I must have missed something, but I didn’t hear anything about the participation of the American government officials in Paris. As an American, who happens to be Jewish (this is an important distinction) I must have missed something.
Attorney general Eric Holder was sent to Paris; I would assume that’s the official U.S. ‘participation’
I agree. Forty world leaders and no US presence. Perhaps someone smarter than me can explain this because it is noticeable and bothersome.
A soon to be ex-Attorney General. Not a major American presence.
Yes. I wondered about that – symbolically it doesn’t look too good. I’ve heard from political friends in DC that Obama was perceived as maybe too distracting a presence, that this is primarily a time for Europeans. The U.S. is now organizing a major anti-terrorist summit for the allies.
What does being Jewish have to do with anything, bevhills?
Pizzagirl: I am an American who happens to be Jewish. In other words my life is not (for better or worse) predicated on being Jewish. My issue is not religious. I know people who state quite definitely say that they are Jews first, and they are living in the United States…for now. I do not start every question with: Is it good for the Jews?
Since CNN just brought up the question where was the American participation in this march? I guess I am not alone in the question.
We were represented by our Ambassador to France. He marched; Holder did not. Sec. Kerry also addressed the people of France in French several days ago.
I would have liked to have seen a more senior representative march today.
Given the deliberate attack on the kosher grocery along with many other anti-Semitic incidents, many commentators are raising non-trivial questions about the future viability of the the third largest Jewish community in the world. Jewish emigration has been spiking, and the community feels under siege. This is paradoxically the country that brought us both Jewish emancipation during the French Revolution, and the Dreyfuss affair a century later. Prior to WWII many might have predicted a holocaust being more likely in France than Germany.
I think that the presence of the US Pres or VP would have been a huge security nightmare for the French. John Kerry could have gone. But I would venture to guess that the French were significantly involved in any decision as to who to send. Is this going to be used as yet another stick to beat Barack Obama with? Please.
I wondered if it was a security nightmare, but am not thrilled with the lack of significant presence. Its just a continuing thing where we don’t engage.
Why would it be a security nightmare to have a US presence among a million people and the leaders of 40 other nations? It looked bad.
agree just wondered if there was more too it. I am tired of USA looking weak and uninvolved.
Just read on Haaretz that Netanyahu was told not to come, but came anyway, so the French invited Abbas. The French didn’t want this to be about Israel vs Palestine.
The US President not being there didn’t bother me. The US should have a presence, but not necessarily the president. My perception of this is as primarily a French/European event. Yes, we are also against terrorism and anti Semitism and hate crimes, but I think that sending Obama would have changed the focus of the event.
^^ I agree that it should have been primarily an French/European thing, and I don’t see Obama not being there as a problem per se. But the lack of higher-up representation, besides the ambassador and Hoder who apparently just happened to have been in Paris then, that seems awkward. Biden, Kerry or even Clinton (who you KNOW would have loved to be there) would have looked better.
OTOH, if it’s true the French didn’t want Netenyahu – hmmm.
Clinton? No we cannot send an ex-president to line up with current world leaders just because he’s an American. That would just make people wonder where our current president was, which they do.
That’s your opinion, not the opinion of a couple of people on CNN both of whom mentioned him as a possibility. There’s plenty of precedent in sending former presidents to represent the U.S. Both Clinton and Bush #1 have done it after their presidencies were over, in fact they did it together at least on one occasion (in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake).
http://ktla.com/2015/01/11/nypd-on-high-alert-after-isis-releases-videotaped-threat/
Haiti was a charity effort which is hardly comparable to a war on terror which we have apparently decided is over, although someone needs to tell the enemy. And, yes, of course it’s my opinion but I am not exactly out here all by myself despite what a couple of people may have said on CNN. Sigh.
They worked together OFFICIALLY in the aftermath of the tsunami, and again on behalf of Haiti. As to “a couple of people on CNN” – well, I’d rather take seriously the opinion of people with PhDs, diplomatic and journalistic experience, than you, marie.
I really like how people who disagree on this forum assume stuff about posters. It’s endlessly amusing.
And on this one I’m not even sure we disagree. You just seem a little confused.