Sunday, February 15, 2015 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Anti-Jewish attacks: another reason why a strong Israel is vital

Last night, I watched Spielberg's 1993 movie Schindler's List about Oskar Schindler, a real historical figure and a German-speaking industrialist born in Svitavy, Moravia, one of the Czech lands (then Austria-Hungary), who was wealthy, an NSDAP member, and well connected, but who used all these virtues to turn his factories into shields for Jews against the Holocaust. He has saved about 1,000 lives.

Pilsen's Great Synagogue is the third largest synagogue in the world, after one in Jerusalem and another one in Budapest. Prague has had over 20 synagogues throughout the years.

It wasn't the only movie about these issues that I recently watched; the Pianist (2002) was another one. These stories about the treatment of the Jews by the Nazi society are heartbreaking. And every society making average and subpar members proud that they belong to the "right" 90% or 95% or 97% or 99% of the society annoys me, scares me, and disgusts me (yes, the number included the figures for the climate alarmists and the Occupy movement, too).

Meanwhile, in the real world, two innocent people were killed in Copenhagen yesterday: one Danish film director and one Jewish guard of the local Jewish community. The apparently Arab perpetrator, Omar El-Hussein, one inspired by the Charlie Hebdo attackers was shot dead later.

You should agree that the Jews are highly overrepresented among the victims. France has the largest Jewish population in Europe but it's just 1% of the population. Nevertheless, (two) Jews made 17% of the victims of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. France's Muslim population is 5-10% and they're obviously overrepresented among the perpetrators of the religiously inspired assaults.

The counting is even more extreme in Denmark. 5% of Denmark are Muslims but the number of Jews is really tiny, at most thousands. Nevertheless, 1 Jew made 50% of the innocent victims yesterday. It is not too large a statistical ensemble but in combination with other data, the pattern is rather clear. There is huge evidence that the anti-Semites can't tolerate even the tiniest numbers of Jews in their environment.

A question arises: Are these attacks something that occurs "outside" the mainstream society of the Western nations? Should a non-Semitic citizen ignore these things? It's just what the Muslims and Jews are doing to each other, isn't it?

Well, I don't think so. The Jews and the Muslims are almost universally citizens of the countries and the countries should simply be able to guarantee some basic safety, enforce the laws, and restore justice if something bad happens.

A repeated or growing failure to enforce the law is a problem – a problem that may gradually affect everyone else. So it is a responsibility of the government institutions – and indirectly of the voters – to make sure that the law may be enforced and the basic safety and justice may be protected.

Regulation of the immigration and of the growth of the institutions connected with "other cultures" may be needed to defend the rule of law in the future, and this defense is more important, I believe. If one may argue that indifference in immigration and naturalization matters has helped similar attacks, it means that mistakes have taken place and they shouldn't be repeated.

We should note that these problems aren't seen in the U.S. I don't think that the attitude of analogous people and analogous institutions differ from the European ones. Instead, it's the numbers that are different: about 2% of Americans are Jews and only 0.6% of Americans are Muslims. So the counting is reverted.

In Czechia, Muslims beat Jews 2-to-1 but both groups are tiny these days – 0.1% and 0.05%, respectively. In 1930, there were over 350,000 Jews living in Czechoslovakia, over 2.5%. The impact of Nazism on the demographics was stunning – even before we consider the expulsion of Germans.

But back to the present. Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has commented on the new attacks. Aside from condolences, he called for "Aliyah" which translates as "the upgrade of a Jew" (OK, that's how I translate the Hebrew word), meaning that they move back from disaspora to Israel i.e. closer to Jerusalem again.

Denmark's chief rabbi disagreed and claimed that "terror is not a reason to move to Israel". As far as I can see, Jair Melchior hasn't justified his opinion in any way but I will.

So let me say that I disagree with his statement. Terror selectively targeting a rather small ethnic or religious group is a pretty good reason to move to a safer place simply because all the people including Jews have the survival instinct! And yes, similar terror was one of the top reasons why many great (Jewish and non-Jewish) Zionist souls – like the Czechoslovak politicians in the late 1940s – actively supported the creation of the State of Israel itself, partly with the fresh memories from the Nazi era in mind.

