Do you think that it would be acceptable for Jews in Israel and/or in the Diaspora to have Jewish-only communities?

Rusty Shackleford said:
And how does that 'equate' to 'selling them out?' It doesnt change the fact that the Nazi's still made the ultimate decision to kill these converts.
Click to expand...

The Nazis wanted to eradicate the Jews as a race/culture, not as a religion. Those with Jewish ancestry who converted to other religions were still considered Jews by the Nazi authorities, were required to register as such, and were subjected to the concentration camps as such. This policy had absolutely nothing to do with Jewish theology, and the idea that the Nazis included converts because the Jewish religous authorities told them to is beyond ludicrous

It should go without saying -- but apparently doesn't -- that it is incredibly fucked up to deflect moral responsibility for the literal Holocaust onto its primary victims.
 
Rusty Shackleford said:
Thats bunk! Jewish authorities didnt decide Jewish converts were still jewish, the Nazi's did!
Click to expand...

Yes,but jewish authorities in new created getto - when german gave them full power over jews - gave germans lists of those jews who assimilated into polish society.In Warsaw 112.000 of them was relocated to getto,becouse germans get that info from other jews.
Of course,they do not knew,that german kill them.In 1940 living conditions in Warsaw getto was better then in rest of the city,and becouse germans do not take jews to german factories,many poles cosplayed as jews then./easy-yellow star on your cloth/

So ,they selled them - but they could think,that they are doing good deed.After all,who could farsee that german simply kill all jews? it was not only genocidal,but also stupid - those jews worked for german economy,for example Warsaw getto made uniforms for Wermacht.
 
@Midnighter13 I've got a question for you: How many non-Jewish refugees do you think that Israel should accept per year? Also, any Muslims among them or only limit it to non-Muslims due to the especially high risk of anti-Semitism among Muslims?
 
WolfBear said:
@Midnighter13 I've got a question for you: How many non-Jewish refugees do you think that Israel should accept per year? Also, any Muslims among them or only limit it to non-Muslims due to the especially high risk of anti-Semitism among Muslims?
Click to expand...

I don't think a specific number is the issue. I think Israel (and most other countries) should accept refugees who are in imminent danger, and sort out long-term issues later. If there are security issues within the refugee populations that can make things more difficult.
 
Midnighter13 said:
I don't think a specific number is the issue. I think Israel (and most other countries) should accept refugees who are in imminent danger, and sort out long-term issues later. If there are security issues within the refugee populations that can make things more difficult.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a reasonable approach, to be honest. I think that the long-term issues would be these refugees perhaps aiming to alter Israel's Zionist character, as well as the risk of increased crime and/or increased terrorism for some refugee groups. But it's not a guarantee that refugees are going to be anti-Zionist, especially if they are non-Arab and non-Muslim. One can be a non-Jewish Zionist, after all.

Do you think that refugees should only be allowed to stay in Israel temporarily (until the crisis has passed) or to stay in Israel permanently? Here in the US, we have given citizenship to a lot of refugees and/or their descendants, such as to Indochinese refugees who fled to the US in or after 1975.
 
KilroywasNOTHere said:
-Snip-
Click to expand...
Kilroy, while that's interesting..... Are there jewish nukes? I know there's wind powered ones, they have politicians, same as the rest of them.


Getting back to the point of the thread, I wonder why should Israel, who is surrounded by groups with very high anti-semetic rates, should let anybody in.

Israel gets regular, if mostly minor, attacks, from pretty much all of their neighbours. Letting any of those people in risks their own.
 
Simonbob said:
Kilroy, while that's interesting..... Are there jewish nukes? I know there's wind powered ones, they have politicians, same as the rest of them.


Getting back to the point of the thread, I wonder why should Israel, who is surrounded by groups with very high anti-semetic rates, should let anybody in.

Israel gets regular, if mostly minor, attacks, from pretty much all of their neighbours. Letting any of those people in risks their own.
Click to expand...

