There is an element of theatre involved, but it is also a way of sending a very clear signal that the France is not satisfied with the ambassador's behaviour.
When everything is going well, meetings between the Foreign Office and ambassadors remain private.The fact that the ambassador did not attend the meeting himself but sent a subordinate is a public affront.
What is strange is that the US ambassador's communication is not really intended for the French or French jews, but is merely a sign of support for Israel.
There is currently an Israeli media offensive in France followin President Macron's comments on the recognition of a Palestinian state. The Israeli state and its supporters are buying advertising spots on YouTube and Instagram to encourage French Jews to do their ahria with free money.
There are regular attempts to exploit anti-Semitic crimes or news stories to claim that France is hell on earth for Jews and that Israel is there to save them. But then again, we haven't yet seen Belgian commandos coming to kidnap people in France or Luxembourgers launching rockets.
The only new thing is that the US ambassador is taking part in this type of operation and behaving like an arsehole with the French Foreign Office.
It is theater and it's more about sending messages to everyone else.
A state can vocalize it's disapproval directly in a more direct and meaningful way using back channels and political ways, but this is more about giving a clear signal to everyone else.
> It is theater and it's more about sending messages to everyone else.
"More about", I think, ignores the degree to which sending the message publicly to everyone else can be a very important part of sending the message to the obvious direct target.
> A state can vocalize it's disapproval directly in a more direct and meaningful way using back channels and political ways
Yeah, but "we are not allowing you to publicly save face by restricting our protest to private back channels" is itself an important way of communicating the severity of the message to the direct target.
Yes, but as a state, if you're not happy you can impose tarrifs, play a dirty game by revoking visas to athletes or Putin's favourite actress, or use any other indirect way to show your disapproval. And use back channels to make sure they know exactly why this is happening. Plenty of ways.
This is Kabuki theatre, it is to show everyone else that you're dissatisfied.
Etiquette, norms, and formal communications are fundamentally about precision. You send only the message you intended, while minimizing the risk of unintended consequences.
If your actions have real-world consequences, they are guaranteed to send other messages beyond the one you intended. Tariffs, visa revocations, assassinations, wars, and whatever impact other people beyond their direct targets, and those people may change their behavior in unpredictable ways.
> Etiquette, norms, and formal communications are fundamentally about precision.
Not at all, in fact often exactly the opposite is true. The French president could have posted “fuck you for writing that letter, our recognition of Palestine has nothing to do with antisemitism” on his Twitter account. That would be a lot more precise than this diplomatic act.
That would have sent a bunch of unintended messages. By not using formal diplomatic channels, he would have made the statement look less serious. People might have asked if it represents the opinion of the president as an individual rather as a representative of the state. And the unexpected vulgar tone might have changed people's opinions on him, perhaps making them less interested in dealing with him in the future.
> we haven't yet seen Belgian commandos coming to kidnap people in France or Luxembourgers launching rockets
Not all hate crimes involve rockets.
I know a few Jews who grew up in France, and all of them report antisemitic incidents that happened to them personally, some physically violent. I’m talking mid-day paris, not some otherwise sketchy circumstances. They all fear being identified as jews in the streets of Paris.
I haven't looked into the details, but Israel state and other entites promise housing assistance of up to €1,500 per month, Hebrew lessons, tax exemptions, etc. Literally free money.
I have no idea how universal these observations are and cringe at things like "every X I know in Y sees Z" but I'll add I have friends in similar positions in France and the atmosphere there seems significantly worse than in the US. I don't believe I have any friends friends in Europe that are openly supportive of the current Israeli government.
Of course, that's not all Kushner said; he also apparently cast support for Palestinian statehood as antisemitic, which is obviously inflammatory. The more grounded in fact concerns about European antisemitism are, the more unfortunate Kushner's statement is.
That's sounds like an exaggeration: most jewish people won't deal with any type of discrimination simply because they aren't identifiable as jewish.
Regardless, antisemitism exists in France and elsewhere. It's just not the case that France doesn't do anything about it. These crimes are punished. Maybe not as severely as one would hope, but by French standards, it's pretty serious.
But as parent comment mentioned, the current situation has little to do with that.
> That's sounds like an exaggeration: most jewish people won't deal with any type of discrimination simply because they aren't identifiable as jewish.
As an identity, yes they still receive a lot of hate.
As individuals unless they wear distincrive signs like a kipa they will probably receive less hate and discrimination than say...people with red/ginger hair which is still super common. If they are transexuals and gay black redhead jews with rumanian nationality and and live with an asian partner, they are fucked.
And of the ones identifiable as Jewish, the ones where it's just because they wear a yarmulke or something similar probably also don't have problems.
And then there are going to be the ones festooned with Stars of David, and pushing for every conflict they can possibly get into so they can claim antisemitism. Those? Those I'd believe having problems, but they're not having problems because they're Jewish - they're having problems because they're assholes.
Is there antisemitism in France? I'm positive there is. Is there anti-Muslim sentiment as well? I'm positive there is. (side note, aren't middle-eastern Muslims generally considered Semites as in descendants of Shem?)
> (side note, aren't middle-eastern Muslims generally considered Semites as in descendants of Shem?)
Arabs and Jews are both Semitic (in the sense of speaking Semitic languages and having Levantine origins), but the word “antisemitism” refers specifically to Jew hatred. This is mostly a historical quirk of 19th century Germans trying to come up with a more scientific sounding phrase than Judenhass.
(Also, to be pedantic: there are non-Semitic middle-eastern Muslims, as well as semitic middle-eastern non-Muslims/Jews. It turns out that “semitic” itself isn’t a super useful category, which is why “antisemitism” should really be read as a single lexeme rather than “hatred of all semites”.)
> aren't middle-eastern Muslims generally considered Semites as in descendants of Shem?
This has the same energy as “technically Elon Musk is African-American”.
Sometimes words have come to mean something specific that doesn’t precisely correspond to their literal components or etymology, and pretending not to understand this just impedes communication.
