by Michael Freund, Jerusalem Post
For the past few days, the world’s attention has been focused on Paris, where a band of Islamic terrorists went on a rampage, attacking the offices of a satirical magazine and a kosher market and brutally snuffing out the lives of 17 innocent people. Millions of people took to the streets on Sunday, together with dozens of world leaders, in a “unity march,” as cries of “we are not afraid” echoed down the avenues and boulevards of the City of Lights.
It was an impressive display, with all the theatrics and emotion of a Victor Hugo novel, and for a brief moment it appeared that perhaps, at last, France was awakening to the threat posed by Islamic extremism.
But don’t let the remarkable optics fool you. For, judging by the remarks and behavior of French President Francois Hollande, France has learned little, if anything, from the horrific events of last week. Take, for example, Hollande’s remarks in a speech to the nation on Friday night, just hours after four Jews had been murdered by Muslim terrorist Amedy Coulibaly in the kosher store. Even though Coulibaly reportedly told his hostages, “I am Amedy Coulibaly, a Muslim from Mali. I belong to the Islamic State,” Hollande nonetheless asserted that, “Those who committed these acts have nothing to do with the Muslim religion.”
Who does he think he is kidding? Hollande’s stubborn insistence that terrorism committed by Muslims in the name of Islam and sanctioned by Muslim clerics has nothing to do with the Islamic religion is not only patronizing, it is patently absurd. It is wishful thinking parading as policy, which is nothing less than a recipe for disaster. After all, by what right does Hollande deem himself fit to opine regarding what constitutes “real” Islam and what doesn’t? He may be France’s commander-in-chief, but that doesn’t make him theologian-in-chief.
Moreover, the fact that so many attacks in so many different parts of the world are carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam suggests that the problem goes much deeper than Hollande is willing to admit. Consider the following: Who kidnaps schoolgirls in Nigeria? Muslim terrorists.
Who beheads Westerners in Iraq and Syria? Muslim terrorists. Who fired thousands of rockets at Israeli towns and cities this past summer? Muslim terrorists. Who stormed a Jerusalem synagogue and murdered four rabbis at prayer? Muslim terrorists.
Who threatens people with death for converting from Islam to another religion? Muslim terrorists. Who has forced Christians to flee parts of the Middle East they have lived in for 2,000 years? Muslim terrorists. Who crashed airplanes into the Twin Towers on 9/11? Muslim terrorists.
See a pattern here? The list, of course, goes on and on.
Indeed, in November 2014, the Institute for Economics and Peace released its Global Terrorism Index, which found that four Muslim terrorist organizations – Boko Haram, the Taliban, al-Qaida and Islamic State – were responsible for a whopping 66 percent of all terrorism-related deaths in 2013.
According to the index, six of the top 10 countries with the most terrorism are Muslim: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Somalia and Yemen. The other four – India, Nigeria, the Philippines and Thailand – all have large Muslim minorities.
Does Hollande perhaps think that this is all a coincidence? Adding insult to injury, the French president reportedly opposed the idea that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would attend Sunday’s rally in Paris, with unnamed French sources saying that such a move would be “divisive.” It was only after Hollande learned that Netanyahu planned to come anyway that he is said to have picked up the phone and called the Israeli premier to issue him a formal invitation.
Not content to insult the prime minister of the sovereign Jewish state, France then went out of its way to invite Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to participate in the march as well as to announce that he would be given a special audience with the French president.
What kind of message does that send? Surely Hollande is aware that Abbas forged an alliance last year with Hamas, the terrorist organization that calls for Israel’s destruction, and that he has encouraged Palestinians to use “all means available” against Israelis in recent months, which is code for violence and terror. Anyone seriously committed to combating extremism would not have dared to ask Abbas to join Sunday’s rally, let alone confer on him the honor of a private meeting at the Elysee Palace.
Doing so was not only a desecration of the memory of the victims of terror, it was an act of sheer chutzpah, the gall of the Gauls.
