My cultural demands strike close to home

As a true fan of diversity, I love to travel and experience the various cultures the world has to offer. Even if I’m not adventurous enough to actually eat the more exotic foods I encounter, I still enjoy watching other people eat them and I enjoy photographing them. I love it when the natives dress in native costumes, when they speak tribal languages, practice interesting rituals and hold colorful parades in honor of festivals I’d previously never heard of. In my travels I can make believe that locals do all these things for my entertainment. That if they fail to please me in this regard, they owe me a refund on my plane ticket.

In all seriousness, they owe me nothing. Yet do those people have a moral obligation to maintain their own cultures? Are they doing anything wrong if they forsake their traditional dress in favor of jeans and t-shirts? Is it a sin if they treat their ancestral language as a pariah? If McDonalds pleases their pallet more than their mother’s cooking, should they be rebuked? Should we encourage them to stop watching the Simpsons and participate in local festivities instead?

We could argue that, even if their own behavior is their own business, they’re robbing their descendants of a heritage. I think that, on some level, there is a moral obligation to maintain one’s culture, at least the harmless aspects of it.

My Peruvian vacation was a mixed bag in this regard. The foods did not disappoint. I’ve already written about native languages. I was pleasantly surprised by local festivities and I even had some good musical experiences. Back in the U.S., I was filling out a mental score card of how well Peru fulfilled my cultural expectations – and then I accepted an observant Jew as a housemate.

I realized that if somebody were grading me on my own culture, I’d get an “F”. I don’t practice Judaism, not even the holidays. At least, given the opportunity, I speak Hebrew.

But it’s not my fault. Long ago, something terrible happened to the Jews: Our culture was transformed into a religion.  Before this happened, it was possible to be a Jew by living the culture, even without being a particularly religious person. There was a Jewish way of dressing, Jewish food, Jewish traditions and Jewish language. There were sensitivities that might have transcended any sense of spirituality or religious obligation. Back then, one didn’t have to worry about going to hell if he didn’t live as a Jew; it’s all he knew.

Americans watch football, eat fast food, go to movies and upgrade their cell phones every few months not because they consciously choose to adhere to a specific lifestyle. They do so because this is their default behavior and they rarely have occasion to question it. Once it was the same for Jews. Zionism was an attempt to restore this state of affairs. It enjoyed some success but time has shown it to be an uphill struggle. It appears that to be truly successful, a complete cultural identity must come naturally – but we all now live in a giant blender where “globalism” only grudgingly allows smaller peoples to keep their own ways.

As for me, I welcome my new housemate as both a friend and an opportunity to reconnect with some of my own traditions – but I won’t pretend to believe in fairy tales. It should be interesting.

 

Why do they write “G-d”

In response to a comment on a recent post of mine, Obadia18 wrote:

LOL! You’re discussing censorship and you type God as the Jewish G-d. Now that’s what I call ironic.

Since I’ve been meaning to explain the origin of G-d to y’all for some time, I figured now is as good a time as any. Oh, and by the way:

HAPPY NEW YEAR AND A WONDERFUL 2013!!

Anyway, as I was saying, Jewish law requires Jews to treat the name of God with respect. For example, we’re not supposed to mention the name of God in a restroom or bathroom. We’re also not supposed to erase the written name of God. Since we’re not supposed to erase it, it follows that we’re careful when/where we write it. Since holy books are disposed of by burial (which is considered respectful), we use the name of God in such books without reservation. But newspapers, magazines and various scrapes of paper are typically thrown away. So we avoid writing the name of God on those.

But is “God” the name of God? According to Jewish law it clearly is not. There are seven names which Scripture uses to refer to God. All of them are Hebrew/Semitic words. A translation of the name of God into another language is not the name of God. My name is Hebrew for “behold a son”. But if somebody were to call me “beholdason”, I would not answer; it’s not my name.

While “The Lord” is a perfectly good translation of the Hebrew “Adonai”, it’s not “Adonai”. “God” is not the same as “Elohim”. “The Almighty” is a great translation of “Shaddai”, but it’s not the same thing. In short, Jewish law only prohibits disrespect toward the actual names of God (in Scripture), not their various translations.

Also, I wanted to point out that manipulating ones and zeros in computer code doesn’t necessarily equate with “erasing” the name of God. This is unknown territory in Jewish law and, like electricity, it’s been treated based solely on appearances (this paragraph was added 01/02/13).