Counterpoint: all my french Jewish friends have reported no such thing. The group is not large, but relatively diverse, spread across 2-3 almost disjoint circles.
French Jew here. Antisemitism exists in France, like everywhere in Europe - we have some history about that going back at least a millennium. But Israel's propaganda interpretation of what antisemitism is and how much of it exists is laughably exaggerated... And it is used as a pretext by the far right to discriminate against Muslims.
The French far right only cares about anti-Semitism, women's rights and even LGBT+ rights when it allows them to bash immigrants and Muslims.
In a bizarre twist, activists from the far-right National Rally party set up a fake LGBT+ association that marched in the Paris Gay Pride parade with anti-Palestinian slogans.
It was such a mess that they were protected by three rows of riot police.
You'd have to be very naive to believe that such false and hateful people could be allies to anyone.
We sometimes make fun of Americans, but we also have some great bingo cards too.
How would people they are passing on the street know their names though? Even then, not every Jewish person has a Jewish sounding name, just like not every Jewish person is visually identifiable as such.
Kushner's piece in the WSJ [1] makes the claim that the French government's recognition of Palestine and public statements "haranguing Israel" has uniquely exacerbated this and asserts October 7th is the genesis of this behavior, with no mention of the behavior that Israel is being "harangued" for, which your comment seems to downplay.
The letter is a clear attempt to bully an ally into US style speech suppression by using someone that has both official position and a personal Presidential imprimatur.
This Kushner is a convicted felon and a major crook. He only got where he is because his son married Trump's daughter, and then he got pardoned, and then he gave some money to Trump.
It's insane that anyone listens to what he has to say. He should just be slapped in the face and sent home.
Not to minimise modern French antisemitism, it has deep roots which transcend this immediate political crisis. I am sure you know this. Dreyfus wasn't an origin event, antisemitism had been rife in French culture for ages before. I stop at that point because there is at least some political continuity to turn of the 19th century politics, the downfall of the third Republic aside.
I see modern day French antisemitism as a bizarre union of right wing echt French, le pen-type and modern era Islamic migration from Francophone former French colonies. Former enemies united in a common hatred.
Absolutely! But my (very implicit) point of substance is that for a US ambassador to declare fatwa NOW rather than at about 2000 points in the past, also not forgetting deep historical American institutional antisemitism, it's just bizarre. It's opportunist political theatre.
I don't think it's bizarre; I think there's been a step function in overt antisemitism in Europe, which is what he's seizing on. That he's an awful and ineffective messenger for that concern shouldn't blind us to the legitimacy of the underlying claim.
There has indeed been a step function. Fuelled from Russia and Iran amongst others. For example, Australia has just expelled the Iranian ambassador (the first expulsion of diplomats since WWII) for paying criminals to firebomb synagogues.
France's problems are a function both of history, and push politics. Some of it is endogenous, some of it is externally driven. I have no doubt the same is true in Germany, Netherlands, the UK. Sure, an underlying mass migration pressure is feeding this, but many of the migrants in france pass through, seeking better times in the UK. The ones who stay, are in the main francophone, and appear to bring with them weaker guard lines against radicalism. Thats a huge bummer.
He isn't signalling this because of conviction, he's signalling this because his government wants him to, to continue to back the Netenyahu government. I wouldn't cease trade or relations with France or any EU country on these grounds, its a political dispute about recognition of Palestine, not a statement for or against antisemitism.
You know, and I know, after this evil war ends, Netenyahu is in big domestic trouble. There will probably be another weak, rightist dominated government but the court system will catch up with Bibi. Now .. what does that parallel in the USA?
there has been antisemitism historically all over Christendom and Islamdom (in a similar way to the Jews of Jewdom declaring themselves God's chosen people). Viewed in that context, it's an error to describe American antisemitism as deep, it was always shallower than all the rest. As a result, America has a proportionately very high Jewish population, and with the 20th century decline of "class based" discrimination (generally in the form of WASP-control of social institutions) Jews in the US have flourished and appear at very high rates throughout the knowledge economy meritocracy.
Earlier this year, the US recalled their ambassador in Brazil and asked permission for the local government to nearly double the embassy's building size on the same week. (And kept both actions on the long term.)
No, the US didn't recall its ambassador to Brazil. The acting US ambassador there
was summoned to the foreign ministry of Brazil. The US has some disagreements with Brazil (or, rather, Trump does, because they're putting a former national leader on trial). Here's a view from Rio.[1]
Recalling an ambassador to their home country (the traditional phrase is "recalled for consultations with their government") in modern times usually means they're being replaced.
> The US has some disagreements with Brazil (or, rather, Trump does, because they're putting a former national leader on trial).
That seems an odd clarification. Do you not believe a democratically elected leader represents a country? Every country has people who disagree with their leaders views, however this clarification on every statement would get tiring quickly.
It's because before Bush invaded Iraq it would have been redundant to clarify that Bush said such and such in an official (written) capacity, as opposed to describing what the foreign policy goals of the US were at that moment. The two were synonymous.
Whereas when Trump was making overtures to annex Canada, it was useful to the rest of the world to explain that that's something the president was talking about that weekend, as opposed to signs that this might be something the US would actually do.
Democratically elected leaders can represent their country, but they can also do things on their own. When Emmanuel Macron eats at a restaurant we don't typically understand the nation of France to be involved. Trump's dispute with Brazil doesn't serve US interests and isn't permitted by US law, so he's not representing the US when he pursues it, even if he's illegally abusing the powers of his office to do so.
It's a subtle distinction, of course, and I don't blame anyone outside the US who decides they're not going to bother making it.
Not all leaders do that equally, wouldn’t you agree? Some leaders stay close to the views of the average voter, whereas others are clearly driven by personal motivations. I don’t think it’s controversial to note that Trump is an extreme of the latter case.
It's kind of a common state in US politics today... especially so with those on the political left when a Republican President is in office. That said, it's far amplified in recent years, but I recall similar sentiments as far back as when Reagan was President, and wouldn't be surprised with similar remarks before.