It demonstrated clearly that France’s stand against terror is neither firm nor resolute. It is, instead, flimsy and selective. France won’t acknowledge that the problem is Islamic terrorism, rather than generic “extremism,” whatever that means, nor will it stand forthrightly with Israel in its own war on terror.
I pray that there will not be any further attacks in Paris or anywhere else, and that French Jews and non- Jews will not have to live in fear.
But with a myopic leader such as Hollande at the helm, France most likely has some very difficult days ahead.
@ bernard ross:
Up till a few years ago the American consulate was part of the American Embassy in Tel Aviv and all employees were either Americans or Israelis. They moved 3 years ago the consulate to Jerusalem. East Jerusalem in the Arabs section of what they call occupied territory and replaced Jews working there with Arabs. They are less helpful communicate with us like they have no choice and while not rude not overly helpful either.
Finally it’s a most inconvenient place for Americans like me living in Israel to visit. All this was done I believe purposely s part of their anti Jew and Israel positions.
caution, schnorer at work. Livini, Lapdog and herzog should raise this with their puppet masters.
@ bernard ross:
Galut Jews in general must finally understand our common situation. Things are not getting better. After two generations passed following the Holocaust, the anti-Semitic onslaught is fully on again. As planned by them after WWII…
@ mrg3105:
I posted a long response I wrote in this blog in 2007 but due to length it’s in moderation. I could have broken it up but it is better to read it in one piece for full effect.
I hope Ted will post it soon. I want your response to the subject matter.
@ mrg3105:
@ mrg3105:
The actual practice of Judaism is much different between the Judaism practice in the land of Israel and the Galut. The mitzvot were never meant to observed anywhere but the Land of Israel. Judaism as observed in the Galut must by definition be corrupt and very incomplete. I understand that the corruption was a consequence of not being on the land the the rabbinic endeavor to preserve as much as possible out side of the Land of Israel but what is observed and practiced today whether orthodox in it’s many forms and the rest is not Judaism. You cannot observe the many mitzvot related to the Land of Israel in Golas. Rashi your favorite maintains that observance and prayers are meaningless in the Galut but necessary so Jews will not forget when they return to Eretz Yisrael. The Judaism practiced in the Galut is a Judaism sans Jewish nationalism and therefore a corruption of both observance and intent.
There have been many arguments along this line and, of course, there are many opinions on this subject. Yet, the one thing that cannot be denied is the time-transcending idea, as well as the reality, of the existence of the Jewish people. No doubt that every people wants to live and prosper; however, the distinction for the Jewish people is clear — there is no need for the Jewish existence if it is not for the aims served. These objectives are not within the realm of the mundane — they are, indeed, among the most sublime and holy of all possible human ends.
The Centrality of the Land of Israel
For purposes of clarity and source reference, it is required that authoritative Jewish texts be summoned to demonstrate the position stated above. To begin this exploration, the topic of a Jewish homeland and its natural consequence, a Jewish polity, are to be examined.
The Rambam (Mimonides) writes:
It is forbidden at all times to leave Eretz Yisrael for the Diaspora except: to study Torah; to marry; or to save [one’s property] from the gentiles [lit. the worshippers of the stars and signs]. [After accomplishing these ends,] one must return to Eretz Yisrael.