But Jewish tradition is more than just Jewish law; it also includes a vast collection of voluntary practices (“minhagim”). There is a (very influential) school of thought that would have these traditions carry the same weight as Jewish law itself. The problem with this is the inevitable ratcheting up that occurs when people try to outdo each other in piety. What used to be considered voluntary is now considered obligatory. In this way, the Jewish religion becomes a prison for many people.

I’ll quote the late Mori Yosef Gaffih (who I met a few times). He noted that the letters of the Hebrew word “Minhag” (tradition) are the same letters as the Hebrew word “Gehinom” (hell). Note that Hebrew has no vowel letters.

I suppose, if it makes one feel all warm and fuzzy inside to write “G-d”, then there’s no harm in it. I just wanted to clarify the origins of this practice.

 

Latkes or hash browns?

One of the Jewish traditions I grew up with was the making, and eating, of potato latkes during Hanukkah. It was an extended family affair, with all of us pitching in. One of us would peel the potatoes while another would (tearfully) tend to the onions. An adult would do the actual cooking. All of us would participate in scarfing them down.

I was going to make potato latkes this Hanukkah, but it slipped my mind and I didn’t end up making them until after Hanukkah. After many tears (from the onions) and some grating, mixing, mashing and frying, I had myself some tasty latkes. Some of them even posed for me:

There was no Virgin Mary in my latkes, but this one does look a bit like a burning bush

I had forgotten to add eggs. According to some authorities, latkes without eggs are basically hash browns. Others say that, as long as there is a cohesive pancake, it can be considered a latke. I wanted to cover all my bases, so the next day I added some eggs.

 

I had let the batter sit overnight. A big no-no as they oxidize. I also may have added too many eggs (3 to the already half used-up batter).

Potato latkes are good with sour cream or apple sauce or both. Like any ethnic food, the appeal extends far beyond its taste or texture; there’s also heritage and nostalgia.

Here’s how I made my first batch:

I grated about ten medium/small potatoes and two fairly large onions. Mixed them together with about one cup of  all-purpose baking mix and about a cup of matzo meal. Added some salt and pepper and then deep-fried the patties until they were brown as shown above. You can vary the amount of onions to suit your taste and you can use plain flour instead of baking mix. I was never a fan of exact recipes; I just add ingredients as I see fit at the time.

By adding eggs to the second batch, their identity crisis seems to have been solved. Now they know they’re latkes and not hash browns. But are they good latkes? I’ll continue to work on that and report my progress.

 

Filipinos rallying behind Israel

Alarabiyah reports that Christian Filipinos have held rallies to support Israel:

More than 300 Filipinos held festive peace rally in Manila on Friday to express their solidarity with Israel despite their government being among the 138 countries recognizing Palestine as a non-member state in the United Nations.

Hebrew songs and shofar echoed through loudspeaker as pro-Israel Filipinos marched in a busy Manila business district followed by a convoy of over 50 cars in a rally that was organized by a handful of Christian organizations, Israel-based Ynet News reported Sunday.

The marchers waved Israeli flags, while others held banners in support of Israel that read “standing with Israel, now and then,” in reference to 1947 when the Philippines was the first Asian country to vote in support of the formation of the Jewish nation.

The march’s final destination, the national park, which is located some 10 kilometers from the starting point, saw more Israeli supporters joining. All sung a rendition of “Hatikva” (Israel’s national anthem) and blew the shofars to conclude the rally.

Is this a case of fake Christians supporting fake Jews by singing in fake Hebrew in order to oppose pressure from hypocritical European leaders? I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I do have Christian friends and the question of who is a “real Christian” is a confusing one. As for the Jews of Israel, I’ve already pointed out (here and here for example) that modern Jews bear little resemblance to ancient Jews. What passes for Hebrew is a sham and a disgrace (here and here for example). The powerful men of Europe, while opposing Israeli colonization of Palestine, encourage the colonization of Europe.

This would appear to be layer upon layer of delusions and empty labels. Or maybe not. I’m certain that the Filipinos who call themselves Christian are different from those who call themselves Muslim. Those who call themselves Jews are different from those who call themselves Palestinians (though there are Palestinian Jews). Modern “Hebrew” is distinct from other languages and those who rule Europe might have some redeeming qualities over the leaders of Africa or the Middle East.