I've also heard some similar remarks towards Obama and Biden from the right, but not nearly as much as the left with Trump. The US political sphere is increasingly divided and the Overton window is fractured as well.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The reason you hear it a lot with regards to Trump is that Trump has said, repeatedly and at great length, that he hates left-leaning Americans and refuses to represent them because they're enemies to be crushed. He announced over the weekend that he's considering a military invasion of Chicago.
Pointlessly posting National Guard members outside of federal buildings is not in fact a "military invasion" of Chicago. It's stupid! But not much more than that.
Like, are they going to start shooting people? Probably not, probably it will go the same way as the LA invasion where the troops just kinda slink away after Trump gets distracted and Stephen Miller kidnaps all the immigrants he was looking for. But what happens if the Chicago PD tries to obstruct some operation or another on a day Trump got up on the wrong side of the bed?
Without support from a law enforcement agency with actual arrest powers, marching around like toy soldiers is all they can do. A detachment of National Guardsmen "arrest" someone, take them to the ground, zip-tie their wrists. Now what? Every step after this involves cooperation with a prosecutor --- unless a federal crime is charged, a local prosecutor. They're doing this to freak you out, not because the National Guard can actually do any policing. Policing is as much about logistics and procedural infrastructure as it is about patrol.
Freaking people out is the goal of many military deployments! The point of a presence patrol isn’t typically that you want to shoot the locals; the ideal scenario is that they acknowledge you could shoot them if you wanted and submit to your authority. If you don’t want the Mississippi national guard taking over your city hall to declare Trump the winner of the 2028 election, you’d better start denying their authority to operate in your city now.
I live in LA and it's terrifying. There are soldiers in our streets without our consent. It isn't going to end with this. They're going to keep escalating. At this point, I dlthink half the country would he fine if Trump started bombing us.
The very fact that there are soldiers being stationed in our city without our consent by a hostile government is terrifying. I'm not scared of what they're doing, I'm scared of what they could do in the future and I'm scared that a large part of the country doesn't think this is a big deal or even seems to be cheering this on.
I'm not cheering it on, but because I know that the point of the deployment is to freak me out, I refuse to take the bait. It's not like people carrying automatic weapons is a sight unknown to western Democracies; you see it all over Europe.
When they do something crazy, I'll be right there with you. But the President has the power to deploy the Guard to protect federal property, and while these deployments are abusive, they're not unlawful. Most of what people say about the Guard actually taking over policing is implausible. So I'm just going to call it out for the bad policy that it is and then not act like the collapse of society is imminent.
The fact that "a large part of the country" doesn't think this is a big deal should tell you something valuable about what the best next moves are.
When you have opposing PoV, there's often no way to represent the interest of "both sides" ... Trump is choosing to represent the side with a Pro-US sentiment as opposed to those with Anti-US sentiment. To an extent this makes total sense.
I didn't specifically want to get into the reasoning as to why, beyond the simple fact that there is a large and increasing political divide. Trump is largely representing the majority in terms of what the population wants. The process isn't always what an individual or side may want specifically, but the results have been in line with the stated goals.
I don't have to like the guy to point this out. I usually vote LP myself. I reject far left and far right positions, but find that the far left is a much bigger group. And by "Far" I mean those whose positions are outside what most Americans would consider normative. Far right being around 5%, and doesn't include the majority of "MAGA". Far left being around 15% of the population, including those with cult-like adherence to leftist ideology and disruptive Marxist/Maoist tactics.
Swiss banking hasn't been legally feasible for Americans since the GWB era, famously and if memory serves. I'm pretty sure that it isn't offered to Americans.
I always enjoy reading about the theater of international diplomacy. In many ways — humorous and depressing — it’s not that different than the school yard.
I saw this interesting Youtube video from an anti-Putin Russian liberal which analyzes the Oval Office video leading up to the clip that went viral. He actually ends up blaming Zelensky for repeated violations of diplomatic protocol which lead to the famous clash:
Ultimately my takeaway is that diplomatic protocol can seem stuffy, but it exists for a very good reason. Tiptoeing around everyone's ego might seem excessive, but it's way cheaper than e.g. fighting a needless war.
Hard to blame Zelensky for not knowing protocol when he was a comedian elected as an outsider candidate, of course.
It is a formal statement by one country that they don't like what another country is doing.
It can be serious. Worst case, an ambassador is summoned to receive a declaration of war. That's happened many times in the past, especially when travel delays meant wars took a long time to start. That's rare today.
This time, it's not that serious. Here's the statement by the foreign ministry of France: [1]
France learned of the allegations of the US Ambassador, Mr. Charles Kushner, who, in a letter to the President of the Republic, expressed his concern about the rise in anti-Semitism in France and reported an alleged lack of sufficient action by the French authorities to confront it.
France firmly refutes these allegations. The rise in anti-Semitic acts in France since 7 October 2023 is a reality that we deplore and to which the French authorities are fully committed to combating, as such acts are intolerable.
The Ambassador’s allegations are unacceptable. They contravene international law, in particular the duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of States as provided for in the 1961 Vienna Convention that governs diplomatic relations. Furthermore, they fall short of the quality of the transatlantic relationship between France and the United States and the trust that should result between allies.
Ambassador Kushner will be summoned to the Quai d’Orsay on Monday, 25 August.
Charles Kushner (Jared Kushner's dad, Jared Kushner being Trump's son in law, married to Ivanka Trump) and the US embassy sent their chargé d'affaires (a temporary ambassador while the real one is unavailable) instead. That can be read in several ways. Although it's a mild diplomatic insult to send a substitute, the effect is to calm the situation a bit. It helps that the substitute is a professional diplomat, not a political appointee. Le Figaro says the meeting went reasonably well, but that's what's traditionally said unless a declaration of war results.
This should go away as an issue unless Trump starts screaming about it on social media.
> but that's what's traditionally said unless a declaration of war results.
I would say "unless some further escalation directly follows"; while a declaration of war would be one case of this, there are others, such as expulsion of the ambassador, ordering the closure of some or all diplomatic facilities (embassy and/or consulates), downgrading diplomatic relations or withdrawing the host nations diplomats, or severing diplomatic relations altogether.
