“What makes us French is that there are no more French. They don’t exist anymore.”
And it’s like that with everything. What makes women women is that there are no more women. There are no more children as a discrete clear category, no more humans. Everything is permeable, everything means its opposite. Democracy means autopen and candidates removed from the ballot because they are icky. Freedom means curfews and cancellations. Poetry means Amanda Gorman. Banned books means incessantly and aggressively peddled ones. Normal means fascist and fascist means normal. Anti-racist means extremely racist.
Clarissa's Blog 
Never tasted frogs legs fried in lard.
LikeLike
Another example of an “anywhere” vis-a-vis “somewheres” who, for the moment at least, are still the majority of Frenchmen.
What Kassowitz is promoting goes under the name of métissage in French. It’s just one of the many forms of racism prevailing in any liquid society.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With the last name like this, he really should pipe the effing hell down about the French ethnicity. People like him will get us all to pogroms, the unthinking, memoryless fools.
LikeLike
Mean while as the EU condemns Israel’s Oct 7th Abomination War in Gaza, a terrorist guns down two Israeli embassy staff members in Washington DC.
LikeLike
The British ignore the Israeli staff members, engaged to be married, brutally murdered in Washington DC. They promote their UN 242 British French written attempt to return Israel to its pre Six Day War borders! The borders which prevailed when both England and France invaded Egypt to seize the Suez Canal in 1956. Israel categorically rejects Europe’s Two State Solution. Based upon the simple fact that (1) it only promotes European imperialism (2) it has never worked when applied – ever.
Your critique of the UK and EU as acting in a neo-imperial, Mandate-era fashion has strong historical resonance. UN Resolution 242, co-drafted by Britain and France post-Six-Day War, notably avoided calling for a complete withdrawal from all territories, instead framing it ambiguously. That resolution continues to be used selectively by European powers to pressure Israel — even as these same powers neglect to acknowledge how their own imperial legacies (e.g. Sykes-Picot, the 1956 Suez Crisis) created much of the current instability in the region.
The invocation of humanitarian principles by leaders like Lammy, Macron, and Kallas may mask what is, from an Israeli view, an ongoing campaign to impose a framework that privileges European geopolitical interests and weakens Israel’s sovereignty in determining its security strategy.
The British and EU response, especially given the brutal murders of Israeli citizens on foreign soil, smacks of selective moralism. Their unwillingness to confront antisemitic violence directly or to center the 590+ day hostage crisis in Gaza reflects an imbalance in diplomatic concern.
While Israel is heavily criticized for its military campaign and the humanitarian crisis, there is comparatively minimal European pressure on Hamas — a terrorist organization using human shields, rejecting ceasefire proposals, and diverting aid.
Israel’s firm stance against the current form of the Two-State Solution reflects decades of failed negotiations, Palestinian internal division, and the strategic abuse of land concessions (as in Gaza post-2005). From Israel’s standpoint, “land for peace” has produced neither peace nor security.
Many in Israel view the European model as obsolete, grounded in a 20th-century diplomatic vision that ignores present-day asymmetrical warfare, jihadi ideology, and the failure of Palestinian political institutions. Hence, the Israeli response frames such external pressure as both tone-deaf and dangerous.
While the UK and EU may see this as an assertion of liberal democratic values, Israel perceives it as a betrayal of mutual interests — particularly amid Iranian regional aggression and surging antisemitism in Europe.
Israel’s pivot toward strengthening relations with the U.S., India, Gulf states (under the Abraham Accords), and tech-forward Asian economies signals a reorientation away from dependency on the increasingly adversarial EU. If Europe continues leveraging economic and political agreements to impose ideological conditions, Israel may respond by further decoupling diplomatically, betting on partners who do not predicate alliance on compliance with disputed international norms.
A deeper political and philosophical rupture: Europe’s invocation of universalist ethics versus Israel’s insistence on particularistic national survival. For many Israelis, the war in Gaza is not a humanitarian crisis of their own making but the unavoidable result of a genocidal neighbor-state hybrid entity entrenched in civilian areas. For Europeans, the war is a test of human rights values. The gap between these worldviews is widening — and may well lead to a historic recalibration in Israeli-European relations.
LikeLike