No I was responding to two different threads. It was a mispost. Sorry. This is the thread I meant to post in: https://www.the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/where-does-enviormental-realism-start-and-end.7570/
 
Last edited:
WolfBear said:
That sounds like a reasonable approach, to be honest. I think that the long-term issues would be these refugees perhaps aiming to alter Israel's Zionist character, as well as the risk of increased crime and/or increased terrorism for some refugee groups. But it's not a guarantee that refugees are going to be anti-Zionist, especially if they are non-Arab and non-Muslim. One can be a non-Jewish Zionist, after all.

Do you think that refugees should only be allowed to stay in Israel temporarily (until the crisis has passed) or to stay in Israel permanently? Here in the US, we have given citizenship to a lot of refugees and/or their descendants, such as to Indochinese refugees who fled to the US in or after 1975.
Click to expand...

I don't think Israel should accept Arab refugees from their immediate neighbors because A. those countries are more than capable of housing their own displaced population, B. Israel is already dealing with the Palestinians who were rendered stateless by the actions of the Arab League and it's been a mess for nearly a century now, C. Israel is balanced on a demographic knife's edge already, D, none of the populations immediately surrounding Israel are facing genocide. The closest you could argue is maybe Syria, but refugees from there are moving North not South anyway.

Israel has a complicated history regarding non-Jewish refugees facing genocide. I wish they were better about it, but I also understand why they are not (however much I wish otherwise). The best example is the Eritrean refugees who fled to Israel by crossing through Sudan and Egypt and then crossed the Sinai border illegally to claim refugee status. Israel accepted the first wave, but then the Bibi government started calling them 'illegal infiltrators' and built a stronger border fence with Egypt primarily to keep both refugees and Sinai Arabs out of Israel (the latter due to the risk of ISIS attacks).

The Eritrean refugees were essentially dumped in a neighborhood in Tel Aviv and left with no support services. So they got to live, but faced extreme poverty which led to crime, which led to issues of racism against them, cue the Bibi government's hostility towards accepting more. Those who crossed the border after the first wave were basically given the option of claiming they were migrant workers (which meant getting a temporary visa and getting bussed to Tel Aviv) or being held as infiltrators indefinitely in the Israeli prison system until the UN arranged for them to get official refugee status (something that has yet to happen years later). Either way, they were safe from genocide, but Israel was hardly ideal when it came to supporting them and providing a good quality of life. It was a messy situation, exacerbated by issues of racism, crime, and fear of chaos and economic issues if too many Eritrean refugees came to Israel.

Technically Egypt or Sudan should have been responsible for those refugees, but the Eritreans knew better than to trust either of those governments after hearing horror stories of human trafficking (or at least that's what the Eritrean refugees I met in Tel Aviv told me). Thus the Israelis got pissed at the Egyptians for essentially turning a blind eye to Eritrean refugees crossing through Egypt. They also were suspicious of the Eritreans since they waited until they got to Israel (a reasonably safe country) before claiming refugee status. I understand why the refugees waited, but also understand why the Israelis looked side-eyed at both the refugees and the Egyptians because of it.

These days the neighborhoods of Tel Aviv where the Eritrean refugees were dropped off have effectively become slums where the refugees live dozens to an apartment, and the Israeli government looks the other way when it comes to arresting and deporting Eritreans whose work visas have expired. Likewise, they look the other way on several other laws that would effectively prevent the Eritreans from setting up their own businesses. So the Eritrean refugees found a place to live and even set up their own semi-legal businesses to make enough money to survive, but they have not received the benefits and support granted by official recognition as refugees. At some point, this wink-and-a-nod arrangement is going to end, and at that point hopefully the Israelis will either find the Eritreans a safe place to move to or accept them as long-term residents officially. Honestly, I'm not sure what will happen or what the best solution is there.
 
Midnighter13 said:
I don't think Israel should accept Arab refugees from their immediate neighbors because A. those countries are more than capable of housing their own displaced population, B. Israel is already dealing with the Palestinians who were rendered stateless by the actions of the Arab League and it's been a mess for nearly a century now, C. Israel is balanced on a demographic knife's edge already, D, none of the populations immediately surrounding Israel are facing genocide. The closest you could argue is maybe Syria, but refugees from there are moving North not South anyway.