Perhaps I’m too caught up in the past to keep up with the ever-changing definitions of the modern world. Yes, I think this is so. It may even be a symptom of Asperger’s Syndrome. Alas, I can no longer use that as an excuse for not keeping up with the times; Asperger’s has now been defined out of existence by the A.P.A.

Now that I’m no longer an asparagus (what else would you call somebody with Asperger’s?), maybe it’s time for me to be less analytical and simply thank the Filipinos for their goodwill toward my people. Similarly, I can embrace Israeli Jews as my brothers and sisters without being overly critical of them. But I refuse to embrace modern Israeli “Hebrew” because it’s ugly and offensive to me. I also refuse to give up my disdain for Europe’s leaders; hypocrisy and treason are despicable in any era.

 

Israeli rabbi argues in favor of a Muslim Europe

A friend sent me an article from Ynetnews where Rabbi Baruch Efrati explains his support for the Islamification of Europe.

Efrati wrote in response that the Islamization of Europe was better than a Christian Europe for ethical and theological reasons – as a punishment against Christians for persecuting the Jews and the fact that Christianity, as opposed to Islam, is considered “idolatry” from a halachic point of view.

“Jews should rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity as a punishment for what it did to us for the hundreds of years were in exile there,” the rabbi explained as the ethical reason for favoring Muslims, quoting shocking descriptions from the Rishonim literature (written by leading rabbis who lived during the 11th to 15th centuries) about pogroms and mass murders committed by Christians against Jews.

While it’s true that Christianity is considered idolatry, while Islam is not, this does not apply to all forms of Christianity. Some forms of Protestantism are not considered idolatry by Jewish law. Furthermore, any validity Efrati’s arguments have might hold true in a test-tube society. Reality is more complex. Due to the State of Israel, Muslims are less tolerant of Jews now than during many other periods. Muslim attitudes toward Jews have varied wildly. But total acceptance and respect is not the norm. On the other hand, it is very unlikely that Christianity will return to the days of inquisitions, pogroms and crusades. Those days are over and we should view Christian Europe as it is today, not as it was a thousand years ago. Unfortunately, most people who call themselves “Christians” are hostile toward whites (as a group) but friendly toward Jews. So, from a Jewish point of view, it’s foolish to support the demise of one’s allies and then pray for tolerance from one’s enemies. From a white point of view, Christianity needs to be either repackaged or replaced, in favor of something more ethnocentric.

Regarding Efrati’s other point, that Christians have blood on their hands from centuries ago, it reminds me of the Christian belief that Jews have blood on their hands for the murder of Jesus. To hold current generations responsible for the actions of their distant ancestors is a recipe for genocide. This mentality serves as justification for the current persecution of whites in America. It makes no sense unless your goal is to dehumanize your victims.

If Rabbi Efrati is so fond of Islam, he should try living in Saudi Arabia for a while – but he’s not allowed there because he’s Jewish.

 

“French group” threatens lawsuit over anti-Semitic twitter posts

Mercury News of Silicon Valley, California reports that a “French group” is threatening to sue Twitter over some posts that violate France’s hate-speech laws.

PARIS — Twitter agreed to pull racist and anti-Semitic tweets under a pair of French hash tags after a Jewish group threatened to sue the social network for running afoul of national laws against hate speech, the organization said. The decision came a day after Twitter bowed to German law and blocked an account of a banned neo-Nazi group there.

The freewheeling San Francisco-based social network is increasingly running up against European anti-discrimination laws, many of which date to the aftermath of the Holocaust by governments that acknowledged the contribution of years of hate speech to the Nazi attempt to annihilate the Jews. Friday’s action, which was not carried out immediately, could mark a new stage for the company that has famously refused efforts to police its millions of users.

But it’s not entirely clear how the social network planned to carry out the agreement or in what timeframe.

“Twitter does not mediate content,” the company said in a statement. “If we are alerted to content that may be in violation of our terms of service, we will investigate each report and respond according to the policies and procedures outlined in our support pages.”

The company’s policies require international users to comply with local laws regarding online conduct and acceptable content. They also ban any content with direct threats of violence.

The French Union of Jewish Students, which planned to supply Twitter with a list of the offensive tweets to be pulled, said it would still file a formal complaint against the social network to bring the tweeters to justice. The union held a conference call Thursday night with Twitter executives in California.