In principle, no, declaring the ambassador persona non grata only directly means that that particular official is no longer welcome and recognized, the state which they represented to that moment may continue to be represented on an interim basis without meaningful interruption (usually through designation of the existing deputy chief of mission as chargé d'affaires) unless the host nation also ordered the closure of the mission or formally severed diplomatic relations.
The nation whose ambassador was expelled may choose to downgrade relations formally, even if the other side has not, as its own protest, of course.
On the other hand, expelling an ambassador is a rare event and usually one piece of a fairly extreme diplomatic protest that involves other elements, either simultaneously or in close temporal proximity (fully cutting off relations or even declaring war would not be that unusual as accompanying actions.)
I just watched something about this (I don't know the channel so I'm unclear on the accuracy here) - see the second half of the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT_0IxVKGsQ
Summary: Netanyahu threatened Australian Prime Minister Albanese, and Albanese capitulated quickly.
Interesting the story that led to this question. France has said that it will recognize Palestine, and so the US ambassador wrote a letter falsely accusing the French of antisemitism for recognizing Palestine.
It's absurdist whataboutery from Kushner, and no doubt the Israeli foreign ministry pulling the strings.
One does not equate to the other.
What it does do however is undermine current Israeli domestic policy, which can be neatly summed up as keeping their PM out of prison by focusing on the external enemy.
It gets even weirder than that. Kushner isn't a semite. European settlers calling themselves "israelis" aren't semites. Palestinians/arabs are actual semites.
So the non-semitic peoples butchering semites are accusing people trying to protect semites ( palestinians ) of being antisemitic.
Once you learn what a semite is and who these "israeli" settlers are, you realize how silly everything is.
PDF of the message on a diplomatic letterhead. 8.5x 11", 15 point type, 1 inch margins, seal of the State Department at the top of the first page.[1] The style is formal, but very plain and clear English.
Wars have started because of badly drafted or mishandled diplomatic notes. The Japanese diplomatic note announcing war was supposed to be delivered just before the attack on Pearl Harbor. The communications between the US and Saddam Hussein before the Kuwait war left Hussein with the incorrect impression that the US would not intervene if he invaded Kuwait.
I’m not sure in these specific cases, but they are frequently referred to as “diplomatic cables.” I don’t have much insight into how they are sent, delivered, or received, but they likely have formal agreements with host nations that specify how these cables are presented. Due to the sensitive nature of the communications, many of these messages are delivered in person, whether on paper or verbally, one diplomat to another. Electronic means of communicating cables are likely classified.
Animats in a sibling comment has the details. See section i:
> i. Delivery from the Department to Foreign Embassies in Washington, DC[…]
Executive Secretariat InfoLink seems to be doing the electronic heavy lifting.
If anyone's looking for the ongoing theatre of international diplomacy at a time of heightened tensions, Trump just proposed a 38 year-old novice/campaign operative as the US ambassador to the world's most populous nation.
Given his upbringing and birthplace he seems to have a pretty diverse background. Likely a good candidate for an ambassador role in general. He doesn't seem to have a specific background regarding India, but other than that most criticism seems to be political bias of reporters/editors.
US ambassadors are a disgrace right now. They do not behave like guests or communication bridges but actors influencing local politics. But that is not the purpose of the embassy concept.
As a world we have to return to normal and respectful behavior instead of bullying everywhere. The US under Trump is just one thing: a bully.
With great power comes great responsibility. That is the standard men (and women) are hold accountable.
Even the term itself is pretty misleading, as the answer notes, the vast majority of purported ‘summons’ are not actually made with the threat in writing that they will be punished if they don’t show up.
There is an element of theatre involved, but it is also a way of sending a very clear signal that the France is not satisfied with the ambassador's behaviour.
When everything is going well, meetings between the Foreign Office and ambassadors remain private.The fact that the ambassador did not attend the meeting himself but sent a subordinate is a public affront.
What is strange is that the US ambassador's communication is not really intended for the French or French jews, but is merely a sign of support for Israel.
There is currently an Israeli media offensive in France followin President Macron's comments on the recognition of a Palestinian state. The Israeli state and its supporters are buying advertising spots on YouTube and Instagram to encourage French Jews to do their ahria with free money.
There are regular attempts to exploit anti-Semitic crimes or news stories to claim that France is hell on earth for Jews and that Israel is there to save them. But then again, we haven't yet seen Belgian commandos coming to kidnap people in France or Luxembourgers launching rockets.
The only new thing is that the US ambassador is taking part in this type of operation and behaving like an arsehole with the French Foreign Office.
It is theater and it's more about sending messages to everyone else.
A state can vocalize it's disapproval directly in a more direct and meaningful way using back channels and political ways, but this is more about giving a clear signal to everyone else.
It's PR basically.
> It is theater and it's more about sending messages to everyone else.
"More about", I think, ignores the degree to which sending the message publicly to everyone else can be a very important part of sending the message to the obvious direct target.
> A state can vocalize it's disapproval directly in a more direct and meaningful way using back channels and political ways
Yeah, but "we are not allowing you to publicly save face by restricting our protest to private back channels" is itself an important way of communicating the severity of the message to the direct target.
Yes, but as a state, if you're not happy you can impose tarrifs, play a dirty game by revoking visas to athletes or Putin's favourite actress, or use any other indirect way to show your disapproval. And use back channels to make sure they know exactly why this is happening. Plenty of ways.
This is Kabuki theatre, it is to show everyone else that you're dissatisfied.
Etiquette, norms, and formal communications are fundamentally about precision. You send only the message you intended, while minimizing the risk of unintended consequences.
If your actions have real-world consequences, they are guaranteed to send other messages beyond the one you intended. Tariffs, visa revocations, assassinations, wars, and whatever impact other people beyond their direct targets, and those people may change their behavior in unpredictable ways.
> Etiquette, norms, and formal communications are fundamentally about precision.
