fbpx

November 21, 2016

Israel-Trump-US-Jews: The short version

Since coming back to Israel, following my two week ” target=”_blank”>this article. Nothing has changed since I wrote it in 2014.

Time is not necessarily against Israel. We have been living in a so-called “unsustainable” situation for 50 years.

The threat of a one-state solution is a hollow one. Why? Because Israel would not agree to it. Because it would lead to bloodshed. Because it cannot be enforced.

Israel and Trump:

We don’t yet know what the policy of the Trump administration is going to be. Will it calm the waters with Russia as promised – or respond harshly when Putin takes advantage of his supposed mellow approach? Will he put pressure on Iran to renegotiate the nuclear deal? Will he be a hands-off president concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or follow his ego and make an attempt to broker negotiations and agreement?

Where will foreign policy be made, at the White House or at the State Department? By whom?

How many promises can Trump break? Can he forgo all the promises he made during the campaign – cancel the Iran deal, move the US embassy to Jerusalem, negotiate a peace deal – or will he feel a need to fulfil at least one of them?

Israel is going to try very hard to get along with the Trump administration. The statement made by the Israeli Ambassador to Washington Ron Dermer – who ” target=”_blank”>already wrote what I think: If Israel is pleased with Trump – and there is a chance that it will be; If a majority of American Jews keep their current level of hysteria on Trump – as I hope they will not – then Israel and American Jews will have a problem.

Israel will wonder about the priorities of American Jews (why they don’t prioritize Israel higher). American Jews will wonder about Israel’s moral character (working harmoniously with Trump?).

Israel-Trump-US-Jews: The short version Read More »

Supermoon, Hands-Free Phone, “SmartTap” And More -This Week from the Startup Nation

Hands-Free Phone Opens Worlds for Paralyzed Users

Sesame Enable, a Caesarea-based company that allows people to control their cellphones without using their hands, has reached more than 1,200 customers globally, including in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, in the three years since it was set up.

Founded by Giora Livne and Oded Ben Dov, the startup allows disabled people to control their Android smartphones by using voice and head movements. After Sesame Enable software is installed, users are able to make calls, send messages and even play video games like Candy Crush and Angry Birds by using the phone’s front-facing camera.

“>Read more here.

 

 


A View of the Super Moon from Israel

The world looked to the skies on Monday night to view the super moon which showed its shining face for the first time since 1948 .With pictures being uploaded of the impressive phenomenon from around the globe, Israel also managed to get a glimpse and grab a few snaps of its own.

“>Read more here.

 

 


Put Your Own Face into a Keypad Full of Emojis

There are so many emoji options nowadays, but still, sometimes you can’t find exactly the right icon to get across your mood or concept. That’s why so many apps offer create-your-own emojis including some with the faces of pop stars. But why use their faces when you can use your own?

The Israeli startup Panimood hopes to answer that question with Moojis, a free iOS and Android app. Users snap a selfie and the app processes it, via a proprietary image-processing algorithm, into a portrait that you can then manipulate with simple tools to fashion different Moojis.

“>Read more here.

 

 


Gett Offers Hurried New Yorkers New Car Pool Service

Carrie Bradshaw may not have to struggle anymore in her quest to find elusive taxis in New York. Gett, the Israeli rideshare startup, has just started a carpooling service for New York City.

The company, which is already providing New Yorkers with $10 fixed fare rides in Manhattan, is now offering them “Gett Together,” — a new service that will provide commuters in Manhattan with $3 direct rides at a flat rate, helping make up for the lack of public transport along the East and West Sides, the company said, and offering an alternative to buses and subway.

“>Read more here.

 

 

 

Israeli Smartphone App Lets Cars 'Communicate' to Prevent Crashes

Users of an Israeli dashboard camera app powered by artificial intelligence will now be able to connect to the world’s first smartphone-based vehicle- to-vehicle (V2V) network, sharing roadside dangers with nearby cars in hopes of preventing collisions.

The Israel/US-based startup Nexar announced the network’s launch on Tuesday, linking together drivers who have been using the app since its release in February. Available in San Francisco and New York, and intending to expand to additional cities in the near future, the Nexar network features real-time warning technologies by employing smartphones alone, according to the company.


“>Read more here.