Mishne Torah, Sefer Shoftim, The Laws of Kings and Their Wars, Chapter 5, Halakha 9.1
Maimonides continues in the same halakha:
Similarly, one may leave Eretz Yisrael to do business. However, it is forbidden [to leave with the intent] of settling permanently in the Diaspora unless the famine in [the land] is so severe that a dinar’s worth of wheat is sold at two dinars. When do these conditions apply? When one possesses financial resources and food is expensive. However, if food is inexpensive, but a person cannot find financial resources or employment and has no money available, he may leave and go to any place where he can find relief. Although it is permitted to leave [Eretz Yisrael] under these circumstances, it is not pious behavior. Behold, Mahlon and Kilyon were two of the great men of the generation [of Ruth] and they left [Eretz Yisrael] only out of great distress. Nevertheless, they were considered by G-d to be worthy of death.2
Source for Mishne Torah, Sefer Shoftim, The Laws of Kings and Their Wars, Chapter 5, Halakha 9:
Talmud Bavli, Bava Batra, 91a, Our Rabbis taught: It is not permitted to go forth from the Land of Israel to a foreign country unless two se’ahs are sold for one sela’. R. Shimon said: [This is permitted only] when one cannot find [anything] to buy, but when one is able [to find something] to buy, even if a se’ah cost a sela’ one must not depart. And so said R. Shimon b. Yohai: Elimelekh, Mahlon and Kilyon were [of the] great men of their generation, and they were [also] leaders of their generation. Why, then, were they punished? Because they left Eretz Yisrael for a foreign country; for it is written, And all the city was astir concerning them, and the women said: Is this Naomi? What [is meant by] ‘is this Naomi?’ — R. Yitzhak said: They said, ‘Did you see what befell Naomi who left Eretz Yisrael for a foreign country?’
Talmud Bavli, Bava Batra, 91a, R. Hanan b. Raba said in the name of Rav: Elimelekh and Salmon and Peloni Almoni and the father of Naomi all were sons of Nahshon, the son of Aminadav [Sh’mot 5:23]. What does he come to teach us [by this statement]? — That even the merit of one’s ancestors is of no avail when one leaves the Land for a foreign country.
Rational thought dictates that a man not leave his household in most circumstances and especially in times of difficulty. At the moment in which desperation is at hand, the virtuous display fortitude, strength and most of all presence. The act of leaving, to be conceived of as moral, would require great benefit for the whole of the family and its purposes. When the nation of Israel is understood as the obligation of all its members it is easier to make the comparison to a family and household. As to the reverence placed upon the meaning of holiness ascribed to the Land is, of course, parabolic and intended to draw our attention to the overall significance of Eretz Israel to the purposes of the Jewish people. Without the Land the polity could not exist. Just as without a dwelling place a family is but more individuals in a group, not significant or unique in their identity or culture, mores or habits. A very often quoted reference to this idea is the following halakha.
Mishne Torah, Sefer Shoftim, The Laws of Kings and Their Wars, Chapter 5, Halakha 10.
Great Sages would kiss the borders of Eretz Yisrael, kiss its stones, and roll in its dust. Similarly, it says: Behold, your servants hold her stones dear and cherish her dust. [Tehillim 102:15]3
Source for Halakha 10:
Talmud Bavli, Ketuvot, 112a, R. Hisda stated: What [was meant] by the Scriptural text, I give thee a pleasant land, the heritage of the deer? Why was the Land of Israel compared to a deer? — To tell that as the skin of a deer cannot contain its flesh so cannot the Land of Israel contain its produce. Another explanation: As the deer is the swiftest among the animals so is the Land of Israel the swiftest of all lands in the ripening of its fruit. If [one should suggest that] as the deer is swift but his flesh is not fat so is the Land of Israel swift to ripen but its fruits are not rich, it was explicitly stated in Scripture, Flowing with milk and honey [thus indicating that they are] richer than milk and honey.
When R. Zera went up to the Land of Israel and could not find a ferry wherein to cross [a certain river] he grasped a rope bridge and crossed. Thereupon a certain Sadducee sneered at him: ‘Hasty people, that put your mouths before your ears [Na’ase V’nishma’ — Sh’mot 24:7], you are still, as ever, clinging to your hastiness.’ ‘The spot,’ the former replied, ‘which Moshe and Aharon were not worthy [of entering], who could assure me that I should be worthy?’ R. Abba used to kiss the cliffs of Acco. R. Hannina used to repair its obstacles. R. Ammi and R. Assi used to rise [from their seats to move] from the sun to the shade and from to the shade to the sun. R. Hiyya b. Gamda rolled himself in its dust, for it is said in the Scripture, For Thy servants take pleasure in her stones, and love her dust. [Tehillim 102:15]
The parabolic reference to the Land is very clear. The reason for the Land is its existence as place, not just any place, but the place in which revelation is to be actualized. The meaning of the deer and of the milk and honey becomes obvious when understood as it was intended by the Sages. That is, as the place in which the maturation of the true polity is possible only through the use of the laws that instruct the taking of the Land in the first place. The polity dictated by the law exceeds the otherwise and commonly accepted use of the Land. The concepts as articulated by the authentic Jewish polity once actualized indeed exceed the physical borders of the Land and have universal consequences.
