Day 17: Joos
by MC
I was talking to V today. V is from South Germany. She was up on that ‘hill’ at the same sort of time as the journalist who complained about the cheering. V was unaware of any cheering or intimidation, and we have been unable to corroborate the journalist’s statement. More disinformation?
A commenter yesterday was accusing Joos of being professional ‘victims’ along with other Semitic peoples. Today three soldiers of my son’s unit died in street fighting in Gaza; it could have been him. There are those who pretend to be victims, and those whom history shows to be targeted every time the opportunity arises. All through today there has been a heavy bombardment going on, and all today, the advance of Islam has been reversed, if only temporarily. The world should be thanking us, but instead they curse us. This victimhood is for REAL.
The York massacre happened because the Joos were too rich and too successful for the populace:
The massacre of 1190 was a horrific catalogue of violence and murder driven by religious intolerance and the greed of those who owed the leading Jewish money-lenders money. And it was sadly only one of countless incidents of mob-violence against Jewish communities across England and Western Europe in the Middle Ages.
Is this any different to Europe in 2014?
Today has been loud. We seem to have war all around us, and an Iron Dome intercept overhead just now rained shrapnel on us. It whines like one of those fireworks with a spinner inside.
The situation here reminds me of Byron*:
The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold,
And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold;
And the sheen of their spears was like stars on the sea,
When the blue wave rolls nightly on deep Galilee.Like the leaves of the forest when Summer is green,
That host with their banners at sunset were seen:
Like the leaves of the forest when Autumn hath blown,
That host on the morrow lay withered and strown.For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,
And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed;
And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill,
And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!And there lay the steed with his nostril all wide,
But through it there rolled not the breath of his pride;
And the foam of his gasping lay white on the turf,
And cold as the spray of the rock-beating surf.And there lay the rider distorted and pale,
With the dew on his brow, and the rust on his mail:
And the tents were all silent, the banners alone,
The lances unlifted, the trumpet unblown.And the widows of Ashur are loud in their wail,
And the idols are broke in the temple of Baal;
And the might of the Gentile, unsmote by the sword,
Hath melted like snow in the glance of the Lord.
* From “The Destruction of Sennacherib”, by George Gordon, Lord Byron.
MC lives in the southern Israeli city of Sderot. For his previous essays, see the MC Archives.
In the past, it was blood libel and the greedy money-lender – probably influenced by the infiltration of Mohammedanism in the Christian West – that justified the expropriation, persecution and murder of Jews. Now that those pretexts are no longer respectable in the West, thanks to the Nazis, a more acceptable (maybe also respectable) one is the evil Jewish State of Israel. Israel is only a pretext. The real motive is hatred of Jews. When I hear someone going off about Israel, the red flag of motivation immediately comes to mind.
Similar massacres happened in many European countries until well into the early 19th century, and in Eastern Europe until much later. But there were three other important reasons, chasms, really:
1. Jews lived and made a living chiefly in small towns and villages, amidst the peasant population and often acting as lease holders or appointees on behalf of the local nobleman or higher aristocrat. In that milieu, they were the only literate segment of the population, save only for the cleric and the lord of the manor and his closet aides.
2. Religious zealotry and bigotry were rampant, and Jews were, and in some backward parts of Europe still are, the “Christ killers” hated for their deicide. It wasn’t in the interest of the Church to illuminate the faithful that Jesus, his family, all his disciples, apostles and St. Paul were Jews themselves, the Gospel of St. Matthew was written by a Jew, and for nearly its entire first 70 years, all Chrisitans were Jews and the Christian Church itself (the Nazarenes) was presided over by Jesus brother whose name was not James by Yaakov.
3. The Jews kept to themselves and didn’t mingle with the goyim, ate their food or followed their customs. That was sorely resented as multiculturalism was not the preferred social template then.
Hashem has not, will not, cannot forsake the Land of Israel.
Is this any different to Europe in 2014?
