If we are to believe the non-doctor but comic Meurice (or so-called, and not the palace of the same name which was Nazi during the occupation, a fair word for a hotel) and the cretins who laughed at his word and applauded him the other morning on France-Inter, circumcision, or posthectomy as said above, would be reserved only for Jews.

     Like any joke of schoolboy, hers, like mine, sucks.

     Null, because the removal of the foreskin, if it is partial, is first and foremost a surgical procedure that allows those who suffer from phimosis, or paraphimosis, (and there are more than we think), to have a normal sexuality, i.e. to untuck the glans before or, conversely, to cover it up after mating. If the removal is complete, the glans is freed from all constraints. But also a question of hygiene, avoiding children, but also adults, various purulent infections due to the impossibility of proper cleaning of the glans. Herodotus, who is a mine for his historical descendants, reports that Egyptian priests, as early as the fifth century BC, practiced circumcision. From this I would tend to deduce a copy/(un)paste from the religions practicing this excision in order to avoid poor bodily and sexual hygiene of their flock. But I could be wrong, not having studied the decapitated subject very closely, despite an intervention of this type on one of my sons.

    Null also and especially, for it is not only the Jewish religion that subjects young children to this resection, including Jesus eight days after his birth; Moreover, at the beginning of Christendom, there was a long debate as to whether or not this ectomy was of interest. Islam followed and generalized the ritual. The practice is also common among Christians in the Middle East, almost all Protestant churches, in populations in North America, Oceania, the Philippines, Africa, and even widespread in South Korea. To this non-exhaustive list I obviously add all the miscreants suffering from this annoying defect of the adherent foreskin. That is practically one-sixth of the Earth's population, or even about a billion male individuals who are likely not to appreciate Meurice, who suggests that the absence of a foreskin makes them adhere to Nazi barbarism. Or the other way around, so great is the ambiguity of this vulgar nonsense.

     Consequently, to compare Netanyahu to a Nazi without foreskin is a crass imbecility.First of all, because there could have been, or can, be Nazis without foreskins, knowing that no one is immune to this anatomical discomfort, Aryan or not. Secondly, because it should have been added that the Hamas terrorists were also circumcised  Nazis,  if not a little more so. Then,  because Israel, as I said in a previous post, warned the population of the bombardments that Tsahal was going to carry out, which was not part of the Nazi culture of warning before invading and annexing France, for example, via the Ardennes when they were expected on the Vosges side.

     In conclusion, I would say that those who scoff at circumcision are stupid beings with foreskins, but without culture. And bloody fools when they insidiously associate it, in order to create a buzz, with a category of earthlings because of their religion, customs, or anatomy, with an infamous ideology.

     Finally, a question nags at me, is Meurice circumcised? For don't they say that the best comic is the one who laughs at himself? Thus it would be half forgivable. But I don't think so. As a result, it is an acorn with foreskin who hangs about in sketches ludicrous and vulgars.

*From the Greek posthia: foreskin and ectomy: section by removing (medical dictionary)

** Hérodote - livre 2(Euterpe) - XXXVII - traduction Larcher