A Jew who dwells in the Land ultimately is a reference to the Jew that not only subsists in Eretz Israel, but lives according to the statues defining life in the Land. Therefore, even one who transgresses is afforded forgiveness within the scope of the law of the Jewish polity. It is the system of law that gives definition to habitation in the Land and as a consequence, meaning to the Land. The halakha relating to this issue is the following.
Mishne Torah, Sefer Shoftim, The Laws of Kings and Their Wars, Chapter 5, Halakha 11.
The Sages said: The transgressions of one who dwells in Eretz Yisrael are forgiven, as it says: The inhabitant shall not say, ‘I am sick.’ The people who dwell there shall be forgiven for their transgressions. [Isaiah 33:24]
Even one who walks four cubits there will merit the World to Come and one who is buried there receives atonement as though the place in which he is were an altar of atonement, as it says: His land will atone for his people. [D’varim 32:43] [In contrast, the prophet, Amos [Amos 7:17], used the expression] You shall die in an impure land — a prophecy of retribution.
There is no comparison between [the merit of] a person who lives in Eretz Yisrael and one brought there after death [for burial]. Nevertheless, great Sages would bring their dead there. Take an example from our Fathers, Ya’akov and Yosef, the righteous.
Source for Halakha 11:
Talmud Bavli, Ketuvot, 111a, R. Eleazar said: Whoever is domiciled in the Land of Israel lives without transgression, for it is said in Scripture, And the inhabitants shall not say, ‘I am sick’; the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity. [Isaiah 33:24] Said Raba to Rav Ashi: we apply this to those who suffer from disease.
R. Anan said: Whosoever is buried in the Land of Israel is deemed to be buried under the altar; since in the latter it is written in Scripture, An altar of earth shalt thou make for me, [Sh’mot 20:21] and in respect to the former it is written in Scripture, And his land doth make expiation for his people. [D’varim 32:43]
. . . And the spirit to walk therein [Isaiah 42:5], of it, said R. Yirmeyahu b. Abba in the name of R. Yohanan, that whoever walks four cubits in the Land of Israel is assured a place in the World to Come.
As a participant in the making of the Jewish polity, the individual Jew has assumed upon himself certain fundamental understandings of self and nation. Within this context is the presupposition of revelation as true (i.e., the laws of the Torah transcend time and that human nature remains constant). The notion of Torah as a time transcending document is exhibited in the previous halakhot while the idea of unchanging human nature is first addressed with the halakha that follows and secondly discussed in the following subsection of this work.
Mishne Torah, Sefer Shoftim, The Laws of Kings and Their Wars, Chapter 5, Halakha 12.
At all times, a person should dwell in Eretz Yisrael, even in a city whose population is primarily of worshippers of idols, rather than dwell in the Diaspora in a city whose population is primarily Jewish.
In that all who leave [the land] for the Diaspora is as though he worships idols, as it is says: They have driven me out today from dwelling in the heritage of G-d, saying, ‘Go serve other gods.’ [Shmuel I 26:19] Similarly, [Ezekiel’s (13:9) prophecies of] retribution state: They shall not come to the Land of Israel.