Though some European Jews are shifting to the Right, historically, they have rejected it. According to Extremis Project:

Jewish communities, however, have understood that undermining pluralistic and open societies may also undermine the equality and freedoms that they have achieved, and have not been afraid to say so in public.

It remains to be seen how “pluralistic” and “open” Europe will be once it is run by Africans and Arabs. Laws against “hate-speech” don’t strike me as being particularly “open” or “pluralistic” either.

Swastikas are not appealing to me, but I’d rather allow neo-Nazis to display swastikas, and reveal their true colors, than force them underground and make it more difficult for the rest of us to identify them. Let the neo-Nazis fly their swastikas and let the gangbangers wear their saggy pants. It’s good to be able to recognize danger from a distance. As for the neo-Nazis, displaying the swastika will not gain them many new recruits, except for those who already have issues.

The entrenched Jewish establishment in Europe has been slow to recognize the dangers of mass immigration from Africa and the Middle East. It tends to sugarcoat Muslim-on-Jewish violence in terms that are meant to arouse sympathy toward the former. For example, Lori Hinnant writes, on the European Jewish Congress’ webpage:

French Jews believe the danger comes from radical messages that appeal to young Muslims in France who are unemployed, angry, alienated and looking for someone to blame. But France has struggled to address the problem head-on because of the social sensitivities. President Francois Hollande met Sunday with the head of an umbrella group of Muslim organizations, assuring him that the government would not stigmatize all Muslims for anti-Semitic acts committed by a radical fringe…

“Anti-Semitism previously came from the extreme right, and the movements expressed their attitudes toward Jews with posters, words, perhaps by desecrating a cemetery,” said Yossi Malka, a Moroccan Jew who settled in Sarcelles in the 1980s. “Today, we have an anti-Semitism that doesn’t end with words but goes into the realm of action.”

Malka blames conflicts overseas as well as the wave of post-colonial immigration from North Africa that has left a generation of struggling young Muslims…

Many French Jews say it’s impossible to separate anti-Semitism from France’s problems with its disaffected youth — up to 50 percent unemployment in some heavily immigrant housing projects — or from anger about Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians. Only a small part of that anger translates into anti-Semitism : Young people also target symbols of the French government, most recently in the northern city of Amiens, where dozens of youths faced off against riot officers in August in a night of violence that ended with 17 officers injured, and a pre-school and public gym torched.

“Disaffected” is a loaded word. It can mean mean “alienated” or “discontented” and dictionary.com gives the following sentence as an example of its use:

Until the disaffected are given a voice, violence is their only tool to get noticed.

It implies that the perpetrators are, at some level, also victims and it evokes sympathy. The “disaffected” youth in question live in government housing projects and receive government welfare. If they are angry over their station in life, perhaps they should direct their anger toward their parents, who came to France of their own free will. If things are so bad for them in France, perhaps they should consider moving to their ancestral homes in Africa.

I can understand the reticence of French Jewry to condemn immigration. After all, most French Jews are themselves immigrants from North Africa or their children. But it should be obvious to all concerned that it is not Jews who form the criminal underclass in France today. It’s not Jews who perpetrate violence against Muslims, but the other way around. It’s not Jews who threaten the liberty of France, and it’s not Jews whose numbers threaten to overwhelm Europe and transform its native populations into minorities.

Unfortunately it is Jews who have been instrumental in promoting the catastrophic immigration policies now in place. Not all Jews, just the wealthy and powerful ones. From the European Jewish Congress article quoted above, it’s clear that their goal is not to stop immigration. Rather it is to appease the immigrant underclass, by throwing more money at them, until they behave themselves. This is the policy the U.S. has been pursuing with its blacks and Hispanics and it’s suicidal in the long term.

Just as I can’t blame French Jews for taking a while to realize that their future lies with the Right, similarly I can’t blame the Right for being wary of the Jews.  But the Right and the Jews, even if they don’t love each other, must marry out of necessity.

 

Kippa walk in Malmo, Sweden

Some Jews have gotten together and openly flaunted their Jewishness in heavily Muslim Malmo, Sweden. JTA.org reports:

(JTA) – Several hundred kipah-wearing Jews and non-Jews marched in Sweden as a sign of solidarity with Malmo’s Jews.