The long-lasting non-existence of a Jewish national state has been one of the craziest anomalies in the world geography for thousands of years – despite the fact that this special status was later rationalized even by some Jewish teachings. I think that no other nation of comparable importance failed to have its own national state sometime between 1 AD and 1948 AD. Such an absence of a natural homeland would weaken any nation.

To remind you, diaspora (Jewish emigration from the old lands surrounding the current territory of Israel; not to be confused with exodus, the earlier emigration of Jews from Egypt) began sometime in the middle of the period 900 BC – 600 BC. In that period, Neo-Assyria was the most powerful country in the world and they just conquered many Jewish lands, too. Note that the Assyrian empire largely spoke Aramaic, probably the #1 favorite tongue of Jesus Christ (centuries later), which is a Semitic language closer to Hebrew and Phoenician than to Arabic. And the expulsion continued later thanks to the Babylonians, Romans, and others.

Of course, I am not joining Netanyahu's invitation for the Jews to emigrate to Israel. They may also want to move to Czechia where things are OK, I think. But I surely think that what Netanyahu says has a logic. And because there are over 1 million Jews living in Europe (almost 1/2 of them live in France) and a significant fraction of them could conceivably find out that Europe is (will be) no longer safe (again) thanks to the "uncontrollable" influence of the large Muslim populations, it may make sense to think that the number of Jewish people arriving to Israel could possibly become substantial in the future which is a reason to think that Israel shouldn't be planning some generous donation of its territory or settlements to the Palestinians.

The world is full of conflicting interests and it is impossible to make "everyone" happy. But I do find it obvious that the existence of (at least) one robust, self-confident, defensible Jewish national state is much more important than the creation (or expansion) of another, the 23rd Arab state in the world. The division of the current Arab world to 22 countries is a curiosity of a sort. These countries may very well be considered provinces of one "real country" and this "real country" with its 13 million squared kilometers (almost 140% of the U.S.) seems large enough to me and it's hard to sensibly defend the assertion that they really need a big portion (or all) of Greater Israel's 28,000 squared kilometers.

I think it's fair to say that those French politicians who are incapable of providing the Jewish French citizens with a decent level of safety in their country but who refuse to clearly support the state of Israel against the Palestinian (and other Muslim) efforts to erase the Jewish state from the map are effectively behaving just like the German folks I watched in Schindler's List last night simply because the gradual or abrupt erasure of the Jews is the only possible outcome that is compatible with their attitudes.

Incidentally, I am also sort of shocked by the behavior of much of the U.S. Democrat Party when it comes to Netanyahu's visit to the U.S. next month. The Israeli prime minister was totally legitimately invited as a speaker in the U.S. Congress. Tons of Democrats are working hard to either cancel the event or boycott it or something like that. Have you completely lost your mind, leftists? Israel has been a key ally of the U.S. for decades, Netanyahu is its most important politician, and this is a rather special time when he has some important things to say, including those about Iran.

What's your justification of this anti-Israel political terror? That there will be elections in Israel in the future? In every democracy, there are some elections in the future. That's how democracy is defined and the existence of the elections (i.e. democracy) should make it more likely, and not less likely, for a leader to speak in the U.S. Congress. Or that Netanyahu is a member of a party? Almost every politician is a member of a party. Or is your reason for the boycott that Obama and Netanyahu don't quite agree about the question whether one should allow Iran to do pretty much anything with the nukes and possible maneuvers against Israel? Have you considered the idea that it's Obama and not Netanyahu who is wrong? Netanyahu may very well decide to bomb Iran, anyway (it's ultimately Israel, and not the U.S., who must care because it's threatened by Iran's new technologies), and a big portion of the Americans would understand it, too. How could it hurt if he were allowed to explain his thinking?