Europe in 2014 is not the Europe that the indigenous white inhabitants of Europe wanted it to be. As Takuan Seiyo says:
While my sympathies go to the beleagered French Jews, one who understands that the truth is the key to all and everything will not fail to notice that they themselves are largely responsible for the indignities they suffer now. For those with a short fuse and attention deficit: no, it’s not “blame the victim.” It’s a simple recognition of the fact that in France, like in the United States, the Jewish community has been a major pillar of the “progressive” persuasion of tolerance, “inclusion,” anti-”racism,” LGBT-mongering, feminism and, not the least, rapprochement with the Musulman with a never-die hope of “dialogue,” “hand-extended-in-friendship” and what not.
Look for example at the Web page of the most important Jewish org in France, CRIF, whose principal mission is stated as “combating all forms of antisemitism, racism, intolerance and exclusion” http://www.crif.org/lecrifenaction/lutter-contre-le-racisme-et-l%E2%80%99antis%C3%A9mitisme/5. Look at similar Web pages at the American equivalents like ADL, HIAS, Bnei Brith etc. and realize that the large anti-Israeli demonstration in the United States, the heckling of Jews and barely restrained violence against them — in America too — are the result of policies that no American demographic segment supports more than the Jews: immigration, tolerance, anti-”racism,” supporting the parties and interests of the Left, etc., etc. — ad nauseam. Somehere, all that intersects with the Soros machine as well, Zionism excepted.
So when will someone stop beating around the bush and address the Jewish community there or here with some presentation about reality as it is, and not as they wish it were, and about the consequences of tampering with the former?
https://gatesofvienna.net/2014/07/nightmare-in-the-marais-district/#comment-373167
Notice that there are two groups to whom the tolerance of ‘Multiculturalism’ does not apply, bible believing Christians and Jews (whether bible believing or not).
You list a series of ‘misdemeanours’ of French Jews, do Jews not have the right to be socialists/progressives then? no political freedom for Jews?
You’ll have to do a bit better with your accusations, none of the above is a crime, and all are permissible under the first amendment.
‘Someone’ hates ‘socialism’ with a vengeance, but will support anybody’s right to be a Socialist as more important than his own personal views and prejudices.
MC, you miss the point, and mis-state what’s the actual reality. Far from considering it a misdemeanor, postmodern socialist France loves Jewish socialists and grants them some of the highest places in its social pecking order — as does the UK (think Miliband, Hobsbawn, Laski). The point I was making was that Jewish postmodern socialism-multiculturalism is lethally toxic — for Jews, above all.
You will do yourself a favor by not lashing out in knee-jerk defense of your ethny, for not everyone who criticizes its specimens, or even the majority of them, is a knee-jerk antisemitic bigot. Rather, he may be a philosemite who shakes his head in sorrow and amazement at what diaspora Jews (and Israeli lefties too) are doing to themselves.
“Rather, he may be a philosemite who shakes his head in sorrow and amazement at what diaspora Jews (and Israeli lefties too) are doing to themselves.”
This whole argument is rather ‘self-centered’ upon Jews where we are supposed to say, “Poor Jews are their own worst enemy” without also acknowledging that Jews are the worst enemy of Western Christian civilization.
One wishes that Jews were ONLY endangering themselves, but Jews are going to take the rest of us down with them.
A similar argument is made when people say, “Muslims are the worst victims of Islam” without understanding that ALL Muslims benefit from the implementation of Sharia Law over ALL non-Muslims, so non-Muslims are the worst victims of Islam.
So exactly who is ‘lashing out?’ and ‘knee jerking’?
You contradict yourself. According to you Jews are persecuted because “they” espouse multicultural policies.
Medieval societies were monocultural except for the few Jews or other small groups. (And in many if not most areas Jews were forbidden to own land and forbidden to join guilds so they worked in the occupations open to them.) In medieval Europe, although no one espoused multicultural policies (that would have been an anachronism), Jews were persecuted.
Frankly, it appears that you will bend over backward, as the saying goes, to find reasons to dislike the Joos.
P.S. This last comment of mine was directed to Blessed Foot Forward.