Israel has a complicated history regarding non-Jewish refugees facing genocide. I wish they were better about it, but I also understand why they are not (however much I wish otherwise). The best example is the Eritrean refugees who fled to Israel by crossing through Sudan and Egypt and then crossed the Sinai border illegally to claim refugee status. Israel accepted the first wave, but then the Bibi government started calling them 'illegal infiltrators' and built a stronger border fence with Egypt primarily to keep both refugees and Sinai Arabs out of Israel (the latter due to the risk of ISIS attacks).

The Eritrean refugees were essentially dumped in a neighborhood in Tel Aviv and left with no support services. So they got to live, but faced extreme poverty which led to crime, which led to issues of racism against them, cue the Bibi government's hostility towards accepting more. Those who crossed the border after the first wave were basically given the option of claiming they were migrant workers (which meant getting a temporary visa and getting bussed to Tel Aviv) or being held as infiltrators indefinitely in the Israeli prison system until the UN arranged for them to get official refugee status (something that has yet to happen years later). Either way, they were safe from genocide, but Israel was hardly ideal when it came to supporting them and providing a good quality of life. It was a messy situation, exacerbated by issues of racism, crime, and fear of chaos and economic issues if too many Eritrean refugees came to Israel.

Technically Egypt or Sudan should have been responsible for those refugees, but the Eritreans knew better than to trust either of those governments after hearing horror stories of human trafficking (or at least that's what the Eritrean refugees I met in Tel Aviv told me). Thus the Israelis got pissed at the Egyptians for essentially turning a blind eye to Eritrean refugees crossing through Egypt. They also were suspicious of the Eritreans since they waited until they got to Israel (a reasonably safe country) before claiming refugee status. I understand why the refugees waited, but also understand why the Israelis looked side-eyed at both the refugees and the Egyptians because of it.

These days the neighborhoods of Tel Aviv where the Eritrean refugees were dropped off have effectively become slums where the refugees live dozens to an apartment, and the Israeli government looks the other way when it comes to arresting and deporting Eritreans whose work visas have expired. Likewise, they look the other way on several other laws that would effectively prevent the Eritreans from setting up their own businesses. So the Eritrean refugees found a place to live and even set up their own semi-legal businesses to make enough money to survive, but they have not received the benefits and support granted by official recognition as refugees. At some point, this wink-and-a-nod arrangement is going to end, and at that point hopefully the Israelis will either find the Eritreans a safe place to move to or accept them as long-term residents officially. Honestly, I'm not sure what will happen or what the best solution is there.
Click to expand...

Maybe Germany could accept these Eritrean refugees. I mean, why not? They've already accepted a lot of Syrians, Iraqis, et cetera.

Also, minor nitpick, but AFAIK, Eritreans face long years of compulsory military service, not genocide:

www.unz.com

The Eritrean \

Eritrea is an interesting little country in northeast Africa, north of its archenemy Ethiopia, but like Ethiopia in being mostly a higher altitude place with a mixed race and mixed religion population and a leftist-nationalist government. Eritrea\'s capital of Asmara has some of the wildest...
www.unz.com

(Note: I don't agree with Sailer's wording here.)

Eritrea is undoubtedly very oppressive, though, being even worse for press freedom than North Korea is:

www.newsweek.com

Reporting From Africa's North Korea, Eritrea

A week after 9/11, Eritrea rounded up its journalists and put them in jail. Now, only one independent radio station broadcasts in the closed state.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

So, Yeah, it does make sense for Eritreans to want to get out of there.

That said, though, if you want a more culturally compatible refugee population for Israel, you can take a look at Ukrainians. They are likely to be hardworking and would probably be unwilling to cause any serious problems just so long as they are not anti-Semitic. And there's already a giant ex-USSR population in Israel for Ukrainian refugees to integrate into--Jewish-gentile intermarriage in the Soviet Union was very widespread in its latter years, after all! And their kids are likely to identify with Israeli culture (Hebrew, Jewish holidays, et cetera) even if Israel's Chief Rabbinate won't actually consider them to be Jewish.