It seems obvious that the real partisans in this controversy are the Democrats. Their goal is nothing else than to meddle with the internal politics of Israel – most Israeli see it, too. And that's just too bad. It's too bad even if Obama is not a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda's parent organization and the umbrella organization for the global Islamic terrorism, as the Czech and Emiratian leaders described it.

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (32) :

reader Shannon said...

Lubos, all French citizens need to be protected, not only the jewish. Oops this doesn't sound politically correct ;-). And FYI there are already a lot of soldiers posted 24h a day in front of jewish schools and synagogues since the Charlie Hebdo attack. These are jobs that are boring to do and these guys could be used to do other things. It'd be great if they could send Tsahal to protect them.

reader Gary Hall said...

Just visited Israel for the first time. Came home with tee shirt, emblazoned with:

ISRAEL - Don't worry America, we've got your back.

reader QsaTheory said...

According to many accounts isis does not hold towns specifically, they are like guerrilla fighters groups that roam around.

reader davideisenstadt said...

think it was recorded in raqqa recently?

reader QsaTheory said...

Hi Lubos, Europe has very strict anti-race laws, even as simple as hinted utterance can get you in trouble. Anyway my guess is that sensible Jew knows that Israel is by far more dangerous place than any other peaceful area.. Second, Iran's official declared policy is that any attack by Israel is an attack by US and vice versa. Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with AlQaeda whatsoever, they where created under very different circumstances.

reader Swine flu said...

"Anyway my guess is that sensible Jew knows that Israel is by far more dangerous place than any other peaceful area."

Regular crime usually exceeds terrorist attacks by a large margin in non-failed states, and quite possibly in failed ones as well, so one would have to compare crime rates in Israel with those in other possible destinations to judge the correctness of your claim.

Terrorism is different from regular crime, its effects are in large measure psychological. And when you are a member of a minority group that is singled out for special treatment, the resulting indignity of life may become the main consideration for some fraction of potential emigrants. The sense of indignity would be further amplified if they felt that the majority doesn't quite care about what's happening to them.

reader MikeN said...

In Denmark, France, and may other places in Europe, Jewish identity is being erased. Removed from public schools for safety reasons, synagogues requiring security, etc. Jews leaving for Israel may help with Israel's demographic problems, but it doesn't really help Europe deal with its Muslim problem.

It is also conveniently what the Leftists in Europe want, as they hate Jews as well.
Obama also has this hatred, as can be seen by his college poetry about apes and figs.

The reason for boycotting Netanyahu is that they wish to make a deal with Iran, and Netanyahu wishes to protect Israel. Obama shied away from such direct confrontation while their were his own elections to deal with, but now he feel he can go full Bulworth.

reader QsaTheory said...

Shannon, Let me see if I can summarize what I have said in over 200 posts.

If you back just before sept 11, there was NO talk of Islam having problems. The Hollywood talk was about the stupid, ignorant savage ARAB. I hope you can see what I am getting at. And in your country I bet it was about those backward third word scums not about Muslims. This all the new political stuff.

Before Sept 11, these manufactured jihadist were the good people weren't they, during soviet invasion of Afghanistan. How many times this has to be repeated. These people were pushed into prominence and that was hip with local governments and their western allies. WHY? because they had a purpose for them. We the liberals shouted, this is stupid, but no one wanted to hear. JUST like now.

It is not about ISLAM, it is about the political manipulation. There is No universal interpretation of Koran. The majority of the "bad" verses they have long long time ago been explained away as being connected with historical events that are very hard to reproduce now, this the view of the majority of the scholars. Most Muslims like most Christians take faith as meaning being GOD fearing ie, to do good and stay away from evil.We are talking about the official majority. Now, any individual or group can claim any interpretation like any text for their own aim.
I have said before, people in the ME first they thought isis was just a newspaper creation, then an american ploy because they never thought such group can exist. But it is clear ,to me at least, that the ARAB revolutions and this Islamic "threat" is part of an international political game. It is a weird game were it seems everybody who participates wins, but the people who want a better world.

reader QsaTheory said...