Independent,
I am not sure what BF Forward meant by quoting what I had written, but I’ll reiterate what I meant in the context of the original post. Yes, Jews are disliked for their support of multiculti policies, tolerance, immigration, Muzification etc. But they are so disliked, for that reason, only by the small minority of rightwing autochthon patriots, for instance the kind of Frenchmen who support Front National in France. But my point was different altogether: jews are not merely disliked but actively hated, beaten up, murdered and looted — by the very people whom Jewish compassion, charity, exaggereted perception of “social justice,,” blind devotion to ever-growing immigration and similarly blind enmity to anything that smacks of “racism” brings into the countries where Jewish activism thrives or encourages them from within. In countries like France, UK, Netherlands, those beneficiaries who hate their benefactors are Muslim immigrants.
As to the Middle Ages, Jews were not hated because they espoused multiculturalism. One of the three reasons I cited above is that society was indeed monocultural, but Jews kept to themselves, spoke a different language, followed a different religion, customs etc. It’s not because they espoused in the 15 th century the postmodern theory of “multiculturalism” but because they were organically a different people, and not just because they were disliked but because they zealously wanted to be separate and different.
Takuan, do you not think that the Jews in the West who oppose immigration controls, and anything that could possibly be construed as being racist as you say. Do so because historically they have had so much to fear from indigenous populations. They feel (albeit mistakenly) that even though they may have lived within those Western countries for hundreds of years. If they were acquiescent in western governments controlling Muslim immigration and deporting Muslims whom are deemed to be png. That they too, may one day fall into that same category. A sort of: “we either hang together or we’ll be hung together” mentality. Even though those Muslims who are the beneficiaries of this (Jewish) activism you describe, would be the first ones to hang them, if they ever became powerful enough to do so?
PS. I always enjoy reading your articles and posts on here. P.B.
I do not have much to add to Takuan’s words here. I can elaborate on the individual conflicts and dispel the myths solely blaming Europeans for these events, and add a few other Jewish political activities which were or appeared threatening to local European communities, but in general we can simply state that both Europeans and Jews suffered from fears and prejudices which are natural in any multi-ethnic society.
The explanation of the York incident may be correct, and it may not be, but a simple explanation from a single source shouldn’t be taken for granted, simply because a Jewish reader assumes his ancestors never did no wrong or because the gentile reader believes no one but a “evil bigoted Nazi” would ever criticize Jewish communities.
Just like when we discuss the history of the slave-trade or the crusades, we must be aware that politically correct biases tend to skew(often strongly) the narrative in favour of non-Europeans and against the Europeans.
@Patrick Brompton
The sense of vulnerability European Jews felt has indeed often influenced their political decisions. Even though this is understandable, it did exacerbate tensions by ensuring that the political interests of Jews differed from those of the local gentiles.
Another aspect is that Jews are often incredibly loyal to the international Jewish diaspora, which conflicts with loyalties to the gentile nations they live in. This has caused tensions and conflicts time and time again in European and European-American history.
Oz —
But which came first, Jewish loyalty to their co-religionists ahead the nation they lived in, or the hostility directed against them by the non-Jewish majority they were surrounded by? It seems to me that this is a chicken-or-egg issue.
Additionally, in the Middle Ages there were no “nations” as we now understand them. There were only Christians and non-Christians, allegiance to the feudal lord, and chauvinism of a sort, based on local affiliations. So “nationalism” as such is an anachronistic way to view the situation.
I would not expect a contemporary account that is unfavorable to the Christian community, and also written by someone in the Christian community, to be inaccurate. There would have been no incentive for the chronicler to lie in order to make the Christian murderers of those Jews look evil — quite the opposite, in fact.
So your argument fails on the merits.
It’s hard to accept that Christian Europeans did evil deeds for simple, evil, venal reasons, isn’t it?
They were able to do so because Christians were an overwhelming majority. Perhaps Jews would have acted as badly if the proportions had been reversed, but we have no way of knowing. During the entire history of Christianity, Jews have never been in the majority in ANY community, except for the last 70 years in Israel.