Not at all, in fact often exactly the opposite is true. The French president could have posted “fuck you for writing that letter, our recognition of Palestine has nothing to do with antisemitism” on his Twitter account. That would be a lot more precise than this diplomatic act.
That would have sent a bunch of unintended messages. By not using formal diplomatic channels, he would have made the statement look less serious. People might have asked if it represents the opinion of the president as an individual rather as a representative of the state. And the unexpected vulgar tone might have changed people's opinions on him, perhaps making them less interested in dealing with him in the future.
> we haven't yet seen Belgian commandos coming to kidnap people in France or Luxembourgers launching rockets
Not all hate crimes involve rockets. I know a few Jews who grew up in France, and all of them report antisemitic incidents that happened to them personally, some physically violent. I’m talking mid-day paris, not some otherwise sketchy circumstances. They all fear being identified as jews in the streets of Paris.
What does this mean "to encourage French Jews to do their ahria with free money"
Despite Googling, I'm lost on what "ahria" means
It's a misspelling of "aliyah", which is a term for jews outside of Israel immigrating to Israel.
They're saying Israel's currently spending advertising money in France hoping to convince French jews to move to Israel.
Alyah, Alya, aliyah, Arhia, I don't know how it's supposed to be spelled in English. The wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah
I haven't looked into the details, but Israel state and other entites promise housing assistance of up to €1,500 per month, Hebrew lessons, tax exemptions, etc. Literally free money.
There's no "r" in the word in Hebrew. I think "aliyah" comes closest to how a Hebrew speaker would say the word.
Possibly they meant "Aliyah" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah
Maybe "aliah" - immigrating to Israel.
[flagged]
Every French jew that I know has been dealing with direct antisemitism in France, sometimes violent. Your comment seems to downplay that.
I have no idea how universal these observations are and cringe at things like "every X I know in Y sees Z" but I'll add I have friends in similar positions in France and the atmosphere there seems significantly worse than in the US. I don't believe I have any friends friends in Europe that are openly supportive of the current Israeli government.
Of course, that's not all Kushner said; he also apparently cast support for Palestinian statehood as antisemitic, which is obviously inflammatory. The more grounded in fact concerns about European antisemitism are, the more unfortunate Kushner's statement is.
That's sounds like an exaggeration: most jewish people won't deal with any type of discrimination simply because they aren't identifiable as jewish.
Regardless, antisemitism exists in France and elsewhere. It's just not the case that France doesn't do anything about it. These crimes are punished. Maybe not as severely as one would hope, but by French standards, it's pretty serious.
But as parent comment mentioned, the current situation has little to do with that.
> That's sounds like an exaggeration: most jewish people won't deal with any type of discrimination simply because they aren't identifiable as jewish.
As an identity, yes they still receive a lot of hate.
As individuals unless they wear distincrive signs like a kipa they will probably receive less hate and discrimination than say...people with red/ginger hair which is still super common. If they are transexuals and gay black redhead jews with rumanian nationality and and live with an asian partner, they are fucked.
And of the ones identifiable as Jewish, the ones where it's just because they wear a yarmulke or something similar probably also don't have problems.
And then there are going to be the ones festooned with Stars of David, and pushing for every conflict they can possibly get into so they can claim antisemitism. Those? Those I'd believe having problems, but they're not having problems because they're Jewish - they're having problems because they're assholes.
Is there antisemitism in France? I'm positive there is. Is there anti-Muslim sentiment as well? I'm positive there is. (side note, aren't middle-eastern Muslims generally considered Semites as in descendants of Shem?)
> (side note, aren't middle-eastern Muslims generally considered Semites as in descendants of Shem?)
Arabs and Jews are both Semitic (in the sense of speaking Semitic languages and having Levantine origins), but the word “antisemitism” refers specifically to Jew hatred. This is mostly a historical quirk of 19th century Germans trying to come up with a more scientific sounding phrase than Judenhass.
(Also, to be pedantic: there are non-Semitic middle-eastern Muslims, as well as semitic middle-eastern non-Muslims/Jews. It turns out that “semitic” itself isn’t a super useful category, which is why “antisemitism” should really be read as a single lexeme rather than “hatred of all semites”.)
> aren't middle-eastern Muslims generally considered Semites as in descendants of Shem?
This has the same energy as “technically Elon Musk is African-American”.
Sometimes words have come to mean something specific that doesn’t precisely correspond to their literal components or etymology, and pretending not to understand this just impedes communication.
This comment has a real big, "it doesn't exist, but if it does they were asking for it" energy that you wouldn't see for other groups.
Counterpoint: all my french Jewish friends have reported no such thing. The group is not large, but relatively diverse, spread across 2-3 almost disjoint circles.
French Jew here. Antisemitism exists in France, like everywhere in Europe - we have some history about that going back at least a millennium. But Israel's propaganda interpretation of what antisemitism is and how much of it exists is laughably exaggerated... And it is used as a pretext by the far right to discriminate against Muslims.
The French far right only cares about anti-Semitism, women's rights and even LGBT+ rights when it allows them to bash immigrants and Muslims. In a bizarre twist, activists from the far-right National Rally party set up a fake LGBT+ association that marched in the Paris Gay Pride parade with anti-Palestinian slogans.
It was such a mess that they were protected by three rows of riot police. You'd have to be very naive to believe that such false and hateful people could be allies to anyone.
We sometimes make fun of Americans, but we also have some great bingo cards too.
May I ask: does this group wear yarmulkes, star of David symbols or otherwise have a way for people to visually identify them as Jewish?
I guess a more common discrimination is related to people's names.
How would people they are passing on the street know their names though? Even then, not every Jewish person has a Jewish sounding name, just like not every Jewish person is visually identifiable as such.
Yay, dueling anecdotes!
Kushner's piece in the WSJ [1] makes the claim that the French government's recognition of Palestine and public statements "haranguing Israel" has uniquely exacerbated this and asserts October 7th is the genesis of this behavior, with no mention of the behavior that Israel is being "harangued" for, which your comment seems to downplay.
The letter is a clear attempt to bully an ally into US style speech suppression by using someone that has both official position and a personal Presidential imprimatur.