Some 400 marchers gathered Saturday outside the synagogue in Malmo and walked to Mollevangs Square, a part of the city with many Muslim immigrants from the Middle East.

Speakers included Brigitta Ohlsson, minister for European Affairs;  Willy Silberstein, head of the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism; Social Democratic politician Lucian Astudillo; and Jehoshua Kaufman of the Jewish Community of Malmo.

“The idea is to show ourselves and others that we refuse to be afraid or hide our Jewish affiliation,” Fredrik Sieradzki, director of communications for the Jewish community of Malmo, told JTA before the march.

Earlier this year, a rabbi from Malmo was physically assaulted.

In 2010, Malmo Mayor Ilmar Reepalu said that a group of Jews in Malmo who were attacked by Swedish Muslims during a peaceful protest in support of Israel brought the violence upon themselves for not distancing themselves from Israel and its actions during the monthlong Gaza War in 2008-09.

The first walk began in Malmo in January when members of the local synagogue decided to keep on their kipot upon exiting their synagogue. Reports about the march on Facebook helped draw more marchers. Saturday’s walk was  the fourth such event in Malmo, which has a Jewish population of approximately 1,800.

I think that’s wonderful. It’s important to bring attention to the problems that large-scale Muslim/African immigration bring to Western countries. It’s also important for people to stand up for what they are and defy the oppressors.

Perhaps we can have “white walks” in the U.S. some day, where whites can stand up to their black/Mexican oppressors and boldly state, “We are white, we are proud, and we do not fear you any longer!”

I would like to think that this kippa walk is the beginning of a larger movement where non-Muslims/non-Africans will take a stand against the invasion of their homelands. It would be ironic in several ways.

 

My response to Irish Savant’s observations on Anti-semitism

In a recent post, titled, “An Observation on the History of Anti-semitism“, Irish Savant writes (in part):

I’ll just make one observation at this point and it’s on something that absolutely jumped out at me. It’s this. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, did I encounter any acceptance on the part of Jewish sources that Jewish behaviour might have contributed in any meaningful sense to the problems they encountered. (And folks, they did encounter endless problems, no arguing with that). But in every case it appears that the Christians, Muslims, Nazis…….Stalin when he turned on them, in every case the opposition was irrational, based on falsehoods and caricatures and hence totally unjustified.  Essentially anti-Semitism has been, and continues to be, driven by Christian antipathy towards those guilty of deicide, and/or envy at Jewish accomplishments.

Let there be no doubt that those two factors were powerful motivators throughout history.  But come on…there has never been a dispute in the history of man where one side was totally right, the other totally wrong.

Now I discern a larger – much larger – problem with this.  You see, if you believe that your behaviour is perfectly reasonable and acceptable, if you’re impervious to the real impact on and the perceptions of others, well, it seems to me you’re heading for a fall at some point. I believe that in fact there are many signs of this at present.

It’s painfully obvious that official Jewish sources (including the rabbis) avoid blaming Jews for anti-semitism as a matter of policy. But Jewish tradition is quite conscious of the fact that bad behavior by Jews can cause ill feelings among the gentiles. There is even a name for this: “Hillul haShem” (literally, “the desecration of the name {of God}). Conversely, when Jews behave well in front of the gentiles, it’s considered praiseworthy. This is called “Kiddush haShem (literally, “the sanctification of the name {of God})*. So, in theory, the cause-and-effect relationship is recognized. But I’m not aware of mainstream Jewish leaders saying such things as, “If only we weren’t so stingy, there would be less anti-semitism.” Though individual Jews will often recognize this.

Every ethnic group will have traits that other ethnic groups consider negative, especially if the group in question is from a different part of the world. This cannot be avoided – and it is also inevitable that outsiders will notice these flaws. It was not by choice that Jews became a Diaspora people (though individual Jews may have made that choice). This was forced upon us by the Babylonians and the Romans. Once we did become a Diaspora people, we wished to maintain our identity. Any time there is a distinctive people living among other peoples, there will be animosity. In theory, this is possible even if the distinctive people were above reproach. Over a long period of time, history will always accumulate a record of anti-”fill in the blank”. This is especially the case when the people in question are middlemen. Witness the Chinese in Malaysia or the Lebanese in West Africa. I believe that such persecution only makes the negative traits worse. It makes clannishness even more pronounced. It makes penny-pinching even more common. It accentuates distinctive physical traits (due to stricter patterns of in-marriage).