I said Europe laws is strict, and the general atmosphere is very peaceful. There will always be the unknown, but us humans learn to ignore.

Israel is a different case because any minute a climactic event might ensue, it is technically and practically in a state of war with many parties.

reader QsaTheory said...

Raqqa was evacuated by Syrian army for strategics issues. That is to create a fight between the rebels and it succeeded in doing that.
There is no clear account as to life there, but I expect that some thing do not change. I am sure they are partying, it is only human. We did it when we were under Iraqi occupation. More than usual actually, there was nothing else to do :)

reader mesocyclone said...

Islam has some pretty universal tenants that most Muslims accept - certainly Sunnis and Shia. The most important is that Mohammed prescribed in great detail how a Muslim is to live, including emulating Mohammed, who was himself a terrorist and a conqueror.

Islam teaches that conquest to spread the religion is valid. Jesus Christ, by contrast, was not a conqueror, but rather a peaceful man. Christianity teaches that war is a last resort and can only be entered for defensive reason (just war doctrine).

We did not create the jihadists. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the US and others supported the resistance to the Soviet occupation.Since these folks were Muslim, the religion naturally flavored their fight. But the US did not support Bin Laden's group, contrary to many assertions. Even then, the word was out that these were bad folks, and they were also properly seen as incompetent, as demonstrated by the fiascos of their battles.

Also, the Pakistanis long supported Islamists in Afghanistan as part of
their "great game" against India, and also out of reliigious

The current Islamist terror trend is not an international political game - it is the channeling of discontent in many Muslim lands, especially but not exclusively Middle Eastern, into religious fundamentalism. Obviously international players are affected by and have effects on the Jihadists, but are not the cause.

Note that this Jihad is not just an Arab phenomenon. It is running strong in Somalia and Nigeria, for example. Boko Haram is an Islamic fundamentalist movement, but it is not of Arabs. Islamists have joined terrorist movements from Chechniya, for example. Pakistan and Afghanista
n are hotbeds of Islamist terrorism. A Muslim insurgency has been raging in the Philippines for 100 years.

reader QsaTheory said...

Meso, Who was it in the last 400 hundreds of years that conquered the globe colonized most Africa, ME, Asia, south america. Virtually annihilated north American population( I know you will deny just like we don't know Bin Laden). Same fate for Australia.

Were they Muslims or Christians.

Had you had a shred of fairness , you would not have brought up the fight of the minority Muslims for their rights and mixed it up with "bad" Islam.

reader mesocyclone said...

You asserted that the Islamist uprisings are part of some mysterious "international political game." You have adduced no evidence of same.

You kept emphasizing "ARAB" - even putting it in caps. I showed that this flareup is Islamist, not Arab.

Now you want to discuss past European colonization. Why? It ended over 60 years ago. You seem to believe that it had something to do with Christianity, when history shows clearly that it was primarily a commercial venture.

As to "the fight of the minority Muslims" - which ones? The ones in Paris who killed the cartoonists and the Jews? How about the ones who rammed airplanes into the World Trade Center buildings in the name of Allah? The ones who have now conquered much of Iraq and Syria, and are celebrating by burning Christians to death?

You need to be more specific, as there are lots and lots of Muslims out there, and some of them are raising hell.

reader Swine flu said...

"I said Europe laws is strict, and the general atmosphere is very peaceful."

And yet, by all accounts the Jews feel less and less welcome in several European countries, so there may be some gaps in your arguments.

reader davideisenstadt said...

had your country a shred of fairness, its own citizens would do the work required to run their own country, and would spend some of their unearned riches on their arabic and islamic brothers, instead of spending their money on whores and alcohol in europe.

reader QsaTheory said...

Meso, your arguments and the way you argue is very unsettling. You bring up Mohamad (1400 years ago) and you object to 60 years which we still see its effects.
What Islamic uprising? the arab so called revolutions were touted as the "youth" revolution. Libya's revolution was supported by NATO. The Syrian one, any half brain knows who supported it. As far as Yemen, nothing, internal. It is well known that Muslim Brotherhood was dealing with the US, and they were quickly removed.