[1] https://archive.fo/wzVUR
This Kushner is a convicted felon and a major crook. He only got where he is because his son married Trump's daughter, and then he got pardoned, and then he gave some money to Trump.
It's insane that anyone listens to what he has to say. He should just be slapped in the face and sent home.
Not to minimise modern French antisemitism, it has deep roots which transcend this immediate political crisis. I am sure you know this. Dreyfus wasn't an origin event, antisemitism had been rife in French culture for ages before. I stop at that point because there is at least some political continuity to turn of the 19th century politics, the downfall of the third Republic aside.
I see modern day French antisemitism as a bizarre union of right wing echt French, le pen-type and modern era Islamic migration from Francophone former French colonies. Former enemies united in a common hatred.
Let's not forget the strange mix of conspiracy theories, extreme right-wing views, and anti-colonialism, like Dieudonné.
Absolutely! But my (very implicit) point of substance is that for a US ambassador to declare fatwa NOW rather than at about 2000 points in the past, also not forgetting deep historical American institutional antisemitism, it's just bizarre. It's opportunist political theatre.
I don't think it's bizarre; I think there's been a step function in overt antisemitism in Europe, which is what he's seizing on. That he's an awful and ineffective messenger for that concern shouldn't blind us to the legitimacy of the underlying claim.
There has indeed been a step function. Fuelled from Russia and Iran amongst others. For example, Australia has just expelled the Iranian ambassador (the first expulsion of diplomats since WWII) for paying criminals to firebomb synagogues.
France's problems are a function both of history, and push politics. Some of it is endogenous, some of it is externally driven. I have no doubt the same is true in Germany, Netherlands, the UK. Sure, an underlying mass migration pressure is feeding this, but many of the migrants in france pass through, seeking better times in the UK. The ones who stay, are in the main francophone, and appear to bring with them weaker guard lines against radicalism. Thats a huge bummer.
He isn't signalling this because of conviction, he's signalling this because his government wants him to, to continue to back the Netenyahu government. I wouldn't cease trade or relations with France or any EU country on these grounds, its a political dispute about recognition of Palestine, not a statement for or against antisemitism.
You know, and I know, after this evil war ends, Netenyahu is in big domestic trouble. There will probably be another weak, rightist dominated government but the court system will catch up with Bibi. Now .. what does that parallel in the USA?
Right, nothing I'm saying is in any way intended to validate what the ambassador is doing.
there has been antisemitism historically all over Christendom and Islamdom (in a similar way to the Jews of Jewdom declaring themselves God's chosen people). Viewed in that context, it's an error to describe American antisemitism as deep, it was always shallower than all the rest. As a result, America has a proportionately very high Jewish population, and with the 20th century decline of "class based" discrimination (generally in the form of WASP-control of social institutions) Jews in the US have flourished and appear at very high rates throughout the knowledge economy meritocracy.
[dead]
[flagged]
Sounds to me like the ambassador should be kicked out of the country - they are actively conspiring against their host country with a foreign power.
Earlier this year, the US recalled their ambassador in Brazil and asked permission for the local government to nearly double the embassy's building size on the same week. (And kept both actions on the long term.)
Try to understand that.
To be fair, the reason of a lot of actions by American diplomats these days seems to be "because we can".
No, the US didn't recall its ambassador to Brazil. The acting US ambassador there was summoned to the foreign ministry of Brazil. The US has some disagreements with Brazil (or, rather, Trump does, because they're putting a former national leader on trial). Here's a view from Rio.[1]
Recalling an ambassador to their home country (the traditional phrase is "recalled for consultations with their government") in modern times usually means they're being replaced.
[1] https://www.riotimesonline.com/lulas-brazil-at-a-crossroads-...
> The US has some disagreements with Brazil (or, rather, Trump does, because they're putting a former national leader on trial).
That seems an odd clarification. Do you not believe a democratically elected leader represents a country? Every country has people who disagree with their leaders views, however this clarification on every statement would get tiring quickly.
It's because before Bush invaded Iraq it would have been redundant to clarify that Bush said such and such in an official (written) capacity, as opposed to describing what the foreign policy goals of the US were at that moment. The two were synonymous.
Whereas when Trump was making overtures to annex Canada, it was useful to the rest of the world to explain that that's something the president was talking about that weekend, as opposed to signs that this might be something the US would actually do.
Democratically elected leaders can represent their country, but they can also do things on their own. When Emmanuel Macron eats at a restaurant we don't typically understand the nation of France to be involved. Trump's dispute with Brazil doesn't serve US interests and isn't permitted by US law, so he's not representing the US when he pursues it, even if he's illegally abusing the powers of his office to do so.
It's a subtle distinction, of course, and I don't blame anyone outside the US who decides they're not going to bother making it.
Not all leaders do that equally, wouldn’t you agree? Some leaders stay close to the views of the average voter, whereas others are clearly driven by personal motivations. I don’t think it’s controversial to note that Trump is an extreme of the latter case.
It's kind of a common state in US politics today... especially so with those on the political left when a Republican President is in office. That said, it's far amplified in recent years, but I recall similar sentiments as far back as when Reagan was President, and wouldn't be surprised with similar remarks before.
I've also heard some similar remarks towards Obama and Biden from the right, but not nearly as much as the left with Trump. The US political sphere is increasingly divided and the Overton window is fractured as well.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The reason you hear it a lot with regards to Trump is that Trump has said, repeatedly and at great length, that he hates left-leaning Americans and refuses to represent them because they're enemies to be crushed. He announced over the weekend that he's considering a military invasion of Chicago.
Pointlessly posting National Guard members outside of federal buildings is not in fact a "military invasion" of Chicago. It's stupid! But not much more than that.
It's not, but what's happening in DC is already more than that - they've begun operating mobile armed patrols of residential neighborhoods. See https://www.reuters.com/pictures/scenes-dc-federal-agents-na... for pictures; in particular, note the masked paramilitary goons casually strolling by a shop (https://www.reuters.com/resizer/v2/U7NNOHI5RRMCNE33UNDIWCP3H...).