Supermoon, Hands-Free Phone, “SmartTap” And More -This Week from the Startup Nation Read More »

FANTASTIC BEASTS AND WHERE TO FIND THEM *Movie Review*

FANTASTIC BEASTS AND WHERE TO FIND THEM, written by JK Rowling, takes place within the Harry Potter universe, but 70 years earlier than Harry, Hermione and Ron attend Hogwarts.  It follows Newt Scamander, author of a book within the Harry Potter world by the same name as the movie, as he travels to America.  Ostensibly, his trip is to track down a particular magical creature, but in reality that’s not what happens as his own creatures get loose and he’s pulled into a multi-faceted plot that involves tracking them down, intrigue and double crossing at the Magical Congress of the United States of America, an illegal romance with a nonmagical person and a movement to bring back the Salem Witch Trials.

The themes in the film are as surprisingly relevant in today’s world as they would have been in the 1920s when it takes place and include interracial marriage, a female president, and mass extermination.

The film is the first of a planned five-part franchise that serves as a prequel to the HARRY POTTER series.  It stars Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Colin Farrell,  Samantha Morton, Jon Voight, Ron Perlman, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol.  It’s directed by David Yates.

For more about the movie’s themes and other plot details, take a look below:

—>Looking for a direct link to the video?  Click here.

FANTASTIC BEASTS AND WHERE TO FIND THEM *Movie Review* Read More »

Let’s stop shaming Trump voters

People who are 100 percent sure of themselves — and who can’t imagine why, for example, anyone with a brain would vote for Donald Trump — can lose all sense of humility and curiosity.

Take the case of Matt Maloney, CEO of Grubhub. The day after Donald Trump got elected, he sent an email to his employees expressing his rejection of Trump’s “hateful politics” and closing with this loving whopper:

“If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here.”

No humility or curiosity there.

Or how about University of Michigan President Mark Schlissel, who held a vigil after Trump’s victory at which he said:

“Your voices worked out to be a 90/10 decision in favor of the unsuccessful candidate yesterday. Ninety percent of you rejected the kind of hate and the fractiousness … that was expressed during [Trump’s] campaign.”

The other ten percent? Schlissel’s message of inclusion had no room for them. Maybe he simply couldn’t fathom that other well-meaning students in his audience could have rejected Hillary Clinton’s policies or been repulsed by her track record of coddling up to Wall Street and playing fast and loose with the truth.

As far as this university president was concerned, if you voted for Trump, you deserved only isolation and shame. Not too much humility or curiosity there, either.

One man who's always shown a fair amount of intellectual curiosity is Jon Stewart, the patron saint of the liberal set.

“There’s now this idea that anyone who voted for him [Trump] has to be defined by the worst of his rhetoric,” Stewart told Charlie Rose last week. “There are guys in my neighborhood [who voted for Trump] that I love, that I respect, that I think have incredible qualities, who are not afraid of Mexicans, not afraid of Muslims and not afraid of Blacks, they’re afraid of their insurance premiums.”

Stewart, who’s a fierce critic of Trump, had the courage to recognize the hypocrisy of his liberal brethren.

Painting all Trump voters with a dark brush won’t change the result or help our community heal. Healing begins with listening, one person at a time.

“In the liberal community,” he said, “you hate this idea of creating people as a monolith. Don’t look at Muslims as a monolith. They are the individuals and it would be ignorance. But everybody who voted for Trump is a monolith, is a racist. That hypocrisy is also real in our country.”

It’s certainly real in the Jewish community. We’re always talking about the danger of stereotyping people, whether they're Muslim refugees from Syria or undocumented immigrants from Mexico. But when it comes to Trump voters, well, we seem to have no problem stereotyping away. It’s almost as if any Jew who voted for Trump must be anti-Jewish or devoid of Jewish values.

I get the anger and disillusionment many Jewish liberals are feeling right now because of the shocking defeat of their candidate. But painting all Trump voters with a dark brush won’t change the result or help our community heal. Healing begins with listening, one person at a time.

A Jewish Trump voter I spoke to recently told me she voted against Hillary Clinton because she didn’t want America to become like Europe. Yes, she hated Trump’s rhetoric, but she hated even more the prospect of America becoming a European-style socialist society. She figured there’d be a greater likelihood of that happening under a Clinton presidency than under a Trump one.

Does that make this Trump voter a racist, a bigot or an ignoramus? No, it makes her an American exercising her right and freedom to vote as she wishes.

We can judge Trump without judging that woman. It’s one thing to fight tooth and nail against Trump's decisions and policies; it’s another to demean and shame the 60 million Americans who voted for him.

