Now that Joel Laloux lives in Israel – recall that he and his brother Pascal sold the Bataclan Theater two months before terrorists assaulted it on 13 November – I was curious whether he had spoken publicly about the tragedy from his new home.

Twitter seemed a good place to start the search for evidence.  Once I entered Laloux’s name, at the top of the list appeared a tweet titled “Conspiracy Talk” by @WickChris.  Here is what this fellow posted for the entire world to see – note the “oddly” and exclamation point innuendos:

French Jew Joel Laloux owned the venue for 40 years but oddly decided to part with it two months before the attack!

Say what? As I was doing research for my American Thinker article, I wondered whether anyone in the blogosphere entertained the silly notion that it was not coincidence that Joel and Pascal Laloux sold their property a “mere” two months before the terrorist attack.  Now I need wonder no longer.  What @WickChris posted recently tells us where his head is at:

They [no, not the Martians] don’t even hide anymore that the aim is to annex the #WestBank and eventually drive out the #PalestinianPeople from their homeland.

Back to Joel Laloux, currently enjoying retirement in the Mediterranean coastal city of Ashdod, about 20 miles south of Tel Aviv.  The view I expressed in my article, for which I thought I provided ample evidence, was that the Bataclan made the terrorist hit list because it was a Jewish target.  To my surprise, Monsieur Laloux would have none of it. He told NPR that “it is dangerous to believe the theater was targeted because of its long Jewish ownership.”  He went on to explain why such a belief is “dangerous”:

“I think that’s dangerous because people can [think], Oh, it's not against the Occident," he says, using a once-common term to describe Western countries. "It's not against France. It's against this place because they are Jewish ... oh, now we understand.”

What about this?

We’ve heard a similar argument before: “Bombing the Nazi death camps would have given the impression that WWII was about saving the Jews rather than defeating Hitler, therefore ...”  I doubt Monsieur Laloux would have enjoyed the company of folks who made this argument at the time, which still has its adherents.

In any case, he need not have worried, because the Bataclan’s Jewish connection got hardly any press.  Because most of the Paris targets the terrorists assaulted on 13 November were not Jewish, the suggestion that the larger picture would have been obscured by noting that one of the targets was Jewish is a stretch, to say the least.

Leaving out any mention of a religious motivation behind the Paris attacks is, of course, absurd.  The terrorists were Muslims – as were those who took down our Twin Towers – engaged in jihad against the Judeo-Christian West, no doubt sanctioned by their imams.  What is dangerous is refusing to face this fact, which Obama, Hillary Clinton, Comrade Bernie, and the left generally stubbornly refuse to do.  Recall also that George W. Bush characterized Islam as “a religion of peace” even after the 9/11 attacks, a bit of delusional fiction that persists to this day in some GOP quarters.

Laloux seems to have joined the Israeli left rather quickly in insisting that centuries-long Muslim animosity toward Jews should be downplayed, presumably to avoid jeopardizing the prospects of peace and the Eden that miraculously would follow the establishment of a “Palestinian State.”  This delusion includes the belief that current Middle East conflicts are entirely political – i.e., purely secular – and that their resolution is to be reached through diplomacy.

History says otherwise.  Charles Martel knew he could not strike a political bargain with the invading Moors, who had already established an Iberian caliphate they ruled with an iron fist.  The Battle of Tours (732 AD) took place not because negotiations broke down between (ahem) Jean de Querrie-Bateaurapide and an envoy of the Moorish honcho Emir Abd-ar-Rahman.  Rather, Christian France wanted nothing to do with Muslim rule, and so the battle was joined.  When the Franks killed the overconfident Rahman, who was inadequately guarded, his army fell into disarray, and that was that – for the time being, anyway.  Martel would oppose the Muslims for the rest of his life, but their occupation of Iberia would continue for several centuries.  Christian Europe understood, if only for a while, that force of arms is necessary to stem the Muslim tide.

Socialist France seems to have forgotten what it took to make sure that a mosque is not situated on Rue Lavoisier in Tours instead of the St. Gatien Cathedral.  In light of the current Muslim invasion of Europe, there is reason to doubt that this building will still be there in fifty years.  Come to think of it, our own president and his Democrat supporters appear determined to get America ready for a similar outcome, evidently looking forward to the day when a mosque will replace the Washington Cathedral on Wisconsin Avenue.  Just think: the Muslim call for prayer Obama loves so much, heard within earshot of the vice presidential residence at the U.S. Naval Observatory and only a few camel stops from the White House.

Finally, Y.K. Cherson’s blog post on the real goals of Muslim immigration seems to me required reading and deserves wide distribution.  Donald Trump is the only GOP candidate who has had the guts to raise some of the same concerns and has had the foresight to focus his campaign on an issue with far broader implications than initially realized – namely, immigration.  The ability to anticipate the course of significant events is critical in a world leader, for which alone Trump deserves the White House and not just the Republican nomination.