Regarding Savant’s statement: “… there has never been a dispute in the history of man where one side was totally right, the other totally wrong”, Savant almost makes it sound as if there has been an ongoing conflict between Jews and non-Jews non-stop throughout history. Reading histories of anti-semitism, it’s easy to get this impression; there has been a lot of it. But if things were that simple, with the two camps going at each other as the normal state of affairs, then Jews would have been exterminated long ago. In reality, there were many times when Jews and gentiles got along very well. Kings, emperors and Caliphs were intimate friends with famous rabbis. The Gentile peasantry and the Jewish peasantry were both very poor most of the time. They had more in common than differences. It often took venomous sermons by priests, reminding the masses that “the Jews killed Jesus” to whip them up into a bloodthirsty frenzy. Looking back at Jewish history, it’s the bloodshed, persecutions, expulsions and libels that stand out. But this was not the normal state of affairs.

The gentile peasantry was held in a state of slavery for centuries. Sometimes, it revolted and their resentment needed to be held in check. It is no secret that a scapegoat is sometimes needed to divert this frustration. Within our own lifetimes we’ve seen our governments eat away at our liberties, using the scapegoat de jour as an excuse. I remember when it was the communists. Then it was extremist Muslims. Racists and pedophiles are favorites these days. But an oppressive power always needs some sort of scapegoat and sometimes, in the past, it was the Jews. I must interject that the concept of Jews as scapegoats has been repeated ad nauseum by the Jewish hostile elite. So I hate to write the same thing myself. But let’s face it, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Getting back to Savant’s statement about blame-sharing for past anti-semitism, as it stands, most Jews place all the blame on the gentiles, while many (if not most) white nationalists place all the blame on the Jews. It would be nice to have more balance in both camps.

It’s not possible for us to conduct surveys of past anti-semites, but no doubt a variety of root-causes were at work. My own early encounters with anti-semitism led me to believe they were fueled by tradition. I remember three off the top of my head: One from a ghetto black, another from a redneck white and a third from neo-Nazis. None of those people knew me personally and the first two were very young and must have learned it from their parents. But the anti-Semitism of today is most likely fueled by abominations such as Ireland’s Alan Shatter, who do everything in their power to destroy the indigenous peoples of Europe. If Shatter were about to be burned at the stake, I would gladly provide the match.

*This is not merely because good-will is beneficial to Jews. It’s also because it’s considered a duty to sanctify the name of God.

 

The Border Patrol

I used to live in an old neighborhood in Jerusalem called… well, it had many names. The neighborhood had a lot of history behind it and the residents included an elderly Kurdish couple (who still spoke Aramaic), an artist Holocaust survivor, a young Yemeni couple with their kids, a low-class Syrian family that always shouted at each other in Arabic, a non-Jewish Frenchman and an Arab reputed to be in hiding for corroborating with Israeli officials. I wish I could have those days back again and get to know those people better.

One day there was a disturbance at the Temple Mount. I can’t remember the details but some Arabs were protesting outside Al-Aqsa Mosque and Israeli soldiers were sent to control them. I had purchased a Newsweek magazine the next day. It featured an Arab protester at the Temple Mount. When my young Yemeni neighbor came by our house, I showed him the magazine. He grabbed it from me, threw it to the ground and stomped on the photo of the Palestinian as he blurted some harsh words of contempt against Arabs.

He was a member of the infamous “Mishmar ha-Gevul” (Border Patrol). These people were known for their venomous hatred toward Arabs.

So I was not surprised when I came upon this story at Alarabiya:

Activists have slammed a video released on Monday by Israeli human rights agency B’Tselem which shows an Israeli border officer kicking a Palestinian boy in the Israeli-controlled sector of Hebron.

The officer is seen in the video grabbing the nine-year-old boy, Abd a-Rahman Burqan, by the arm, dragging him as he says: “Why are you causing trouble?” A second officer walks towards the boy and kicks the child as he cries out.

According to B’Tselem, the incident took place on Friday close to the Tomb of the Patriarchs and the Ibrahim mosque, a location that frequently witnesses clashes between police and young Palestinian boys.

The boy’s father, Amer Burqan, said his son had gone out to get soup which is given out to the poor.