It’s one thing to say to someone, “Please explain to me your thinking when you voted for Trump,” it’s quite another to fire a loaded question like, “How could you vote for such a vile man?” The first is a sign of genuine curiosity and an opening for civil dialogue; the second is a sign of aggression and an opening for verbal warfare.

I’m sure there will be some Thanksgiving tables this year with both Trump and Clinton voters. So, if you find yourself in that position, here’s my suggestion for all you Trump voters to avoid an ugly fight.

Don’t ask, “How could you vote for such a corrupt, congenital liar as Hillary Clinton?” Instead, say, “Please explain to me your thinking when you voted for her.”

Above all, regardless of which side you’re on, stay curious, humble and polite.

Those are also Jewish values.

Let’s stop shaming Trump voters Read More »

Give thanks with a gratitude tree

The Thanksgiving holiday is a good reminder that even when life has its rough patches, we still have a lot to be thankful for. To help us count our blessings, this gratitude tree is an easy-to-make decoration that can be a meaningful part of your family’s Thanksgiving celebration. 

Starting with a vase filled with branches, guests are encouraged to write things they are grateful for on leaf-shaped pieces of paper and then hang those leaves on the branches. By the end of the evening, the tree will be full — a colorful demonstration of the abundance in our lives. 

What you’ll need:

– Vase

– Rocks or glass marbles

– Branches

– Colored paper

– Scissors

– Hole punch

– String

1. Place branches in vase

2. Make the leaves

3. Attach the leaves

Give thanks with a gratitude tree Read More »

‘Conservative Judaism’ should clarify it’s liberal

“Conservative Judaism” has always been a curious moniker for the “middle movement” in American Jewish life. For more than a century it followed the moderate path of “Tradition and Change” alongside traditionalist Orthodox and progressive Reform. But in recent years the movement has lunged leftward – both religiously and politically – and the name is no longer simply clumsy.

Increasingly, left-of-center Jews who use the name are (unwittingly, I hope) suggesting right-of-center Jews support liberal positions, and that’s not fair. The Talmud says a person cannot be wise unless “tocho k’bar’o” – his inside matches his outside (Yoma 72b). Out of respect for genuine conservative Jews, “Conservative” Jews need a new name, and fast.

Case in point: the kerfuffle over president-elect Donald Trump’s adviser Steve Bannon and his supposed anti-Semitism. The six most important organizations in American Jewry’s middle movement put out a press release Saturday condemning Bannon’s ideas as “antithetical to the values of our country,” and calling upon Trump to “rescind [Bannon’s] nomination” (actually, Bannon’s position requires neither nomination nor confirmation).

Most true Jewish conservatives and even some liberals have largely defended Bannon, as the evidence of his “anti-Semitism” is shockingly thin. The derogatory comments invoked by his angry ex-wife did not seem anti-Semitic to the only independent person who witnessed any of them. A writer for Tablet Magazine said she could find only “one relevant statement” suggesting anti-Semitism, a supposed six-word quote Bannon gave to a reporter at the Republican National Convention regarding his Web site Breitbart News: “We’re the platform for the alt-right.”

That quote isn’t credible, either. It appeared in Mother Jones magazine, published by the far-left Foundation for National Progress. Tellingly, “propagandist extraordinaire” Sarah Posner did not publish the supposed quote for five weeks, revealing it only after the most contentious presidential election in American history heated up. She has yet to produce a recording or other independent verification of the quote, which Bannon denies. As for the substance of the complaint, liberal darling Jeff Bezos provides a bigger platform to more hateful and pernicious things than Bannon does.

Yet people unfamiliar with the inner workings of the American Jewish community could reasonably conclude that Jewish conservatives think Bannon is a Jew-hater, based on the coverage of Saturday’s statement. Most American Christians (and many Jews) can hardly differentiate Reform from Conservative Judaism any better than the average Jew can distinguish Methodists from Presbyterians – which is not at all.

Yet the movement’s press release contained no disclaimer that Conservative (sic) Judaism is not politically conservative, and the coverage in the Jewish dailies Haaretz, the Jerusalem Post, and the Times of Israel said nothing to disabuse people who might reasonably assume “Conservative Judaism” is conservative. Only the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) could be bothered to write, appropriately, “Despite what its name suggests, Conservative Judaism is a centrist denomination, positioned between the stringently traditional Orthodox and the religiously and politically liberal Reform.”