Since 1948, of course, they have carried out vicious pogroms against the Christian minority in Israel, as we all know…
@The Baron
Its indeed a “chicken or the egg” situation, but it matters little who started it. Fact is that both Europeans and Jews pursued different political objectives throughout European history, and these often clashed. Instead of condemning those who point this out(not accusing you or anyone else here), we should look at these events and allow them to teach us how and why multi-ethnic societies always fail. Both Israeli Jews and Europeans should embrace a more critical reading of these conflicts as it aids us in explaining why multi-cultural societies always fail, this in turn strengthens our arguments for tight border controls and the right to remain an ethnic majority in our homelands.
“It’s hard to accept that Christian Europeans did evil deeds for simple, evil, venal reasons, isn’t it?”
Not at all, but I object to those who claim an explanation of the events in York are applicable to all European-Jews conflicts. I can’t say what the correct explanation of the York events is, these chroniclers may simply have been cherry-picked, but I don’t disagree that this explanation could be correct. You can’t blame me for being suspicious, if I had a tendency to believe official sources or “accepted history”, I would consider the crusades an act of “hostile imperialism against the ubertolerant and peaceful Muslims in the middle-east”.
“They were able to do so because Christians were an overwhelming majority”
Hence, Jewish intellectuals developed the multicultural model.
Oz —
Considering that medieval Jews were a tiny, powerless minority in Europe, their “political objectives” could hardly have been anything other than simple survival. They did not have any political power of their own — they were entirely dependent on the protection of the sovereign, the local liege lord, and the Church authorities.
What precise “political objectives” were you thinking of?
As I said, it is impossible to find out how Jews would have behaved had they been in the majority, and the Christians the tiny minority. They are human beings, like us, so they may have exhibited the same rough mixture of good and evil that we did. But there is no way to tell. Modern Israel remains the sole example of a political entity in which Jews have constituted a majority, anywhere, anytime since the destruction of the Temple and the Diaspora.
Takuan,
Yes, of course. In the middle ages they were they were the “other.” And of course medieval society was monocultural. But you are leaving out the fact that because they were different, they were easy prey and easy scapegoats.
But when Jews thought they had assimilated–with a very reform type of Judaism resembling Unitarianism–in pre-WWII Germany, it turned out that they were “the other” anyway.
And destroyed anyway. I can well understand why many would adopt multicultural policies which supposedly would keep them safer. And instead, these policies led to the mass immigration of 3rd world Muslims who would like to destroy them. But as some general said, we tend to fight the last way, not the current one.
“It’s hard to accept that Christian Europeans did evil deeds for simple, evil, venal reasons, isn’t it?”
Actually, that is an excellent summary of the PC MC environment. The present difficulty would be to accept that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, and/or Communists have done, and are doing, and plan to do evil deeds for simple, evil, venal reasons.
“Perhaps Jews would have acted as badly if the proportions had been reversed, but we have no way of knowing.”
Perhaps? Are we exempting Jews from original sin, now? All humans act badly due to original sin and sin.
We DO have a way to know how Jews would have acted. We can examine their behavior as a very wealthy and powerful Western minority. In the USA, the Jews are the primary funders of the Democrat Party – which is inflicting stealth pogroms of voter fraud, mass immigration, and Obamacare on the traditional Western Christian majority.
Pogrom – “A pogrom is a violent riot aimed at massacre or persecution of an ethnic or religious group, particularly one aimed at Jews.”
Takuan,
Typo: We have a tendency to fight the *last* war, not the current one.
@Baron
Jews in the USA only constitute 2 to 3% of the US population, but they have been extremely influential even prior to the first world war. Throughout history Jewish minorities gained political power disproportional to their numbers. Bolshevik Russia is another example, or 1919 Hungary.
“What precise “political objectives” were you thinking of?”
You mention their intention to “merely survive”, but this should be phrased differently, as their intention was actually not to blend in or integrate within the gentile community. Even those in York could apparently simply convert to save their families, they did not do so. Other political objectives may be getting closer to local gentile elites by making exceptions to their tradition of endogamy. The mother of King Ferdinand had Jewish ancestry, for example.