FWIW, the West's hostility towards Muslim refugees has some basis in reality:

nationalinterest.org

I've Worked with Refugees for Decades. Europe's Afghan Crime Wave Is Mind-Boggling.

Afghans stand out among the refugees committing crimes in Austria and elsewhere. Why?
nationalinterest.org nationalinterest.org

And this woman is married to an elite Afghan-American, so it's hard to accuse her of being biased about this topic.
 
BTW, if you want an extremely vulnerable community in the Muslim world further away, just look at the Afghan Hazaras:

forward.com

Opinion | A religious minority faces a second genocide in Afghanistan. Jews must act now

The Hazaras have faced violent persecution for centuries for their appearance, language, and Shiite Muslim faith.
forward.com forward.com

Or the Pakistani Ahmadis:

www.aljazeera.com

Amid bullets and ‘blasphemy’, Pakistan’s Ahmadis struggle on

Attacks and blasphemy cases against minority sect spike, driven by rise of far-right group and a religious campaigner.
www.aljazeera.com www.aljazeera.com

But of course I'm not sure that either of these two groups would actually be very friendly towards either Israel or Zionism. They could, of course, be resettled elsewhere instead.
 
WolfBear said:
That said, though, if you want a more culturally compatible refugee population for Israel, you can take a look at Ukrainians. They are likely to be hardworking and would probably be unwilling to cause any serious problems just so long as they are not anti-Semitic. And there's already a giant ex-USSR population in Israel for Ukrainian refugees to integrate into--Jewish-gentile intermarriage in the Soviet Union was very widespread in its latter years, after all! And their kids are likely to identify with Israeli culture (Hebrew, Jewish holidays, et cetera) even if Israel's Chief Rabbinate won't actually consider them to be Jewish.
Click to expand...

The history of Jews in Ukraine, and Jewish/Ukrainian relations is complex to say the least. On one had, yes, Ukraine has (or had) a thriving Jewish community before the Nazis and following the collapse of the USSR. That said? The Ukrainians were pretty antisemetic during WWII as the Nazis rounded up the Jews and sent them off. Then there were the Soviets who essentially banned Judaism entirely during the Communist period. There have been periods where Jews in Ukraine had it good, and times where they were slaughtered. As a result, the opinion of Ukrainians among Jews ranges from 'hey, these are our brothers who we lived among in peace for generations and we should help them during their time of need' to 'fuck those Nazi collaborators who helped slaughter us and turned Europe into a graveyard of our people, let the monsters slaughter each other'. As you might imagine, this leads to significant disagreement among Jews (what doesn't I ask you?).

Israel as a government is in an awkward position where it would like to support Ukraine, but can't afford to piss off the Russians too badly because they need to operate in Syrian airspace to fight Iran and Hezbollah, and Syria's air defense system is supplied by, and run by, the Russians. So, when it comes to accepting refugees, sure, Israel will happily accept any Ukrainian Jews who want to come. Non-Jews married to Jews? Much the same. Non-Jews? Israel largely sees that as a European issue, as does most of Europe. Israel has sent aid and personnel to help set up refugee camps on the Ukrainian border and help those who just escaped find a safe bed and medical care. But Israel doesn't seem prepared to set up an air bridge to ferry tens of thousands of non-Jewish Ukrainians to Israel when European countries are closer, larger, and perfectly willing to accept these refugees already.
 
Midnighter13 said:
The history of Jews in Ukraine, and Jewish/Ukrainian relations is complex to say the least. On one had, yes, Ukraine has (or had) a thriving Jewish community before the Nazis and following the collapse of the USSR. That said? The Ukrainians were pretty antisemetic during WWII as the Nazis rounded up the Jews and sent them off. Then there were the Soviets who essentially banned Judaism entirely during the Communist period. There have been periods where Jews in Ukraine had it good, and times where they were slaughtered. As a result, the opinion of Ukrainians among Jews ranges from 'hey, these are our brothers who we lived among in peace for generations and we should help them during their time of need' to 'fuck those Nazi collaborators who helped slaughter us and turned Europe into a graveyard of our people, let the monsters slaughter each other'. As you might imagine, this leads to significant disagreement among Jews (what doesn't I ask you?).