“Centrist” is accurate only in a strictly spatial sense. In 2016, “Conservative Judaism” is unabashedly liberal, both politically and religiously. Members include Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. It has held the line on intermarriage and patrilineal descent (so far), but otherwise the practical differences from Reform Judaism are more sociological than theological or political. Both movements support abortion rights, gun control, welcoming Syrian refugees, higher minimum wages, the fight against “climate change,” citizenship for illegal immigrants, same-sex marriage, and more.

By continuing to call themselves conservative – even if they keep using a capital C – the movement at best confuses people. Someone who only hears the name of this list of influential conservative Jews would think it’s about the people who wrote Saturday’s release, but those who read it would understand it’s about Republicans and libertarians who happen to be Jewish. One rabbi has actually bemoaned that the name of his religious movement “has been appropriated by the political conservatives.” Huh? It’s his movement that’s guilty of what the Sages condemned as gneivat daat, namely “stealing” someone’s knowledge by misleading people about yourself.

Journalists and others who write and speak about American Judaism would be relieved by a name change. Ron Kampeas, who covers American politics for the JTA, told me the distinction between conservative Jews and Conservative Jews was once merely annoying. But as Conservative Judaism “veered to the left politically” the two connotations of the word “now not only mean different things; they're sometimes in opposition.”

The rebranding idea is not new to the movement, but the day is short and the work is great. Until it picks a new appellation (under consideration are Covenantal Judaism, Dynamic Judaism, and the Zionist-tinged Masorti Judaism), the people calling themselves Conservative Jews must clarify every single time they speak out in their movement’s name they do not consider themselves conservatives.


David Benkof is Senior Political Analyst for the Daily Caller, where this essay first appeared. Follow him on Twitter (@DavidBenkof) or E-mail him at DavidBenkof@gmail.com.

‘Conservative Judaism’ should clarify it’s liberal Read More »

Do you want to believe?

After a bitterly divisive election season, there’s one question on everyone’s mind:

“How can people possibly believe that?”

What “that” is depends on who’s doing the talking. It means one thing to Trump supporters, something else to Clinton supporters, and who knows what to third-party supporters.

We all have friends who believe things that seem crazy, but we don’t think our friends are crazy. So we’re completely baffled. Are people who disagree with us ignorant? Stupid? Hyper-emotional? Or – this seems to be the favorite – are they just plain evil?

It’s usually none of those things. The true answer is simpler and more innocent.

People adopt beliefs based on several factors. If those factors are different, then the people tend to adopt different beliefs.

In 2016 America, those factors differ a lot – by region, economic class, ethnicity, social circles, information sources, and life experiences. Differences in those factors lead people to different beliefs.

Even biology gets into the act, since we now know that different political attitudes often go with minor differences in the structure and function of our brains. The differences show up mainly in emotion and intuition, which influence our political and moral judgments.

America’s dominant political and moral culture is WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic). WEIRD people’s moral reasoning tends to be abstract, utilitarian, and universalist. As a result,  writes psychologist Jonathan Haidt, “the WEIRDer you are, the more you see a world full of separate objects, rather than relationships.”

However, millions of people – perhaps half of Americans, to judge by the election  – are less WEIRD. They accept utilitarian and universalist ideas, but also value loyalty, respect for authority, respect for the sacred, individual liberty, and support for the common good. Sometimes, for example, they might feel that loyalty is more important than preventing harm, or that the common good is more important than preventing unfairness. To WEIRD people, such feelings are often incomprehensible.

All of those factors – background, beliefs, social circles, biology, and basic moral intuitions – exert a powerful subconscious influence on what feels right or plausible to us. If a factual or moral claim feels right to us, fits our current beliefs and previous experiences, then we want to believe it. According to Haidt, that biases us more than we realize:

“When we want to believe something, we ask ourselves, ‘Can I believe it?’ Then we search for supporting evidence, and if we find even a single piece of evidence, we can stop thinking. We now have permission to believe. We have a justification, in case anyone asks. In contrast, when we don’t want to believe something, we ask ourselves, ‘Must I believe it?’ Then we search for contrary evidence, and if we find a single reason to doubt the claim, we can dismiss it.”

Thus, equally intelligent, educated, well-meaning people can have diametrically opposed beliefs. Some of us are careful about our biases, sometimes, but at other times we all slip.

Knowing that fact doesn’t make our social problems go away. Our disagreements still exist. There are still some real and legitimate conflicts of interest between different groups in society. Unfortunately, there are also a few genuine crazies and haters: in a population of over 300 million, that’s inevitable.

