ללא מחבר No Author

The decision by the British and French foreign ministers to remove the yellow pins supporting the hostages before meeting a Palestinian Authority leader was not only appalling and cowardly—it was also downright racist.

UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy and French foreign minister Stephane Sejourne wore the yellow pins when they met with Israel’s foreign minister last Friday. But they removed the pins before meeting with PA Prime Minister Mohammed Mustafa later that same day.

This fear of offending a Palestinian Arab leader naturally calls to mind the behavior of the British and French toward the Nazis in the 1930s. Obviously there are differences, but nobody can deny that the spirit of appeasement the British and French displayed this past weekend echoes some of the worst periods in recent history.

The British and French officials last weekend had an opportunity to show that their government had learned the lessons of the 1930s and were ready to confront, rather than appease, a leader of a pro-terror regime. Instead, they showed that they have learned nothing from history; they chose to echo Chamberlain, not Churchill.

What the British and French did is also a slap in the face of the United States. There are at least eight Americans being held hostage by Hamas in Gaza. That yellow pin represents them as much as it represents the Israeli and other non-American hostages. Removing that pin is, in effect, saying that the British and French governments couldn’t care less about the fate of the American hostages.

Not only was the British-French action craven appeasement and an insult to every American; it was also profoundly racist.

The British and French were saying that a Palestinian Arab leader cannot be expected to oppose kidnapping, starving and torturing innocent civilians. They’re saying there is something inherently barbaric about Palestinian Arabs that compels them to support evil hostage-takers and gang-rapists.

If the British and French foreign ministers were meeting with any other foreign leader, presumably they would have kept the pins on. But the minute a Palestinian Arab walked into the room, they said to each other, “This guy’s a Palestinian Arab—so he must support the hostage-holders. We better take off our pins so we don’t offend him! He can’t help it—he might get mad if he sees that we’re against holding innocent people hostage!”

If that’s not racist, what is?

Michael Gerson, a speechwriter for President George W. Bush, came up with a term that describes this attitude perfectly: “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”

The British and French treat the Palestinian Arabs as if they are brutes or cavemen who are incapable of living up to the basic standards of decency that civilized people embrace. They’re saying that the bar has to be set lower for Palestinian Arabs than for other people, because Palestinian Arabs are unable to do any better.

All of which is extremely ironic, because the British and French also keep declaring that the PA is moderate and should be given its own sovereign state. But by asserting that the PA supports hostage-taking and cannot help but sympathize with the Hamas terrorists, they are in effect acknowledging that a Palestinian state would be a dangerous terrorist state.

Because if they’re saying the PA opposes releasing the hostages, they’re admitting that the PA leadership consists of incorrigible terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. They’re saying the PA will always shelter terrorists and refuse to hand them over for prosecution. It will always pay salaries to imprisoned terrorists and bonuses to their families. It will always teach its children to hate Jews and to seek the destruction of Israel.

And if that’s the case, why in the world would Israelis ever agree to the creation of a State of Palestine next door?