Just as it is forbidden to leave the Land for the Diaspora, so it is forbidden to leave Bavel for other lands, as it is written: They shall be brought to Bavel and there they shall be [until I take notice of them . . . and restore them to this place, i.e. the Land of Israel]. [Jeremiah 27:22]5
Source Halakha 12:
Talmud Bavli, Ketuvot, 110b, Our Rabbis taught: One should always live in the Land of Israel, even in a town most of whose inhabitants are idolaters, but let no one live outside the Land, in a town most of whose inhabitants are Israelites; for whoever lives in the Land of Israel may be considered to have a G-d, but whoever lives outside the Land may be regarded as one who has no G-d. For it is said in Scripture, To give you the Land of Canaan, to be your G-d. [Vayikra 25:38] Has he, then, who does not live in the Land, have no G-d? But [this is what the text intended] to tell you, that whoever lives outside the Land may be regarded as one who worships idols. Similarly it was said in Scripture in [the story of] David, For they have driven me out this day that I should not cleave to the inheritance of the L-rd, saying: Go, serve other gods. [Shmuel I 26:9] Now, whoever said to David, ‘Serve other gods’? But [the text intended] to tell you that whoever lives outside the Land may be regarded as one who worships idols. [Tosafot,’Avoda Zara, 5]
The Jew living outside the Land, constitutes the worshipping of idols because doing so denies the foundations of the Torah, i.e., the enactment of the Torah, and the living by the statutes of the Law. The project of enacting the Torah can only be legally accomplished in the Land as defined by the Law. The goal of Jewish practice is a single idea that can be dissected into three interrelated and independent subsections. The single idea is to know G-d, that is, to love G-d since the limits of human knowledge subject man’s knowing of G-d to the loving of Him. Subsection one of the idea deals with individual development; subsection two, with national development; and subsection three impacts upon universal development of mankind. Each subsection is dependent on the precepts of the Law, for it is the Law that elucidates these subsections and places definitional perimeters of their understanding. Development of self begins with adherence to all commandments which, in turn, lead to the national responsibility and finally its universal ramifications. Again, it is the participation in the project and what that participation says about the belief in the endeavor itself that is so central. There is such a notion in Jewish law because the foundation of Jewish practice is founded upon the creation of an autonomous Jewish political entity in the Land of Israel. At certain points in Jewish study the simplicity of this idea is overwhelming.
yamit82 Said:
No, I didn’t know that.
But if you do, it means you haven’t leaned Ivrit as well as one would think after years in Israel.
So…
Tradition translates to Ivrit as minhag. Minhag means those things people do that are not mandatory, and are often derived from communities which no longer exist.
This is by far the smaller part of ‘Jewish’ culture.
Normative ‘Jewish’ culture requires observance of precepts i.e. mitzvot as listed in the Torah. These are by and large obligatory where circumstances permit them. These mitzvot come from mikra, i.e. NOT ‘traditional’.
The people that point to the ‘oral tradition’ have simply surrendered to the Xtian ‘academia’ that named it so. Its not an oral tradition (optional and variable over time), but ORAL TRANSMISSION of Torah, (compulsory and consistent over time)
An example: While in USA I met a man who had a curious minhag from his father, himself a child of the Lodz ghetto. This man would take the longest route to the synagogue available! In doing so he passed two or three other synagogues. When I mentioned this to another rabbi he was curious as to the origin, and after about a month directed me to another man. This man was also a survivor of the Lodz ghetto, and explained that there was a synagogue in Lodz that getting to required crossing a cemetery. Naturally if the individual was a Kohen, he had to go around the cemetery per HaZaL. As an aside, HaZaL also says that the individual should not loose time by going to a nicer bet midrash, but one closest to home. Returning to the first man, I asked if his father was a Kohen. No, he wasn’t, but his Lodz ghetto grandfather was, and his mother, a bat Kohen would walk with him. When she married his father, they would all walk together, and his father just accepted the minhag from his father in law! And now his grandson, not a Kohen, living in Brooklyn, was walking nearly an extra mile to get to shule, for no particularly good reason! ‘Tradition’
By the way, the movie ‘Fiddler on the roof’ that has the ‘Tradition’ song, is said to have 200 errors in Jewish cultural practice as current for the time and place the film is set in. 🙂
The statistic mentioned in the article reflects this (Judaism101 website) “More than half of all Israelis describe themselves as hiloni (secular). About 15-20 percent describe themselves as haredi (ultra-Orthodox) or dati (Orthodox). The rest describe themselves as masorti (traditionally observant, but not as dogmatic as the Orthodox). It is important to remember, however, that the masorti and hiloni of Israel tend to be more observant than their counterparts in America. For example, the hiloni of Israel often observe some traditional practices in a limited way, such as lighting Shabbat candles, limiting their activities on Shabbat, or keeping kosher to some extent, all of which are rare among American Reform Jews, and unheard of among American Jews who describe themselves as secular. It has been said that most Israelis don’t belong to a synagogue, but the synagogue they don’t belong to is Orthodox.”
