'occupied terrirtories'. Sound familiar? And now enter the radical clerics to foment even more unrest:
In some areas, it is possible for an immigrant or his descendants to spend a whole life without ever encountering the need to speak French, let alone familiarize himself with any aspect of the famous French culture. The result is often alienation. And that, in turn, gives radical Islamists an opportunity to propagate their message of religious and cultural apartheid.
Some are even calling for the areas where Muslims form a majority of the population to be reorganized on the basis of the "millet" system of the Ottoman Empire: Each religious community (millet) would enjoy the right to organize its social, cultural and educational life in accordance with its religious beliefs.
In parts of France, a de facto millet system is already in place. In these areas, all women are obliged to wear the standardized Islamist "hijab" while most men grow their beards to the length prescribed by the sheiks. The radicals have managed to chase away French shopkeepers selling alcohol and pork products, forced "places of sin," such as dancing halls, cinemas and theaters, to close down, and seized control of much of the local administration.
A reporter who spent last weekend in Clichy and its neighboring towns of Bondy, Aulnay-sous-Bois and Bobigny heard a single overarching message: The French authorities should keep out. "All we demand is to be left alone," said Mouloud Dahmani, one of the local "emirs" engaged in negotiations to persuade the French to withdraw the police and allow a committee of sheiks, mostly from the Muslim Brotherhood, to negotiate an end to the hostilities.
Even more frightening is the prospect that the French may take the idea of a 'millet system' seriously, a fatal first step in the creeping eradication of Europe's (mostly) open society. Given France's penchant for concession and surrender (and Chirac's astoundingly ineffectual response), is it difficult to envision a France granting inch after inch in the name of coexistence, diversity, and tolerance. Here's Belmont Club again:
It is now clear that a good portion of France's Muslims not only refuse to assimilate into "the superior French culture," but firmly believe that Islam offers the highest forms of life to which all mankind should aspire. So what is the solution? One solution, offered by Gilles Kepel, an adviser to Chirac on Islamic affairs, is the creation of "a new Andalusia" in which Christians and Muslims would live side by side and cooperate to create a new cultural synthesis.
The problem with Kepel's vision, however, is that it does not address the important issue of political power. Who will rule this new Andalusia: Muslims or the largely secularist Frenchmen?
Given what we've seen over the last three decades, is there any question to how the radical clerics would answer the question? Most discouraging is the fact that there are those within Europe (and France) that are desperately hoping that this alligator will eat them last, that they will find compatibility between secularism and the murderous fundamentalism that is now threatening their cities. But they will not find synthesis. A live and let live philosophy will not be sufficient to preserve their open way of life. Compatibility is not what the clerics are looking for. Here's Belmont Club:
What I am afraid will happen is that the French authorities will apply the worst possible combination: a short-term crackdown based on profiling together with an agreement to cede the governance of these ghettos to some kind of Islamic councils. That will make the banlieus more opaque while at the same time making them more alien. Yet the attraction of this policy mix is obvious. It throws a bone to the extreme right and left wings of French policy and may quell the disturbances for a moment. It kicks the can down the road into a minefield. It's a soothing gargle of antiseptic mouthwash prior to flossing with a razor blade.
Let's hope not. Ceding territory would set a dangerous precedent. And it would begin the end of Europe as we know it.