The problem is that Netanyahu's interventions in France seem to be, indeed many of us think they are, designed to make Jews in France afraid for their own safety. Be afraid, he is saying, Come to Israel. It is callous manipulation of people who do indeed have reason to feel vulnerable. It is actually encouraging a kind of ethnic cleansing, so use a word some may find anachronistic, given the longevity of anti-semitism in Europe, but such it is. It is designed in various ways to bolster Bibi's position at home, especially in the face of a difficult election.

(And it is no wonder that some Palestinians who are vulnerable to believing what to rest of the world looks like ludicrous conspiracy theories, see the encouragement of more people to become settlers in what they, the Palestinians, see as their country - no wonder they are prone to believe that "Mossad is behind it", such attacks as we saw last week. And then of course, Bibi can scoff, in his superior way.)

So yes, his motives and goodwill should be challenged by all people of goodwill.

And as one alternative we should perhaps be calling for a communitarian defence against attacks in communities. Against Jews for being Jews, against Muslims for being Muslims, or other minorities, visible or not. This has been done before, and we should not rely only on the goodwill of politicians, French, Israeli or wherever, or state authorities to provide all protection.

The JDF was reported in The Jewish Daily Forward on June 27, 2014 - the link is auatomatically deleted for some reason in this comment section. Or search for "Bismuth and Benhamou". Perhaps I am wrong to say so directly that the JDF are "allies" to Bibi, but there is not much clear blue water between them apart from political convenience in admitting, or not, their closeness politically.

Yes, angry but not least at the politicians' opportunism. I am resident in France. I resent Bibi and his allies trying to make me feel that I should be afraid, afraid enough that I should want to emigrate to Israel. How specious can one get ? He wants me to be afraid, that suits him well. Is he looking for more settlers ?

And to see Bibi and his ilk trying to getting attention by joining French people - of all nationalities and religions and ethnic groups (and thank goodness the Front National are not counted in, that would have been enough to drive many of us away) - on a march and claiming credit for being there, pretending that they stand for the values of Charlie Hebdo. Well they don't.

For instance, David Cameron of the UK will be there. He has long supported their law, promoted I think by Tony Blair, that says it is a criminal offence to say or "publish" something that is offensive to other people's religious feelings. That is, if someone says, "my religious feelings are offended by so-and-so" that is enough.

And Bibi, his presence is totally divisive.
This march was meant to be about unity in the face of violence - Bibi stands for the use of violence as a political weapon.
The march is against attacks on the liberty of the press. Bibi stands for the control of the press, and his allies will go further. Two JDF members were sent to prison here in France for planting a bomb under the car of an anti-Zionist journalist. Like the attack on Charlie Hebdo, that was terrorism aiming at silencing opponents.
This march is about unity - Bibi does not believe in unity, except with people who agree with him, people "of our kind".
This march is against racism - Bibi is a racist, who believes in the superiority of his race over at least one other (if not all)
This march is about peace and not violence. Bibi does not want peace. He needs the continuing existence of extremists and the threat of war and the occasional Hamas rocket to justify his existence.

In short it is offensive that he be invited and allowed to attend in Paris today. And a shame.

And were not the leaders and members of the first Israeli government also, in their time, called Terrorist - not just as a term of abuse, but for what they did, what they said, and what and who they supported.

Or should the dictionaries of the world have two separate entries with distinct meanings to that word ?