Most masortim probably don’t realise that lighting a SINGLE Shabbat olive oil lamp (or cheaper tallow candles) is NOT a mitzva and is an obsolete minhag. Paraffin wax candles most use today are derived from petroleum, and are therefore not the ideal material to use. The intent of that action according to HaZaL was not to spend Shabbat in the dark where the individual or the group were in a room other than that which had an open fire. In any case, the actual wording was ‘lamp’, and the non-Jewish tradition seems to have preserved the practice better in that wall lamps were lit by servants for those present at a meal, the lamps being positioned behind each seat. This is because such an action satisfied the bare minimum requirement of preparing for Shabbat in case one has servant to cook and set the table. No blessing was recited. Over time though this simple act was transformed into something ‘deep and mystical’, particularly in the hassidic communities, i.e the communities that emerged in early modern eastern Europe from arguably the WORST educated Jewish communities. Many Jewish women light candles ‘religiously’, but are happy to eat trafe food and forego modest dress, never mind other mitzvot pertinent to women and in general.
Disagree?
Even CNN acknowledged this with some expert. France is dead.
“Je Suis Isalmic Stooge” is their epitaph.
@ diana:
Sorry to tell you but they don’t care what you call them,
By not calling them what they are those like your countrymen will never take them seriously as enemies or be committed to fighting and defeating them.
Anyway what do you care what they think?
Je suis Juif et Je suis Charlie:
Is it possible that if we call any attack “Jihadists” etc., etc., the terrorists will feel very successful, in heaven , with their virgins. That’s their goal. And by calling those acts “workplace violence” etc. we deny them the “dream of martyrdom”?
@ Teshuvah:
Seventeen Frenchman are murdered by Islamic madmen and the world rushes to console the French. Thousands of Israelis killed by the same group of retrogrades and not a peep out of anyone. Hypocrisy is too mild a word for that.
@ mrg3105:
I disagree with you. 🙂
But you knew I would.
yamit82 Said:
a ‘traditional Jew’ is an oxymoron.
@ Eric R.:
The best of all endings! 🙂
SHmuel HaLevi 2 Said:
How about a battle to the death that ends in a tie? 🙂
@ bernard ross:
Bayit Yehudi Poll: Most voters for the party not religious
imra@imra.org.il
Bayit Yehudi Poll: Most voters for the party not religious survey commissioned by the party examining potential voters indicates that only about 28% are Orthodox. The survey also found that most of the supporters of the party are young and native-born
Shabtai Bendt – Walla Monday, 12 January 2015 21:42 [IMRA translation]
http://elections.walla.co.il/item/2819234
Jewish Home party attracts quite a secular public, this after it changed from a religious party to one open to a considerably wide and diverse audience. A survey commissioned by the party that examines the potential Bayit Yehudi voters finds that 53.4% of those likely to vote for the party say they are traditional, 18.3% are secular and only 28.3% are Orthodox. The
survey, that was carried out by Mina Tzemach, also finds that the party is becoming more and more a favorite for young people.