Israel’s Border Police immediately announced an investigation into the incident. In a statement released shortly after the video was put online, it said it “condemns the police conduct as contrary to its values,” reported the Times of Israel.

On the contrary. This conduct is very much in accordance with its values – unless things have dramatically changed over the past 25 years.

It’s a fine line a government must walk if it’s serious about protecting its borders. On the one hand, a certain amount of animosity, toward the threatening population, is helpful. We can see, on our own southern border, how ineffective Hispanic border agents can be in protecting us from infiltration by other Hispanics. On the other hand, kicking children is not exactly helpful if we want international sympathy and support. Notably, the soldier in question appears to be Mizrahi* (or he could be Druze). Mizrahis tend to have the least sympathy toward Arabs in Israel as their own parents often experienced anti-Jewish behavior in their original homelands. What they are usually not told is that some of this behavior was instigated by the Zionists in order to force the Jews to leave those lands for Israel.

Emotions and attitudes can be powerful allies, or handicaps, when it comes to protecting a nation from invasion. The words “racism” and “xenophobia” imply there is something wrong with wishing to protect the ethnic integrity of your own homeland. On the contrary, any nation that lacks these sentiments soon becomes extinct. It’s “progressive” and “liberal” attitudes then become a thing of the past. Women’s rights, children’s rights, animal rights, environmentalism and the rights of sexual minorities all become subordinate to “immigrant’s rights”.

 

Israel is actually deporting Africans back to Africa.

Hurray! Alarabiya writes:

Israel said on Monday it had started rounding up African migrants in the first stage of a controversial “emergency plan” to intern and deport thousands deemed a threat to the Jewish character of the state.

Israel Radio reported that dozens of Africans, mainly from South Sudan, had already been detained in the Red Sea resort of Eilat, including mothers and children.

“This is only a small group of the infiltrators,” Interior Minister Eli Yishai said. “I’m not acting out of hatred of strangers but love of my people and to rescue the homeland.”

The goal is to repatriate all the estimated 60,000 African migrants, whose growing numbers are seen by many Israelis as a law and order issue and even a threat to the long-term viability of the Jewish state…

Israeli human rights and activist groups back the Africans. But rightwing and religious parties say that if they are not stopped today’s 60,000 will become 600,000 in a few years, in a population of 7.8 million.

Poor south Tel Aviv residents say affluent north Tel Aviv Jews can afford to be liberal, because the Africans are not in their back yard. An opinion poll last week showed 52 percent of Israelis agree that the Africans are “a cancer”.

This truly brings joy to my heart. If other countries take Israel’s example, then perhaps Africa will be forced to solve its own problems instead of pawning it’s refugees off on the rest of the world.

As for Alarabiya, I couldn’t help but notice the subtle hint that they do not support Israel in this endeavor. Look at the photo they inserted into the article:

An image of an anonymous little girl is media code for “innocent and harmless”. It would have been more accurate to show shiftless young men. If the hordes of African migrants were composed mainly of little girls, it would not be nearly as big a problem.

Africa is a very large place. The fact that these refugees bypassed the entire continent of Africa, and chose Israel as their new home, means that they have rejected Africa; they have made a clear statement, with their feet, that Africa is a failure. If some parts of Africa are not failures, then those are the places the refugees need to go. Africa should take care of her own. If she can’t, then something is wrong with her and we need to consider the source of the problem. Since it’s likely the problem has something to do African people themselves, non-African nations should prevent Africans from settling in their lands.

The article goes on to say that…

An opinion poll last week showed 52 percent of Israelis agree that the Africans are “a cancer”.

This is a harsh way of putting it, but I do wonder about the other 48%. Are they truly so dense that they do not grasp the danger of immigration from Africa? Most likely, they have adopted the “don’t know, don’t care” attitude of other liberals. They have no clue as to what large numbers of blacks do to a society, and they refuse to go to the trouble to find out. Either that or they wish for the destruction of their own homeland.

I wanted to point out that most, if not all, of the Israeli Jews who reject the Africanization of their country also reject the Africanization of the rest of the world. No, I did not do any surveys when I was there. But I know the mentality. Many Israeli Jews fled black crime in America and Europe. Contrary to what some people claim, there is no double-standard here; not all Jews are of one mind and the ones in Israel tend to have a better understanding of the concept of “nation” and how nations are lost.