Like, are they going to start shooting people? Probably not, probably it will go the same way as the LA invasion where the troops just kinda slink away after Trump gets distracted and Stephen Miller kidnaps all the immigrants he was looking for. But what happens if the Chicago PD tries to obstruct some operation or another on a day Trump got up on the wrong side of the bed?
Without support from a law enforcement agency with actual arrest powers, marching around like toy soldiers is all they can do. A detachment of National Guardsmen "arrest" someone, take them to the ground, zip-tie their wrists. Now what? Every step after this involves cooperation with a prosecutor --- unless a federal crime is charged, a local prosecutor. They're doing this to freak you out, not because the National Guard can actually do any policing. Policing is as much about logistics and procedural infrastructure as it is about patrol.
Freaking people out is the goal of many military deployments! The point of a presence patrol isn’t typically that you want to shoot the locals; the ideal scenario is that they acknowledge you could shoot them if you wanted and submit to your authority. If you don’t want the Mississippi national guard taking over your city hall to declare Trump the winner of the 2028 election, you’d better start denying their authority to operate in your city now.
I live in LA and it's terrifying. There are soldiers in our streets without our consent. It isn't going to end with this. They're going to keep escalating. At this point, I dlthink half the country would he fine if Trump started bombing us.
What exactly have the National Guard posted in LA done? In DC, they're literally picking up trash.
(That's not a good thing! It's an abuse of the Guard!)
The very fact that there are soldiers being stationed in our city without our consent by a hostile government is terrifying. I'm not scared of what they're doing, I'm scared of what they could do in the future and I'm scared that a large part of the country doesn't think this is a big deal or even seems to be cheering this on.
I'm not cheering it on, but because I know that the point of the deployment is to freak me out, I refuse to take the bait. It's not like people carrying automatic weapons is a sight unknown to western Democracies; you see it all over Europe.
When they do something crazy, I'll be right there with you. But the President has the power to deploy the Guard to protect federal property, and while these deployments are abusive, they're not unlawful. Most of what people say about the Guard actually taking over policing is implausible. So I'm just going to call it out for the bad policy that it is and then not act like the collapse of society is imminent.
The fact that "a large part of the country" doesn't think this is a big deal should tell you something valuable about what the best next moves are.
When you have opposing PoV, there's often no way to represent the interest of "both sides" ... Trump is choosing to represent the side with a Pro-US sentiment as opposed to those with Anti-US sentiment. To an extent this makes total sense.
I didn't specifically want to get into the reasoning as to why, beyond the simple fact that there is a large and increasing political divide. Trump is largely representing the majority in terms of what the population wants. The process isn't always what an individual or side may want specifically, but the results have been in line with the stated goals.
I don't have to like the guy to point this out. I usually vote LP myself. I reject far left and far right positions, but find that the far left is a much bigger group. And by "Far" I mean those whose positions are outside what most Americans would consider normative. Far right being around 5%, and doesn't include the majority of "MAGA". Far left being around 15% of the population, including those with cult-like adherence to leftist ideology and disruptive Marxist/Maoist tactics.
"(The U.S. ambassador to Switzerland virtually never gets summoned.)"
After the new 50% tariffs, I doubt this remains true.
If they do, we’ll know that Americans have lost interest in Swiss banking.
Swiss banking hasn't been legally feasible for Americans since the GWB era, famously and if memory serves. I'm pretty sure that it isn't offered to Americans.
Or that Washington has lost interest in diplomacy
Sabers rattlers saber rattle.
I always enjoy reading about the theater of international diplomacy. In many ways — humorous and depressing — it’s not that different than the school yard.
Zelensky in the oval office last February certainly reminded me the school yard.
Was that the one where the reporters weren't allowed to criticize trump so they talked about zelensky's clothes instead.
I believe the vice president did not think Zelensky gave enough thank-yous too at this meeting.
I saw this interesting Youtube video from an anti-Putin Russian liberal which analyzes the Oval Office video leading up to the clip that went viral. He actually ends up blaming Zelensky for repeated violations of diplomatic protocol which lead to the famous clash:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWzmk_0xzCA
Ultimately my takeaway is that diplomatic protocol can seem stuffy, but it exists for a very good reason. Tiptoeing around everyone's ego might seem excessive, but it's way cheaper than e.g. fighting a needless war.
Hard to blame Zelensky for not knowing protocol when he was a comedian elected as an outsider candidate, of course.
Hard to blame Trump for not knowing protocol when he was a comedian elected as an outsider candidate, of course.
Please stop spouting Russian propaganda.
Consider Zelensky's correct outfit when meeting royalty (green fatigues).
https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/uk-politics/ukraines-ze...
King Charles was honoured.
Did you watch the video? It's not really about his outfit.
It is a formal statement by one country that they don't like what another country is doing.
It can be serious. Worst case, an ambassador is summoned to receive a declaration of war. That's happened many times in the past, especially when travel delays meant wars took a long time to start. That's rare today.
This time, it's not that serious. Here's the statement by the foreign ministry of France: [1]
France learned of the allegations of the US Ambassador, Mr. Charles Kushner, who, in a letter to the President of the Republic, expressed his concern about the rise in anti-Semitism in France and reported an alleged lack of sufficient action by the French authorities to confront it.
France firmly refutes these allegations. The rise in anti-Semitic acts in France since 7 October 2023 is a reality that we deplore and to which the French authorities are fully committed to combating, as such acts are intolerable.
The Ambassador’s allegations are unacceptable. They contravene international law, in particular the duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of States as provided for in the 1961 Vienna Convention that governs diplomatic relations. Furthermore, they fall short of the quality of the transatlantic relationship between France and the United States and the trust that should result between allies.
Ambassador Kushner will be summoned to the Quai d’Orsay on Monday, 25 August.