The survey found that between the ages of 24-18, 27.4% intend to vote for Bayit Yehudi headed by Naftali Bennett and 26.5% of those between the ages of 34-25. As age increases, the number of supporters of Bennett’s party declines and among those aged 65 and over support for Bennett stands at only 4.9%.
The survey also found that 89.7% of the respondents who said they would vote for the party are citizens born in the country and only 10.3% of respondents who expressed support for the party are immigrants.
If the election were held today Bennett would have won 19.2% of the votes of survey participants between the ages of 24-18, while Netanyahu would have won only 11.8%. However, among older voters, support for the Likud and the Labor-Tnua Party lists surpasses the support for Bayit Yehudi.
According to a source in the party, Bayit Yehudi, formerly the National Religious Party, has undergone a major change and this is reflected in the fact that according to forecasts a woman, Ayelet Shaked, will place in first place in the primaries – something that is not happening in any other party. Not even in the secular parties.
The list of the party is most diverse, and among the candidates running in the primaries to be held tomorrow are 11 women, a professor, three doctors, two military men, five journalists, four lawyers, five rabbis , one rabbanit, two Druze candidates and one Arab.
bernard ross Said:
But Billy was the smart brother hands down slam dunk.
Jimmy carter and intelligence is a serendipitous occurance.
yamit82 Said:
one of the readers comments… 😛
SHmuel HaLevi 2 Said:
kinda like the arab spring only it will be a euro spring.
Chaos and suffering in the lands of the enemies is a good thing.
I told quigley that but he did not get it.
@ Eric R.:
True. That should be an overriding concern. I have no idea what to do, other than preempt.
@ Eric R.:
Yeyyy! And may one of them win sometime in the far future.
I do not mind which one…
I also venture that should this lead to where the National Front might win the Presidency (and LePen is only very marginally less bad for the Jews), then Hollande will suspend the elections, declare an emergency, and the result will almost certainly be a coup or a civil war – not only Muslim vs. Gaul, but FN vs. the left.
NormanF Said:
You forget that the Jew-hating Muslim trash will have control of the nuclear arsenal built by the Jew-hating Gallic trash.
@ SHmuel HaLevi 2:
@ bernard ross:
Jews and Israel will be blamed to deflect the impotence and hypocrisy of the French and Europeans and Jimmy Carter will lead the Charge.
Jimmy Carter Blames Recent Terror Attacks On ‘Palestinian Problem’
Mr. Obama Skips Paris
Read more:__ clip of Franch cop being shot in the head very graphic.
@ bernard ross:
Coming to think about it. Quite right!
It is hard to win a war by standing stern guard in front of the Eiffel Tower, kindergartens, pizzerias, bars and supermarkets.
Then again. White flags are not yet out in mass.
I assume that will the second part of the French war against “terrorists”.
France is on its deathbed. The French have surrendered to Islam.
Do I care that they screw Israel over? Not really.
Good riddance to the Jew-hating Gallic trash. The only thing worse is they’ll be replaced by Jew-hating Muslim trash.
Vive la difference.
I don’t recall mobs protesting in the streets with a long line of politicians in Israel when Israel suffers Muslim terrorists. Good for PM Netanyahu that he went to France.
General Patton is quoted of having said… “I much rather have a German division in front of us than a French division behind us”. That has been proven true time and time again. There is nothing as Jews or a State to seek there.
Hollander faithfully represents the post Gaulish French and true to type has surrenders again, this time to Islam. Apparently the Germans are not longer interested on slapping them about.
What now, then?
We as a collective have not really proven to have a solid track record when it comes to making sound and fast decisions for our own security’s sake.
The Diaspora Jews in general and the French Jews in particular are facing raging antisemitism and Islamic monstrous Holocaust plans. They have to to make their own decision and accept the consequences either way.
We may suggest to them to make Aliah on their own strength. Once here we will as always, extend help. The weak, infirm, old and young should helped all the way.
The rest of the Diaspora must realize that they are not safer than anyone else.