Israel as a government is in an awkward position where it would like to support Ukraine, but can't afford to piss off the Russians too badly because they need to operate in Syrian airspace to fight Iran and Hezbollah, and Syria's air defense system is supplied by, and run by, the Russians. So, when it comes to accepting refugees, sure, Israel will happily accept any Ukrainian Jews who want to come. Non-Jews married to Jews? Much the same. Non-Jews? Israel largely sees that as a European issue, as does most of Europe. Israel has sent aid and personnel to help set up refugee camps on the Ukrainian border and help those who just escaped find a safe bed and medical care. But Israel doesn't seem prepared to set up an air bridge to ferry tens of thousands of non-Jewish Ukrainians to Israel when European countries are closer, larger, and perfectly willing to accept these refugees already.
Click to expand...

Ukrainians, while often being very anti-Semitic in the past, aren't very anti-Semitic today. If they were, then they wouldn't have elected a Jewish President in a landslide a couple of years ago. And even the Ukrainians who voted against him very likely overwhelmingly did so NOT because he was Jewish. And in any case, you can try screening immigrants for anti-Semitism (or for any other political views, for that matter). You don't have to let the anti-Semites in, you know?

I suspect that among the Ukrainians who would like to move to Israel, a large number would simply seek safety and a better life, similar to my non-Jewish uncle from Russia who married a rather dull half-Jewish woman so that he could subsequently immigrate to Israel over 20 years ago, when Russia itself was still a total shithole. It worked for him, and frankly, he has never thought about anything along the lines of persecuting Jews. He just wanted a better life.

As for Europeans being perfectly willing to accept these refugees, that's certainly a fair point, but at the same time, Israel isn't very willing to accept refugees from its own neighborhood either. Not that I blame them due to the Muslim hostility towards Israel, of course, but still, this is an argument that countries should only accept refugees that are culturally compatible. If Israel has a right to limit itself to taking in Jewish refugees and their close family members, and Poland has a right to limit itself to taking in Eastern European refugees, then maybe other countries should hesitate as well before they will actually take in culturally incompatible refugees, and lots of them. The reason that I myself supported bringing well-selected Afghan refugees here to the US was the hope that they would integrate as well as the Persians here in southern California have integrated.
 
WolfBear said:
If Israel has a right to limit itself to taking in Jewish refugees and their close family members, and Poland has a right to limit itself to taking in Eastern European refugees, then maybe other countries should hesitate as well before they will actually take in culturally incompatible refugees, and lots of them. The reason that I myself supported bringing well-selected Afghan refugees here to the US was the hope that they would integrate as well as the Persians here in southern California have integrated.
Click to expand...

So.....

People, even on a national level, should have somewhat of a freedom to choose who they associate with? Sounds good to me!



It really annoys me that even trying to say "Letting these people in is going to lead to problems, they're very different cultuarly" leads to "REEE! RACISM!"

Then, horrible things happen (often enough to make the point) and even trying to stop it sometimes gets you attacked. Too many people never think.
 
Simonbob said:
So.....

People, even on a national level, should have somewhat of a freedom to choose who they associate with? Sounds good to me!



It really annoys me that even trying to say "Letting these people in is going to lead to problems, they're very different cultuarly" leads to "REEE! RACISM!"

Then, horrible things happen (often enough to make the point) and even trying to stop it sometimes gets you attacked. Too many people never think.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that's a serious problem, IMHO. For instance, if I was a European, then I would not have supported the immigration of a lot of the Muslims who actually moved there over the last several decades due to my concerns about cultural compatibility:

jsmp.dk

jsmp: Immigration patterns

Education level of immigrants to Europe and US
jsmp.dk

2.png


I don't want Charlie Hebdo-style massacres, after all. But what I do want is a bit of noblesse oblige towards those aspiring immigrants who actually are culturally compatible with the natives to a huge extent.
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top