#1: Women with high powered assault rifles
(never call ’em chicks. Trust me.)

Do I really need to say more? Nope. Just click below for more pics …

Never have I felt so secure.

Follow me

About the author


Founder and Publisher of Jewlicious, David Abitbol lives in Jerusalem with his wife, newborn daughter and toddler son. Blogging as "ck" he's been blocked on twitter by the right and the left, so he's doing something right.


  • Muffti sometimes has women who are very angry with him. He’s not sure that the answer is to find a country where they all have scary firearms. Then again, it might keep him in check.

  • Muffti thanks Rafael for a good idea. Not a great idea, mind you. At best a good one.

  • awesome pics!!!!!
    I took some similar pics while I was there too (mostly to e-mail back to my mom in Canada to scare her. you know…Canadians and guns don’t mingle well).

  • Hope you dont mind me using one of the pictures in one of my posts…

  • so these are all great reasons for a guy to make aliyah but what about a girl?….wait hot israeli soldiers says enough..never mind 😉

  • Yeah girls with guns are super sexy. I have a French-canadian “friend” and she was discusted when i told her that hahaa…she like your not a pacafist are you…umm let me think about that uhhh NO!! War solves nothing but, ending slavery, genocides, free countries, freeing people…but who really needs all of that anyway…stupid canadians…sry if i offended anyone but really…who needs canda anyway (lol j/k)—kinda
    BUT a girl with a m-16 on her back…hottness!! not the gun…the girl!!!!

  • Not Chicks
    Jewlicious, a fun blog, has, apropos of not much, some photos of women in Israel: Girls With Guns: I’m hoping my wife will, once more, forgive me when I reveal that besides her, and Isabella Rossellini, and Indian women, I find Israeli women to be the…

  • Grandmuffti sez: “Never have I felt so secure.”

    Well Mr. Muffti, I feel somewhat different. Like Garth in Wayne’s World, “They make me feel sorta funny.”

    It’ll pass. Or………..not.

    PS glad you had fun with the Mikester in NOLA. Liked the pic of you eating alligator. Mikester told you that that stuff is treyf, right?

  • Ummn…Pete, Muffti never said that. At least, he doesn’t recall saying that. Mike informed me of the treyf-ness of ‘gator. Muffti doesn’t mind spitting God in the eye once in a while. (He can already hear ck whimpering about Olam Ha’bah)

  • Don’t be a tool muffti. Eat whatever you like. There are some very real world implications to your dining decisions – but hey – it IS a free country. Do what you like.

  • I hear alligator stocks worldwide are diminishing as we write because of Muffti’s preference for their meat, not to mention their skin for his handbag.

  • Muffti has no handbag. And as for real world implications, I’m pretty sure that 2$ worth of deep fried alligators is going to tip no scales.

  • But Muffti, you’re an atheist, a god that does not exist can have no eye to spit in.

  • Muffti acknowledges that, if taken literally, ‘spit in God’s eye’ commits the speaker to the existence of an x, such that x = God. So, a charitable reader would realize that ‘spit in God’s eye’ is a figure of speech. If I thought there was a God, Muffti can guarantee you that he wouldn’t go around spitting in his eyes!

  • i should hope not, especially because if x does exist and x=the jewish god specifically, and one chooses to believe in y, where y=jewish teaching on the existence of x, and y unequivocally states that x has no physical being whatsoever, and a physical existence within x of an “eye” in which to spit would then prove the fallacy of y which might mean that because x is physical, x does not exist.

  • Muffti is curious: does y unequivocally state that God has no physical being? Doesn’t God announce (in Shemot?) that he has a face, a hand and a back and that Moses will in effect see his backside?

    But,” He said, “you cannot see My face, for man may not see Me and live.” And the Lord said, “See, there is a place near Me. Station yourself on the rock and, as My Presence passes by, I will put you in a cleft of the rock and shield you with My hand until I have passed by. Then I will take My hand away and you will see My back; but My face must not be seen.

    If God can have a face, why can’t he have an eye?

  • weren’t you even a little impressed by my logic? 🙁

    To answer your question, the incorporeality of God is Rambam’s 3rd of 13 principals of faith so I’m pretty sure the hands and stuff is just anthropomorphism.

  • Muffti was very impresssed and should have said so. You rule!

    Anyhow, Muffti guesses that if God is incorporeal, then Muffti agrees: the spitting in the eye will have to an entirely metaphorical spitting into an entirely metaphorical eye.

  • Rambam goes into a lot of detail in the Mishneh Torah about how “the Torah speaks in the language of man,” but (with no disrespect to the Rambam himself), I don’t find his explanation of verses like the one in Shemot very compelling. Basically, his line of reasoning is, “G-d is absolutely incorporeal, therefore verses like that are metaphor designed for human understanding.” Which isn’t a very satisfying argument for me, because it presumes something that seems to be contradicted.

    I think he goes into deeper detail on that particular quote, or at least one of the commentators in the Mishneh Torah does, or maybe I just heard this from someone when I complained that verse made no sense: what G-d is actually offering Moshe is not a physical glimpse of his own form, but, as Moshe was the greatest of the prophets, an understanding of the will and being of G-d. So, at least according to that explanation, it should be something like:

    “But,” He said, “you cannot fully understand my being, for man may not comprehend the totality of Me and live.”

    So G-d was allowing Moshe to be introduced to as much of the mind of G-d, so to speak, as was possible before Moshe’s own mind couldn’t take it anymore.

    I’ll admit, I’m still not entirely convinced myself. It would seem if the Torah “speaks in the language of man,” it would not use such abstract and circuitous metaphors.

  • Muffti likes what Michael has to say. Attributing metaphors with no obvious point is a sign of desperation.

  • How are the metaphors abstract and circuitous? Besides, are you doubting Man’s ability to think abstractly? Certainly compared to the notion of an omniscient being, abstract is relatively easy.

    And what does any of this have to do with hot chayalot?

  • I’m not doubting man in general’s ability to think abstractly, although I am doubting said ability of ancient Hebrews somewhat. I mean, Rambam arrived at this conclusion with the help of the philosophical systems of the Greeks and Arabs. What would an uneducated post-Exodus Hebrew make of it?

    Although, interestingly, a lingust will tell you that ancient Hebrew is a “concrete” language, lacking a vocabulary for many abstract notions, which reflects the culture and mindset of the language’s speakers. Usually in languages like that, abstract concepts are represented physically. As a random example, in a concrete language, the word for strength, which cannot be conceptualized, would have something to do with say, tree roots, which are a visual representation of strength. So it might be similar with the ancient Hebrew of the Torah trying to explain something like an omniscient god, which would really be beyond the limited vocabulary of a bunch of itinerant ex-slaves 3300 years ago in the desert.

    Oh yeah. Israel soldier girls are fuckin’ hot, yo.

  • I cannot thank you enough for the pics [(one of which is my new wallpaper) Is that wrong?]. We are just a good looking natioin, I guess they don’t call us the chosen people for nothin’.

  • Matityahu: do you want a high res version of the pic? It would make for a better wallpaper. Use our contact us form and I’ll email it to ya. Just specify the one you want.

  • Nice bitches, I would really love fucking one of them:) Better all of them:)

  • Учи албанский, жывотное!