However, if we can just calm down and accept that most other people are trying as honestly as we are, it’s at least a start toward solving our problems. Nobody can or should compromise with “Hitler,” and if we think that’s who we’re dealing with, then we can’t do anything else but fight. However, it’s not necessary. Or true.

Don’t let a tiny minority of crazies and haters blind you to the fact that most people want to be good and want to do the right thing – even if their idea of “the right thing” clashes with ours.

Screaming at people, calling them names, and dismissing their concerns as unworthy of consideration leads to on-going conflict and social disintegration. People want us to agree with them – just as we want them to agree with us — but they’ll often accept something less: knowing that we listened to them, tried to see their point of view, and did our best to accommodate them even if we still disagree.

That’s what a civilized democratic society is all about. Maybe it’s WEIRD, but it’s our best hope.

Do you want to believe? Read More »

Ruth Gruber, journalist who helped Holocaust survivors, dies at 105

Ruth Gruber, an American journalist who escorted 1,000 Jewish Holocaust refugees from Europe to the United States, has died. She was 105.

Gruber died Thursday in her Manhattan home, The Washington Post reported.

She was known for her 1944 journey from Italy to New York aboard a ship carrying refugees from concentration camps.

Despite the risk of sailing on waters patrolled by German submarines, then-Interior Secretary Harold Ickes appointed Gruber to travel with the refugees to “hold their hand,” as she recalled him telling her in “Inside of Time,” a book she wrote about that journey.

Aboard the ship, the refugees, some of them too old to walk, called Gruber, then 32, “Mother Ruth,” according to the Post’s obituary of her. Fluent in German and Yiddish, she organized English lessons, cared for the seasick and taught at least one refugee her first English song — “You Are My Sunshine” — the Boston Globe reported.

Together they made the two-week journey without attack, and the refugees arrived in the United States “safe beyond their most roseate dreams,” according to a New York Times account at the time.

Until the end of her life, Gruber remained convinced that the United States could have saved many more refugees.

Gruber worked as a photographer and reporter for the New York Herald Tribune in 1947, when she became the first Western journalist to visit the Soviet Arctic and the gulag.

In 1947, she watched as a ship carrying 4,000 Holocaust survivors and displaced persons was turned away from Palestine. She photographed and later chronicled those events in a book that Leon Uris used to write his best-selling novel “Exodus.”

In her 70s, she was the only foreign correspondent to observe Operation Moses, the airlift of Ethiopian Jews to Israel during famine.

Gruber, the daughter of Russian Jewish immigrants who settled in Brooklyn, graduated from high school at 15 and from New York University at 18. After earning a master’s degree in German literature, she went to Germany and, at age 20, earned a doctorate from the University of Cologne with a dissertation on the author Virginia Woolf. The New York Times reported at the time that she was the youngest German doctor of philosophy.

Ruth Gruber, journalist who helped Holocaust survivors, dies at 105 Read More »

Is Europe’s far right experiencing a ‘Trump effect’?

European far-right politicians were quick to hold up Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election as a harbinger of their own impending triumphs.

Marine Le Pen, head of France’s far-right party, said that what Europeans call “the Trump effect” — that is, right-wing nationalism fueled by anger toward political elites and mistrust of immigration — heralds the upset she is seeking in her own country’s presidential elections in May. She called Trump’s election “good news” for France.

Geert Wilders, a far-right Dutch politician whose party is leading polls ahead of March’s general elections, called Trump’s victory a “revolution” that will come to the Netherlands.

And Norbert Hofer, the far-right candidate many believe will win Austria’s Dec. 4 presidential election, cited Trump’s victory in predicting his own.

But nearly two weeks after Trump’s success, little evidence suggests that these statements are more than posturing by career politicians eager to rebrand themselves as change-makers despite the fact that they are viewed, even by many of their supporters, as obsolete or deeply compromised.

In Le Pen’s case, polls conducted before and after Trump’s victory project that she will receive about 25 percent of the vote. And while this would certainly be a new record for her National Front party, it is difficult to tie such a result to Trump’s victory.

Indeed, there is reason to believe that Le Pen’s solidarity with Trump is a double-edged sword. In an Odoxa poll conducted among 1,004 French adults a day after Trump was elected, 76 percent of respondents said they lamented his election. Even among National Front voters, the poll found only 54 percent supported him.