Charles Kushner (Jared Kushner's dad, Jared Kushner being Trump's son in law, married to Ivanka Trump) and the US embassy sent their chargé d'affaires (a temporary ambassador while the real one is unavailable) instead. That can be read in several ways. Although it's a mild diplomatic insult to send a substitute, the effect is to calm the situation a bit. It helps that the substitute is a professional diplomat, not a political appointee. Le Figaro says the meeting went reasonably well, but that's what's traditionally said unless a declaration of war results.
This should go away as an issue unless Trump starts screaming about it on social media.
[1] https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files/united-state...
[2] https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/convocation-de-l-ambas...
> but that's what's traditionally said unless a declaration of war results.
I would say "unless some further escalation directly follows"; while a declaration of war would be one case of this, there are others, such as expulsion of the ambassador, ordering the closure of some or all diplomatic facilities (embassy and/or consulates), downgrading diplomatic relations or withdrawing the host nations diplomats, or severing diplomatic relations altogether.
Forgot it was Kushner - what an evil, shit man! Tax evasion, illegal campaign donations and the cherry on top - tampering with a witness.
Said witness was his brother-in-law! Kushner hired a prosttitue to entrap him, filmed it and then showed his sister, how gross!
Australia expelled the Iranian ambassador yesterday. Can anyone give an insights as to what happens during this processes?
I guess diplomatic relations are severed until an ambassador returns to the host country.
It's gone further now. Australia just severed diplomatic relations with Iran.[1]
[1] https://apnews.com/article/australia-iran-antisemitism-attac...
In principle, no, declaring the ambassador persona non grata only directly means that that particular official is no longer welcome and recognized, the state which they represented to that moment may continue to be represented on an interim basis without meaningful interruption (usually through designation of the existing deputy chief of mission as chargé d'affaires) unless the host nation also ordered the closure of the mission or formally severed diplomatic relations.
The nation whose ambassador was expelled may choose to downgrade relations formally, even if the other side has not, as its own protest, of course.
On the other hand, expelling an ambassador is a rare event and usually one piece of a fairly extreme diplomatic protest that involves other elements, either simultaneously or in close temporal proximity (fully cutting off relations or even declaring war would not be that unusual as accompanying actions.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_non_grata is relevant.
I just watched something about this (I don't know the channel so I'm unclear on the accuracy here) - see the second half of the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT_0IxVKGsQ
Summary: Netanyahu threatened Australian Prime Minister Albanese, and Albanese capitulated quickly.
Can we take a moment to appreciate how much better an answer that top answer was than if we'd typed it into our LLM of choice.
Happening right now: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0j9l08902eo
Interesting the story that led to this question. France has said that it will recognize Palestine, and so the US ambassador wrote a letter falsely accusing the French of antisemitism for recognizing Palestine.
It's absurdist whataboutery from Kushner, and no doubt the Israeli foreign ministry pulling the strings.
One does not equate to the other.
What it does do however is undermine current Israeli domestic policy, which can be neatly summed up as keeping their PM out of prison by focusing on the external enemy.
It gets even weirder than that. Kushner isn't a semite. European settlers calling themselves "israelis" aren't semites. Palestinians/arabs are actual semites.
So the non-semitic peoples butchering semites are accusing people trying to protect semites ( palestinians ) of being antisemitic.
Once you learn what a semite is and who these "israeli" settlers are, you realize how silly everything is.
I believe you’re giving the worst Israeli government of all times too much credit, as if it’s able to “pull the strings” in Washington
trial of israeli pm is ongoing.
These formal diplomatic notes are .. what? A piece of headed notepaper? An email? Some XML message validated with a schema?
PDF of the message on a diplomatic letterhead. 8.5x 11", 15 point type, 1 inch margins, seal of the State Department at the top of the first page.[1] The style is formal, but very plain and clear English.
Wars have started because of badly drafted or mishandled diplomatic notes. The Japanese diplomatic note announcing war was supposed to be delivered just before the attack on Pearl Harbor. The communications between the US and Saddam Hussein before the Kuwait war left Hussein with the incorrect impression that the US would not intervene if he invaded Kuwait.
[1] https://fam.state.gov/FAM/05FAH01/05FAH010610.html
More info on preparing these notes here:
https://fam.state.gov/fam/05fah01/05fah010620.html
I’m not sure in these specific cases, but they are frequently referred to as “diplomatic cables.” I don’t have much insight into how they are sent, delivered, or received, but they likely have formal agreements with host nations that specify how these cables are presented. Due to the sensitive nature of the communications, many of these messages are delivered in person, whether on paper or verbally, one diplomat to another. Electronic means of communicating cables are likely classified.
Animats in a sibling comment has the details. See section i:
> i. Delivery from the Department to Foreign Embassies in Washington, DC[…]
Executive Secretariat InfoLink seems to be doing the electronic heavy lifting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_cable
From what i understand there is a whole ranking system of different types of diplomatic communications based on how serious it is.
If anyone's looking for the ongoing theatre of international diplomacy at a time of heightened tensions, Trump just proposed a 38 year-old novice/campaign operative as the US ambassador to the world's most populous nation.
https://thewire.in/diplomacy/six-critical-questions-raised-b...
Given his upbringing and birthplace he seems to have a pretty diverse background. Likely a good candidate for an ambassador role in general. He doesn't seem to have a specific background regarding India, but other than that most criticism seems to be political bias of reporters/editors.
US ambassadors are a disgrace right now. They do not behave like guests or communication bridges but actors influencing local politics. But that is not the purpose of the embassy concept.
As a world we have to return to normal and respectful behavior instead of bullying everywhere. The US under Trump is just one thing: a bully.
With great power comes great responsibility. That is the standard men (and women) are hold accountable.
If not to represent their country in a foreign country, what do these ppl think the role of Ambassadors is?
People haven't watched The West Wing etc and it shows
Even the term itself is pretty misleading, as the answer notes, the vast majority of purported ‘summons’ are not actually made with the threat in writing that they will be punished if they don’t show up.
Those real summons are very rare.
Virtue signalling, hand wrangling and mostly jostling in international affairs. Nothing of consequence. Just daily business
Jaw, jaw is better than war, war
This theatre is the way countries can negotiate and communicate peacefully