Turkey has an Islamic regime and it is an ally of US and a member of NATO.

I really don't know what you are talking about.

reader QsaTheory said...

I am not happy with the management of my country, it could be done a lot better.

But we do support other arab and islamic countries as our population make shows they send billions back home , not counting direct help.
Our country's riches is ours, we did not steal from other countries, like other people did.

reader QsaTheory said...

It is all relative. How do you think the muslims feel these days. Some situations are worse than others. I wish there was such a thing as safe haven. I would be its first citizen.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Sorry, Shannon, but the statistics shows that the basic safety of the Jews in France is much worse than for other groups. Because it's illegal to murder a Jew in France, at least at noon in front of lots of other people, the French government simply has to pay whatever is necessary to make the law obeyed, at least most of the time.

If you want to preserve the rule of law and avoid anarchy *but* use these synagogue police guards to do something else, you will first have to change your laws for them to say that Jews are animals that may be murdered at noon. Without this change of the law, your suggestion that the synagogue guards would be better used if they were doing something else is just demonstrably wrong.

reader Brian said...

Lubos is exactly correct when he writes, "There is huge evidence that the anti-Semites can't tolerate even the tiniest numbers of Jews in their environment." Readers need look no further for this evidence than the posts of several anti-semitic commenters here. My appreciation goes to davideisenstadt for reliably calling out these nut-jobs. Why is paranoia and susceptibility to conspiracy theories so prominent among Conservatives these days? I guess it's true of the far-left too.

And for Lubos's quantitative analysis of the murdered Jews in France, while 17% of the dead Charlie Hebdo office workers were Jewish, 29% of the total were if you count the Kosher supermarket slayings and the police officer.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Qsatheory, it wasn't true in recent years that a Jew had a higher risk of being killed in Israel than in Europe. Look at the victims in Israel:

It's about 10 people killed in a year. Because the Jewish population in Europe is about 6 times smaller than in Israel, you should get only 1.5 people a year, but you get more than that.

If you are already "planning" an Iranian attack against Israel or something like that, well, don't be more Islamic than the Islamists! Israel is aware of the threats, monitors them, and does some prevention - and it may do a better job than Europe, too. Add the Iron Dome. At the end, it could very well be easier for Iran to bomb some Jewish neighborhoods in Europe.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear QsaTheory, instead of these "feelings", what about looking at some objective numbers?

How many innocent Muslims were killed by non-Muslims for religious or related reasons in recent years? Just show me those.

The problem with Muslims - and I am afraid that it includes you - is that you are ready to put your feeling, like the negative sentiment towards Allah that you feel inside people around you, on the same level with murders of people.

Sorry, this is not the right analogy. The Christians, Jews, and atheists also have feelings (not only about safety but also religious and other feelings) - something you don't care about. You only care about your own (collective) feelings.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Thanks for the additional number, Brian, and for the agreement.

Co-existence may be hard and it's not trivial and perhaps not possible to objectively compare different interests and "rights" of various groups of people.

But if one sees that one group of people A has a problem with the existence of another group B, despite the very small size and low-key behavior of B, then one may be pretty sure that this proves the beyond-the-pale intolerance of the group A. From any at least partly human perspective, it's the group A, not B that is a source of insurmountable problems in the co-existence.

And of course that the desire for a complete "purity" - meaning that the number of Jews is zero - may be seen not only among Arabs but among certain Europeans, too.

reader Pijush Kumar Saha said...

How to climate alarmist as
is informative post.

reader Shannon said...

Qsa, yes the manipulation that you are talking about is working so well, isn't it ? It is working against muslims. It is a media war that you, muslims, are loosing. Because you are sending the wrong messages to fight back. Your communication skills are poor and disorganised. Can't you see that the only way you can win back the world's good opinion is to strike a big time ie create a New Islam. If you don't do it for the muslims, do it for us, non muslims, the other earthlies. You need to name a group of scholars or one man (like our Pope) who would communicate clearly what your prophet's word meant and it has to fit with other earthlies who don't want to be muslims. If you don't fully enter that game you will loose.
Our French government (Sarkozy's idea) is to create an "Islam de France". Why not, this could be a perfect birth place for a new strong message of peace to the world.