In the Netherlands and Austria, Trump’s election also revealed no discernible shift in polls. Wilders’ party, which is running neck and neck with the center-right ruling party, dropped by one point after Trump’s victory in one poll (I&O Research), remained unchanged in another (Politieke Barometer) and rose by one point in a third poll (Maurice de Hond.)

As for Hofer, Wilders’ counterpart in Austria, he rose by one point in polls since Trump’s election, remaining within the margin of error in a race pollsters have said is too close to call.

The polls further show no correlation between the popularity of far-right parties like National Front and the “Brexit” referendum of last June, when British voters supported leaving the European Union.

Undoubtedly, there are some similarities between the message of Europe’s rising far right and Trump’s campaign strategy. Both leverage financial insecurity while warning about Muslim immigration and jihadism in campaigns themed around nostalgia, xenophobia and popular resentment of the seemingly detached ruling elite.

But there are also considerable differences.

Both Wilders’ Party for Freedom and Le Pen’s National Front are seeking greater taxation on some earners (Le Pen wants to raise the income tax on high earners as much as 46 percent) than the policy favored by the countries’ ruling governments. In this regard, the European far right diverges significantly with Trump.

Additionally, Trump was an outsider to American politics; Le Pen, Wilders, Hofer and most of their counterparts elsewhere in Europe have been in politics for at least a decade. Even to potential supporters, they are associated with the very political structures they have for years been promising to tear down.

In France, Le Pen has been trying to mainstream her party and move it away from the more radical anti-establishment message of her father and party founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen. When she kicked him out of the party last year for saying the Holocaust was insignificant — a statement for which he was convicted of genocide denial – it cause a split within the party, costing her the votes of many supporters who now view her as a sellout. As for Wilders, he agreed in 2010 to briefly join a coalition led by Holland’s centrist ruling party — a compromise that disappointed many of his hard-core supporters.

Nevertheless, Trump’s victory is invigorating supporters of these far-right parties who are finding themselves in the spotlight of left-wing media that are now much more willing to “listen to angry white voters,” as the Dutch NRC Handelsblad put it last weekend.

“If the Americans did it, so can we!” one National Front voter and activist, a former train conductor in his fifties named Fredy Deguin-Dawson, told Le Monde. The article surveyed attitudes toward Trump’s victory in the Hauts-de-France region, which is France’s rust belt with 14 percent unemployment.

Even he, however, recoiled from some of Trump’s xenophobic remarks. “That Trump called Mexicans thieves and rapists … No. I find it unacceptable,” said Deguin-Dawson. His rejection of racism, typical of many Europeans with bitter memory and collective guilt over the Holocaust, is another social inhibitor for the far right.

Still, it is not difficult to see why Europe’s far right, which is eager to project an image of success, would like to portray itself as a continuation of the Trump effect. And the mainstream European media is hesitant to bet on the status quo after failing to foresee both Brexit and Trump’s victory.

Jewish community leaders, along with leaders of other minorities, are also wary about the meaning of Trump’s victory.

“We are not the only ones, we hear this all over Europe,” Pinchas Goldschmidt, the president of the Conference of European Rabbis, told JTA last week. “There’s concern of the rise of the extreme right on the coattails of the Trump victory.”

While such alarm is understandable coming from vulnerable minorities, centrist and left-wing politicians have also warned about a “Trump effect.”

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls shocked many of his citizens when he said last week during a visit to Berlin that “Le Pen could become president in 2017.” He injected Trump into the equation by adding: “Of course, I’m not comparing: Trump headed the Republican Party, which already controlled Congress and numerous states, but of course his rhetoric and proposals are disturbing.”

Valls, a Socialist, may have political reasons to establish a connection between Le Pen and the “Trump effect.” After all, French centrists, worried about the National Front, have for decades rallied voters  to vote for other candidates just to keep that party out of power. It’s such a common strategy that it even has a name — the “Republican Front” — and it has allowed both the Socialists and their center-right rivals to increase voting participation and keep the National Front in opposition.

Olivier Faye, Le Monde’s expert on the far right, says he does not recognize any “Trump effect” in French politics at this time.

“It’s difficult to draw conclusions on any effect, negative or positive, of Trump’s victory on how Le Pen will perform in the French presidential elections,” he wrote last week. What is clear, he said, is that “she’ll happily use any populist victory abroad“ to her advantage.

Is Europe’s far right experiencing a ‘Trump effect’? Read More »