Confirming the fairness of every joke since World War II about the French being “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” (Groundskeeper Willy’s memorable description on”The Simpsons” ), French President Emanuel Macron said in a BBC interview that there is “no justification” for Israel’s bombing campaign and ground offensive against Gaza and Hamas, although, as Old Blues Once sang so well about love and marriage, “you can’t bomb one without the other.”
“There is no reason for that and no legitimacy. So we do urge Israel to stop,” Macron said, embracing the suddenly popular “proportional response theory” of war now that Jews defending their nation are involved. You can’t really blame him, I guess, as France saw no reason to keep fighting the Nazis when they attacked his country, either.
Macron added to his fatuous surrender monkey outburst by asserting “all civilians having nothing to do with terrorists.” Even when those civilians knowingly elect those terrorist to run their country!
Is France a great country, or what?
He also added that the current Israeli offensive creates “resentment and bad feelings.” They should have had that line in “Mars Attacks!” Responding appropriately to Macron’s irresponsible assistance to his nation’s deadly foe, Netanyahu dismissed the French president’s appeal, saying that “a ceasefire with Hamas means surrender, and added that the responsibility for any harm to civilians lies with Hamas, not with Israel.
And so it does.
The “Mars Attacks!” version is funnier.
Ethics Alarms 
Ah, the French. One of my friends, a collector of WWII military arms, has a French MAS 36 rifle bearing a tag that reads, “Good condition, never fired and only dropped once.”
I am reminded of the statement: “Going to war without the French is like going duck hunting without an accordion.” I think it was Rumsfeld in reference to going into Iraq.
I like Rumsfeld’s other quote about France. When asked about bombing the French embassy in LIbya after they wouldn’t let our bombers fly over French airspace, Rumsfeld was asked if he was worried about alienating the French as allies. “No”, he replied. “They’re France, when they need us, they’re there.”
“all civilians having nothing to do with terrorists.”
Also in France
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/01/france-opens-investigation-into-despicable-antisemitic-graffiti-in-paris
Of course, these signs were spray painted just before the anniversary of Kristallnacht. In the US, we commemorated the day properly by having a nationwide walkout of Palestininan-supporting college students who would protest against Israel and Jews.
It was once suggested in the National Lampoon that it would be a good move for the U.S. to nuke France, opining that much grief and little good had come of being allied with them, and that doing so would put the rest of the world on alert that we were so unhinged that they really should avoid annoying us.
Jack,
“Even when those civilians knowingly elect those terrorist to run their country!”
You’ve used this rationale before, and it makes me curious: You (and others) have regularly criticized elections in the Middle East as often rigged, unfair, and lacking a free press, so how can one legitimately say such civilians “knowingly elected” anyone?
I feel I need to say this ahead of time, please respond respectfully. It’s only a question.
The Gazans are responsible for making sure their elections express their wants and needs. They are responsible for rigged elections in their area as much as we are responsible if our elections are corrupted. Their job is to be vigilant. But there is no claim, evidence, or assertions anywhere I have seen that Hamas doesn’t have the full support of the majority of the Palestinians in Gaza—every poll has shown more than 50% support—which is more support than either of hour political parties have.
So what’s the point of the question?
Jack,
“So what’s the point of the question?”
To better understand your point of view, even though I might (respectfully) disagree. As I’ve mentioned (and you ignore), I have learning handicaps which make grasping the nuances of your arguments difficult at times.