Manipulation is meant to "drown the fish". Remember that it is not you who identify the enemy, it is the enemy that identifies you.

reader Shannon said...

Dear Lubos, maybe we should put militaries at jewish cemeteries too ;-).
What I find difficult to understand is how come that France has a very high number of jews in the media, we have some 60 deputies at the Assemblee Nationale who have both French and Israelian passports and still, they don't manage to tame the goyim to love them. Poor job, no ?

reader Luboš Motl said...

Sorry, Shannon, but the purpose of the job of the journalist and/or the politician isn't to make the French people love the Jews.

The purpose of the job of a journalist is to inform (and perhaps, partly entertain) the readers, viewers etc. and the purpose of the job of politicians is to protect the interests and values of those who elected them and whom they represent.

Another lethal problem with your comment is that anti-Semitism isn't really caused by one type of journalism or politics or another - so they *cannot* change the situation. Anti-Semitism is caused by some people's uncontrollable animal instincts combined with envy and jealousy and I am increasingly certain that you suffer from these things a lot, too.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Shannon, it was your second comment with a "P.R. obsession" or "media war" in a row.

Whether someone likes Jews, Muslims, Christians, atheists, or anyone else, people from all these groups still have certain basic guarantees in every civilized country.

None of these groups should be obliged to participate in a "media war" to make sure that these rights are protected.

reader Shannon said...

Lubos, honestly, are you serious ? Journalists are always biased! That is why we find lefties or rightists newspapers etc. Politicians have a personal agenda to be re-elected, to be influent for themselves and their family etc...
The reason why we have so many jews in the media is because once there is one jew somewhere, this jew will only hire other jews... come on Lubos, don't tell me this is news to you.
As for jealousy, I am not and I find it almost laughable that you think so.
As for my "joke", which wasn't one but rather a simple realistic question, why don't you react the same way when churches and Christians cemeteries are vandalised (which, by the way, happens every week in France)?
Patrick Drahi, one of the richest man in Israel, has just bought the weekly magazine L'Express (lefty). His job is precisely to work on the image of jews and Israelians in France. This magazine gets 6.3 millions Euros as public aid through French taxes. ;-)

reader maznak said...

The "overrepresentation" of Jews in media etc may be easily explained by their cultural affinity to such jobs and their (at least in the Ashkenazy) higher average IQ. Or how do you then explain their massive overrepresentation among Nobel prize winners? Is there a jewish conspiracy inside the Nobel committee?

reader Shannon said...

Yes, Maznak, even among high IQ people help each other.

reader nightspore said...

He didn't "fake" his results. R. A. Fisher apparently found (I still haven't gotten around to reading Fisher's paper) that the results presented in the famous paper are a little too close to the 3:1 ratio to be obtained by chance (although it's possible - and the data certainly don't look that perfect). One thing that's important to realize is that the paper is a summary of years of work, not a research report in the modern sense. So Mendel probably chose his best results to illustrate his findings. (This was long before the principles of experimental design had been codified.) From what I can gather from a cursory study of genuine (!) scientific frauds is that they start faking their data because the results don't fit their preconceptions. It's the slippery slope effect, which inevitably gets out of hand and they're eventually unmasked. In contrast, Mendel was spot on in his thinking, so there was no need to fake his results, and his work was readily replicated by those who discovered it circa 1900.

Another point about Mendel is that he seems to have been the only researcher at the time who realized that he needed to start with pure lines in order to get meaningful results. There's a large literature from that time on hybridization, but most of it was uninterpretable because they didn't recognize the need for this vital control. (This, incidentally, is one of the marks of a first rate experimental scientist - realizing what the necessary controls are in a given situation.)