Now, I know little(nothing, basically)of the events in York, but I don’t see why the local Jewish community couldn’t have attempted to influence local politics or protect their position by building partnerships with local elites, and either of those tactics blowing up in their face as has happened throughout Jewish history. If I was Jewish, and intended on not being absorbed by the local population, I would do exactly the same.
Again, I know little of York, but even if it was an outburst of unsolicited hatred, it shouldn’t be simply used as a template to explain every single “antisemitic”event. I just read a review by Harold Goldmeier which stated:
“The Europeans brought their ancient religious hatred of the Jews to North Africa.”
Such simplistic generalizations bother me, there was no “ancient religious hatred” in Europe, most events I have read about can be explained by tensions between the Jews and Europeans which involved political errors on both sides.
PS: Do you believe that Europeans across the world can successfully combat multicultural ideology as long as we are afraid to discuss the shortcomings of Jews or believe our ancestors where but ignorant bigots?
How is pride in our history possible, and how do we foster a culture where criticism is considered normal in such an environment?
No need for an answer, its a subject I have been struggling with for a while.
Oz —
I’m referring only to the political objectives of European Jews in the Middle Ages, not to modern American Jews. The political objectives of Jews in 12th-century must have been fairly simple — to survive and prosper in an environment where they could be wiped out the instant royal political patronage was withdrawn. They could field no army, nor mount effective resistance against any concerted effort to destroy them. So their political options were quite limited.
If one believes the chronicle (which you apparently do not) the massacre at York was not a matter of simple “hatred”, but rather the deliberate manipulation of Christian antipathy towards Jews by unscrupulous nobles who thus hoped to obliterate a crushing load of debt to Jewish moneylenders. According to the chronicle, they succeeded, and escaped punishment as well.
It’s true that Jews could avoid such dire circumstances by converting and being baptized, and some actually did so in some places. But according to the chronicle, the Jews of York preferred to keep their ancestral faith, and died as a result. I don’t know whether I would have had the spiritual strength to do the same if I had been in their place.
But I’m interested in your larger agenda, because it is clear that you have one. You admit that you know “nothing, basically” of the events of 1190 in York. Yet you question the accuracy of the chronicle written by Christians (which you have not read) of the barbarous and horrific events that occurred back then.
Why?
If you’re interested in the truth insofar as it can be ascertained, the chronicles written by people who were alive at the time, plus the archaeology (which is mentioned in the article) are the best we can do. Yet, according to you, they are insufficient.
Why do you doubt the written record of the events of those days — events of which you admit your own ignorance?
What makes the existing record unsatisfactory to you?
What “narrative” would you prefer, and why?
Why do you feel the need to so persistently object to the written chronicle of something that occurred in England more than eight hundred years ago?
Go ahead, explain yourself. I’m listening.
Because “all government is local,” despots such as past Kings – and present European bureaucrats – always prefer to rule from afar to avoid being violently overthrown by the oft-abused citizenry.
From reading the link provided, it appears that the local Jews were paid quite handsomely to serve the interests of the faraway King instead of attending to the needs of the local populace – and, unfortunately for the Jews (and their families), the local populace had immediate access to the Jews but not the King when they acted against what they interpreted as intolerable despotism (with debt being used then – as now – as a violent weapon of oppression against the local populace).
Written by men who had experienced despotism, the Declaration of Independence continues to instruct, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
As a counterpoint, centuries later, did the French Christian mob murder Marie Antoinette and her relations because they were Jews? No! Rather, Marie Antoinette and her relations were symbols and/or beneficiaries of despotism.
I would argue that the Christians murdered the Jews of York as symbols and/or beneficiaries of despotism – rather than as Jews.
If I were to say that the money-lending Jews were so ‘greedy’ that it led directly to their deaths, then I would be castigated and called an anti-Semite using time-worn stereotypes of Jews. Yet, the quotation above casually calls the white Europeans ‘greedy’ with nary an eyebrow being raised – which is an appalling double standard.
Here is a better article: http://ddickerson.igc.org/cliffords-tower.html
“The rage of the mob was kept alive by the exhortations of a monk, who celebrated mass every morning in his white robes in front of the tower. A stone falling from the battlements [controlled by the Jews] killed the monk; his death infuriated the mob to a still higher degree.
“The hapless Jews were short of rations; surrender spelled baptism or death by torture. In obedience to the exhortations of their religious leader, Yom Tob of Joigny, they chose to lay hands on themselves. . . . When, at daybreak, the [burning] citadel was captured, those who were still alive were put to death. . . . The mob then returned to the cathedral where the records of debts due to Jews were in safe-keeping. They compelled the guardians to turn these over to them to be burned then and there in the sanctuary. This done, the fury of the mob was spent, and the city was restored to its usual order and quiet. Similarly the mobs raged elsewhere. . . .”
A word to the wise:
The key is that local leaders MUST care for the locals – or risk losing their lives and/or status – whether those local leaders are Jewish – or not.
@Baron
Excuse me for answering this late. My agenda is quite clear, I wish to open up the debate concerning Jewish ethnic activism. The current narrative claims that European gentiles continually harassed the Jewish communities without any previously negative input from the Jewish community. This is historically incorrect, but also punishes Europeans with a false sense of guilt, which disables them from standing up against the multiculturalism and the displacement of their people. As actions are always perceived through historical context, the European always feels he is walking on the edge of something terrible when he protests his displacement. How different is he really from his forebears who “assaulted and brutalized” minorities for no reason?
How different are his compatriots who push back a little bit harder?
Besides those Europeans who draw a direct connection between the false historical narrative(and are thus PC), this European cannot be confident about his right to defend his nation/people. Once this European understands reality was much different, and tensions grew between Jews and Europeans because of the actions of both parties, he no longer believes that “racism can rise for no apparent reason”. This false belief has held us back, and must be destroyed. This can only be done by looking differently at our history.
My interest is not in York specifically, its in making it okay to question Jewish history, and making it as common as its currently to condemn European history, as this is key to getting rid of our guilt-complex.
I am truly convinced that the guilt complex Europeans have suffered not from world war two, but from the idea that WW2 was simply an expression of an almost inherent European bigotry, is the reason why Europeans are so unwilling to defend themselves. Relieving them of this guilt is therefore of critical importance.I hope this answers your question.
Oz —
Yes, I agree with much of what you say. But no, it doesn’t answer my question.
You asserted that the historical account of what happened to the Jewish community in York in 1190 may well not have been accurate.
You also acknowledged that you knew “basically, nothing” about the incident in question.
To doubt a historical chronicle of an event about which you know nothing is, to me, the sign of a larger agenda.
That is, you don’t just want to open up a discussion about Jewish enmity towards Europeans, you want to push a particular pre-determined point of view that the chronicle of the York massacre doesn’t fit. Otherwise, why would you reject a chronicler’s account of an event about which you acknowledge ignorance?
Until you address that particular question forthrightly, one cannot help but deduce that you have an agenda which you are very deftly attempting to conceal.
I often see Jewish writers connecting the ”antisemitism’ of several time periods in Europe to the ”antisemitism” of Muslims.MC did this, and I disliked it for what it implies. This was the initial reason for my insistence on possible other causes. I want to foment a mindset where Europeans question each case, and learn to know what to look for when analysing ethnic conflicts, I’m also interested in helping those interested in using rhetorical strategies to sidestep the standard reactions one can expect when discussing these topics. It is of secondary importance to me whether Jews were culpable or partially culpable for the York incident, I want Europeans to be more interested in questioning such accounts, as this would be a more productive mindset for the political dissident.
The above is my larger agenda. I do wonder what you believe my ulterior motives are. As much as my inner Machiavelli enjoys interesting plots, I have little more insight to offer you about my conduct on GoV.
”you want to push a particular pre-determined point of view that the chronicle of the York massacre doesn’t fit”
I have not noticed that the theory of conflict I apply to all incidents doesn’t fit. If that day would come, it would be quite heartbreaking as I have quite a bit of confidence that this is my key to ”exterminate PC” around me. I don’t require the Jews of York to necessarily have made political errors or have shown animosity towards the locals, its something I will expect in each incident as I consider random outbursts of violence to be rare. Tensions natural to multiethnic societies must have existed before.
Oz —
Yes, multiethnic societies in general are a mistake. We’re stuck with them; they can’t be undone without enormous suffering and bloodshed. But our ancestors never should have created them.
Do you notice that some of the most prominent current multiethic arrangements were a result of slavery? Jews in Europe due to their enslavement by the Romans. Blacks in the Americas due to their enslavement by Arabs first, then Europeans.
The new multiethnic societies are a first, as far as I know — the white majority is importing its own replacement ethnicities. If there is a historical precedent for this, I’ve never heard of it. Yes, the Romans let in the barbarians and made them citizens, but I don’t think the process ever reached the stage that we are witnessing now in Europe and North America.
@Baron
We should learn from those arrangements with Jewish and Black descendants of slaves that centuries of living together tells us that demanding integration is not a feasible strategy. Ashkenazi Jews resemble WASP’s in terms of appearance, average IQ and self-sufficiency, but still there are major differences in political values/preferences. Black Americans, excluding certain communities & individuals, basically live in a different America then White Americans, it simply cannot be compared on any level.
Until we can point out that Identity, Culture and Evolution stand in the way of establishing a multi-ethnic society, nothing will change.
The REAL problem will come when the Israeli army packs up and leaves.
Again.
They shouldn’t. AND the ‘population’ should be sent back to Muzzie-land where they belong.
No HAMAS, no rockets–well, I can dream, can’t I??
@Flintlock — Yes, you can indeed dream. I have the same dream, of Gaza being Jewish again. Many of the Israelis who were dragged from their homes for the dream of peace with the Arabs have still not been compensated for their property and businesses, and some are still living in government-provided trailer parks due to lack of affordable housing. But will it happen? Will Gaza become Jewish again? I don’t know. Until the world and the Israeli left realize that Israel, all of Israel, belongs to the Jews, innocent Israelis will continue to suffer, both at the hands of an overly-idealistic government and at the hands of the Lord’s enemies.
“Until the world and the Israeli left realize that Israel, all of Israel, belongs to the Jews, innocent Israelis will continue to suffer, both at the hands of an overly-idealistic government and at the hands of the Lord’s enemies.” This kind of bigoted cant is no better than the Islamic bigoted cant this website opposes. Israel exists for one main reason–western force of arms driven by western war guilt. Anybody who seriously bases the legitimacy argument on old religious texts is no better than the caliphate-builders and has no right to criticise them.
Read Joan Peter’s “From Time Immemorial.” You can read that and other factual accounts which will show you that the Jews have at least as good a claim (actually better) to current day Israel (as well as the so-called “west bank”) as the Arabs.
The Jewish claim does not have to rest upon old religious texts. Really.
I have a Jewish-American friend who calls himself “Palestinian-American.” Old now, he emigrated to the U.S. in the 1930s as a 2-year-old –from Palestine, with his Palestine-born parents. He knows as a fact that his entire family, Jewish, had lived in Palestine continuously since the 16th century, but the family’s oral trradition is that they had been there always, never driven out or snuffed out completely by the Romans, Muslim conquerors, Crusaders etc.
I think that what confuses people is the word “Palestinian” in conjunction with the long-establesh name of the territory of “Palestine.” But Palestine was the name that the Romans gave to what what was then and is now Israel. All Jews living in Roman-occupied Israel were “Palestinians.” Unless I got my history seriously confused, there were no Muslims or even Arabs of any kind living in Palestine then.
We don’t need to go into Jewish theocratic validations of various things, some of which I dislike myself. History itself validates the Jewish claim on Israel, even the extended Israel.
Indeed so. A traveller in the 1690s found the population of Jerusalem to be mostly Jewish, Nazareth Christian. The few Muslim Arabs, notwithstanding the conquest a millenium earlier, were nomadic Bedouins.